Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 10:39 AM - Re: Re: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors (John Solecki)
2. 10:41 AM - Re: Knock Sensors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 10:41 AM - Re: Electrically noisy prop ?????? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 11:23 AM - Re: E-bus diode (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 11:41 AM - crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire (PeterHunt1@aol.com)
6. 12:00 PM - Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. (SportAV8R@aol.com)
7. 02:44 PM - Cell phone interference with avionics. (richard@riley.net)
8. 03:57 PM - Master switch alarm (Bobdeva@aol.com)
9. 03:59 PM - Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 04:17 PM - Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. (Mike Heinen)
11. 07:24 PM - Re: Re: Knock Sensors (David Carter)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Solecki" <jsolecki@sympatico.ca>
This type of sensor is NOT suitable for a small bore engine. Knock sensors
are accoustic sensors; the knock frequencies of an engine are related to its
bore diameter and combustion chamber volume. You must use a sensor and
filtering/amplifying electronics that are tuned to your engine and can
distinguish between normal mechanical noise and the knock/pinging from
detonation.
John, Toronto
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> One source is the unit made by MSD. It is Summit part number MSD-8964
> on their site <http://www.summitracing.com/>.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:20 PM 8/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski"
><swiderski@rocketjet.net>
>
>Hello,
>
> I am building a turbo version of the 3 cyl, 1 liter Geo Metro
> engine. It uses an afternmarket computer for ignition & fuel control. I
> am looking for a panel mountable knock sensor that visually shows the
> level of detonation with a series of LED's.
> Anyone know of a resource for one? If not, how about a set of plans
> for one?
> If you're interested about the engine, you can check it out at
> http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish/
>Go to "My Kolb" then "Engine"
Why do you expect to have knock that needs to be
sensed and displayed? If there is an increased risk
of poor fuel/ignition management by the electronics
associated with this engine versus risk demonstrated
by hundreds of other engines flying satisfactorily
without knock sensors, are you sure that your choice
of power plant is suited for use in an airplane?
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electrically noisy prop ?????? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:29 PM 8/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
><dcarter@datarecall.net>
>
>This is from my friend & fellow EAA Chapter 223 member Greg Nelson - he has
>the same serious comm problem with an electric, cockpit adjustable LNC2
>Ivoprop.
>
>I'm adding his email to the list for others to see and to archive it.
>
>David Carter
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Greg Nelson" <gnelson@gt.rr.com>
>To: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shielding the tach lead
>
>
> > Dave: Indeed, I have had the same problem on my LNC2 using the same
> > equipment, i.e., IVOPROP with electric cockpit adjustable mechanisms. I
> > gave up on solving this problem and am content to yell all communications
>to
> > ground control and have them repeat their instructions back to me several
> > times. I'm not as determined to "kill it" as are other builders.
>Further,
> > as I am not an engineer, I feel ill-equipped to solve such black art
> > problems and therefore await a solution by another more competent or
> > determined person. I hope Duncan is that person and that he will share the
> > solution with me, Ivo and others.
> >
> > Thank you Dave, Duncan and Bob for your collective investigations and
> > analysis.
> >
> > Greg Nelson, N95EG, Lancair360, (251 hrs tt on Ivoprop, airframe and
>Lyc
> > 360 engine)
Interesting. With this common thread can we deduce whether
the noise is electrical (some current flowing in the slip
rings to the prop motor) or electro-static (aerodynamically
induced static charge on blades).
Opening fuse/breaker that supplies power to prop controls
might be a useful thing to do.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
boeing.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:16 AM 8/4/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>In a composite aircraft where there is no metallic structure to fasten
>(and sink) the recommended e-bus diode, do I require a heat sink?. I'm
>using the B&C supplied diode you recommend, and up to 20A on the e-bus.
>What is your recommendation?
First, if you have up to 20A on the e-bus, you need
to reconsider what's tied to it. How much stuff do
you plan to put on the e-bus and why?
The D25 diode bridge will handle the well considered
e-bus on a minimal heatsink. Suggest you put a sheet
of aluminum under the main and e-bus fuse blocks and
mount diode assembly to it.
Let's talk about your load analysis for the e-bus . . .
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
My avionics have a lot of 24 AWG and 26 AWG wires onto which I must connect
quarter inch "faston" terminals and butt splices. I don't have a crimp tool
for wire that small and I can't get "faston" terminals that small. Is it OK to
use 18-22 AWG terminals and butt splices? Should I then strip the insulation
further back and bend the exposed wire to double it over so as to better fit
the larger terminal?
Pete
Clearwater, FL
RV-6, Instrument panel
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 08/03/2003 1:06:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
>
> Bottom line is that as OBAM aircraft builders
> and users we're both free and obligated to deduce
> for ourselves the suitability AND operating rules
> for ANYTHING we choose to carry on board the
> aircraft. In spite of the published results of
> anyone claiming risk to life, limb and aircraft,
> it's not difficult to do. Publish the findings of
> your tests here on the AeroElectric-List
> as guidance for folks doing the REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT
> in their airplanes.
>
>
Couldn't agree more with ALL your points, Bob, even down to the inherent
cynicism of gvernment reports on any potentially hazardous activity. I want the
freedom to use a cellular phone in my cockpit of my OBAM aircraft as I see fit,
but I don't think I can do so without running afoul of laws that prohibit
such use. Evidently these regs are promulgated not by the FAA, which is "cool
with" any electronics used in flight if okayed by the captain, which is me in
this case, but by the FCC, which would penalize me for use of a ground mobile
device while airborne. Thus there is suitably vague language on the website of
the in-flight weather vendors concerning just how we might access their
product on our Smart Phones while in flight. Their suggestion is to check the
radar
iimage while sitting at the end of the runway just before liftoff!
Meanwhile, they whimper that the Smart phone operating in datalink mode is hardly
more
than a glorified pager and should not be subject to such strict regulation.
I'm ready to order a headset adapter to let me talk and be heard in flight on
my cellphone, and look forward to accessing realtime wx through cellular
phone channels and say "screw the regs," but I would like to hear your comments
on
this approach first :-)
-Bill B
RV-6A
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cell phone interference with avionics. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
>Couldn't agree more with ALL your points, Bob, even
>down to the inherent
>cynicism of gvernment reports on any potentially
>hazardous activity. I want the
>freedom to use a cellular phone in my cockpit of my
>OBAM aircraft as I see fit,
>but I don't think I can do so without running afoul
>of laws that prohibit
>such use. Evidently these regs are promulgated not
>by the FAA, which is "cool
>with" any electronics used in flight if okayed by the
>captain, which is me in
>this case, but by the FCC, which would penalize me
>for use of a ground mobile
>device while airborne.
I did some research on using cell phones on commercial
airliners
The use of cellular telephones in airplanes is
regulated by both the FCC and the FAA. The applicable
code sections are:
FCC: Sec. 22.925 Subpart H Cellular Radiotelephone
Service
Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular
telephones.
Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard
airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must
not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not
touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the
ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft
must be turned off. The following notice must be
posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in
any aircraft: ``The use of cellular telephones while
this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules,
and the violation of this rule could result in
suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of
cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the
ground is subject to FAA regulations.
There is an exception made specifically for "Air Cell"
service, and I have a bunch of supporting material on
that. Basically, It uses AMPS frequencies and
(modified) AMPS equipment (including FCC-definition
"cellular telephones"). Power output is reduced and
horizontally-polarized antennas are used. The license
is limited both in extent (it can only support a couple
of hundred users nationwide at any one time) and
duration (it's being renewed a couple of years at a
time.)
The FAA supports this rule with FARs 91.21, 121.306,
and 135.144 (Portable electronic devices.) The three
sections are identical, 91 applies to general aviation,
121 to airlines and 135 to commuters. The 121 section
reads:
Sec. 121.306 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or
pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of,
any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered
civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the
part 119 certificate holder has determined will not
cause interference with the navigation or communication
system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
In addition to the regulation we also have an Advisory
Circular that explains all this for general aviation.
It's AC 91.21-1A (Use of Portable Electronic Devices
Aboard Aircraft). Ive included it at the end of this
message. An AC does not carry the authority of a
regulation - its recommendations on how to comply with
an underlying regulation. And in this case, the three
FAR sections includes an exception for all portable
electronic devices that (b)5 the part 119 certificate
holder has determined will not cause interference with
the navigation or communication system of the aircraft
on which it is to be used.
Heres where it gets interesting.
According to the FCC, "cellular telephone" only refers
to equipment operating under Part 22. This includes
not only analog (AMPS) equipment but also digital
service that AMPS providers provide. AMPS providers
have been authorized to provide digital service on the
same frequencies (824-849/869-894 MHz) under a blanket
authorization that only requires that they continue to
provide AMPS service for some unknown period.
Per my conversation with Mike Ferrante of the FCC's
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Enforcement Division
a couple of years ago, PCS is a whole different
ballgame. There is no airborne use restriction (from
the FCC) on PCS. The FCC has allocated 25MHz to PCS and
the industry is free to allow all or part of that to be
used by airborne customers. Narrowband PCS operates
901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 MHz. PCS is
covered under Part 24 of the FCC regulations, which
dont mention airplanes or airborne use at all. FAA
regulations and advisory circulars do not address PCS.
They only refer to cellular telephones (like AC
91.21-1A 7ii)
Therefore, under FAR 121.306 paragraph B5, if a part
119 certificate holder wants to permit the use of PCS
phones in their aircraft, they are authorized to
determine that the PCS phones dont interfere with
communications or navigation, and proceed.
USE OF PORTABLE ELECTRONIC
AC No: 91.21-1A
DEVICES ABOARD AIRCRAFT
Initiated by: AFS-330
Change:
1. PURPOSE.
This advisory circular (AC) provides aircraft operators
with information and guidance for assistance in
compliance to Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, section 91.21. Section
91.21 was established because of the potential for
portable electronic devices (PED) to interfere with
aircraft communications and navigation equipment. It
prohibits the operation of PED's aboard U.S.-registered
civil aircraft, operated by the holder of an air
carrier operating certificate, an operating certificate, or any
other aircraft while operating under instrument flight
rules (IFR). This rule permits use of specified PED's
and other devices that the operator of the aircraft has
determined will not interfere with the safe operation
of the aircraft in which it is operated. The
recommendations contained herein are one means,
but not the only means, of complying with section 91.21
requirements, pertaining to the operation of PED's.
2.
CANCELLATION.
AC 91.21-1, Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard
Aircraft, dated
August 20, 1993, is canceled.
3.
RELATED 14 CFR SECTIONS.
Section 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144.
4.
BACKGROUND.
Section 91.21 (formerly 91.19) was initially
established in May 1961 to prohibit the operation of
portable frequency-modulated radio receivers aboard
U.S. air carrier and U.S.-registered aircraft when the
very high frequency omnidirectional range was being
used for navigation purposes. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) subsequently determined that other
PED's could be potentially hazardous to aircraft
communication and navigation equipment, if operated
aboard aircraft. Amendment 91-35 amended the scope of
former section 91.19 to prohibit the use of additional
PED's aboard certain U.S. civil aircraft. Earlier
studies conducted by RTCA, Inc. (RTCA), Special
Committee 156, Document No. RTCA/DO-199, Volumes 1 and
2, entitled "Potential Interference to Aircraft
Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard," have
contributed greatly to an understanding of the
operational effects of PED's aboard aircraft.
(See paragraph 7b for obtaining copies.)
5.
DISCUSSION.
Section 91.21 allows for the operation of PED's which
the operator of the aircraft has determined will not
interfere with the navigation or communication system
of that aircraft. The determination of the effect of a
particular device on the navigation and communication
system of the aircraft on which it is to be used or
operated must, in case of an aircraft operated by the
holder of an air carrier certificate or other operating
certificate, be made by that operator (i.e.,
certificate holder). In all other cases, a
determination must be made and it may be made by the
operator and/or the pilot-in-command (PIC). In some
cases, the determination may be based on operational
tests conducted by the operator without sophisticated
testing equipment. When safely at cruise altitude, the
pilot could allow the devices to be operated. If
interference is experienced, the types of devices
causing interference could be isolated, along with the
applicable conditions recorded. The device responsible
for the interference should then be turned off. If all
operators collect this type of data with specific
information, a large enough database could be generated
to identify specific devices
Page 2
10/02/00
AC 91.21-1A
Page 2
Par 5
causing interference. The operator may elect to obtain
the services of a person or facility having the
capability of making the determination for the
particular electronic device and aircraft concerned.
The rule as adopted was drafted to require the air
carrier or commercial operator to determine whether a
particular PED will cause interference when operated
aboard its aircraft. Personnel specifically designated
by the air carrier or commercial operator for this
purpose may make this determination. For other
aircraft, the language of the rule expressly permits
the determination to be made by the PIC or operators of
the aircraft. Thus, in the case of rental aircraft, the
renter-pilot, lessee, or owner-operator could make the
determination.
6.
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR THE OPERATION OF PED's
ABOARD AIRCRAFT.
a.
If an operator allows the use of PED's aboard its
aircraft, procedures should be established and spelled
out clearly to control their use during
passenger-carrying operations. The procedures, when
used in conjunction with an operator's program, should
provide the following:
(1) Methods to inform passengers of permissible times,
conditions, and limitations when various PED's may be
used. This may be accomplished through the departure
briefing, passenger information cards, captain's
announcement, and other methods deemed appropriate by
the operator. The limitations, as a minimum, should
state that use of all such devices (except certain
inaccessible medical electronic devices, such as
pacemakers) are prohibited during any phase of
operation when their use could interfere with the
communication or navigation equipment on board the
aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew to give
necessary instructions in the event of an emergency.
(2) Procedures to terminate the operation of PED's
suspected of causing interference with aircraft systems.
(3) Procedures for reporting instances of suspected and
confirmed interferences by a PED to the local FAA
Flight Standards District Office.
(4) Cockpit to cabin coordination and cockpit
flightcrew monitoring procedures.
(5) Procedures for determining acceptability of those
portable electronic components to be operated aboard
its aircraft. The operator of the aircraft must make
the determination of the effects of a particular PED on
the navigation and communication systems of the
aircraft on which it is to be operated. The operation
of a PED is prohibited, unless the device is
specifically listed in section 91.21(b) (1) through
(4). But, even if the device is specifically accepted
from the general prohibition on the use of PED's, an
operator may prohibit use of that PED. The use of all
other PED's is prohibited by regulation, unless
pursuant to section 91.21(b)(5). The operator
determines that the operation of that device will not
interfere with the communication or navigation system
of the aircraft on which it is to be operated.
(6) Prohibiting the operation of any PED's during the
takeoff and landing phases of flight. It must be
recognized that the potential for personal injury to
passengers is a paramount consideration as well as the
possibility of missing important safety announcements
during these important phases of flight. This is in
addition to lessening the possible interference that
may arise during sterile cockpit operations (below
10,000 feet).
Page 3
AC 91.21-1A
10/02/00
Par 6
Page 3
(7) Prohibiting the operation of any PED's aboard
aircraft, unless otherwise authorized, which are
classified as intentional radiators or transmitters.
These devices include, but are not limited to:
(i) Citizens band radios.
(ii) Cellular telephones.
(iii) Remote control devices.
b.
PED's designed to transmit have consideration in
addition to paragraph 6a. There are certain devices,
which by their nature and design, transmit
intentionally. These include cellular telephones,
citizens band radios, remote control devices, etc. The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) typically
licenses these devices as land mobile devices. The FCC
currently prohibits the use and operation of cellular
telephones while airborne. Its primary concern is that
a cellular telephone, while used airborne, would have a
much greater transmitting range than a land mobile
unit. This could result in serious interference to
transmissions at other cell locations since the system
uses the same frequency several times within a market.
Since a cellular mobile telephone unit is capable of
operating on all assignable cellular frequencies,
serious interference may also occur to cellular systems
in adjacent markets. The FAA supports this airborne
restriction for reasons of potential interference to
critical aircraft systems. Currently, the FAA does not
prohibit use of cellular telephones in aircraft while
on the ground if the operator has determined that they
will not interfere with the navigation or communication
system of the aircraft on which they are to be used. An
example might be their use at the gate or during an
extended wait on the ground, while awaiting a gate,
when specifically authorized by the captain. A cellular
telephone will not be authorized for use while the
aircraft is being taxied for departure after leaving
the gate. The unit will be turned off and properly
stowed, otherwise it is possible that a signal from a
ground cell could activate it. Whatever procedures an
operator elects to adopt should be clearly spelled out
in oral departure briefings and by written material
provided to each passenger to avoid passenger confusion.
c.
Telephones, which have been permanently installed in
the aircraft, are licensed as air-ground radiotelephone
service frequencies. In addition, they are installed
and tested in accordance with the appropriate
certification and airworthiness standards. These
devices are not considered PED's provided they have
been installed and tested by an FAA-approved repair
station or an air carrier's-approved maintenance
organization and are licensed by the FCC as air-ground
units.
7.
MANUFACTURERS' TEST CRITERIA FOR PED's.
a.
Operators should use manufacturers' information, when
provided, with each device that informs the consumer of
the conditions and limitations associated with its use
aboard aircraft.
b.
All portable electronic devices should be designed and
tested in accordance with appropriate emission control
standards. Document Nos. RTCA/DO-160D, Environmental
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment,
and RTCA/DO-199, may constitute one acceptable method
for meeting these requirements. These documents may be
purchased from: RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut
Avenue, NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
c.
Medical-Portable Electronic Devices (M-PED), such as
automated external defibrillators (AED), airborne
patient medical telemonitoring (APMT) equipment, etc.,
should be designed and tested in accordance with
Section 21, Category M, of RTCA document No.
RTCA/DO-160D. M-PED's that test within the emission
levels contained in this document, in all modes of
operation (i.e., standby, monitor, and/or transient
operating conditions, as appropriate), may be used
onboard the aircraft without any further testing by the
operator. Equipment tested and found to exceed the
Section 21, Category M, emission levels are required to
Page 4
10/02/00
AC 91.21-1A
Page 4
Par 7
be evaluated in the operator's M-PED selected model
aircraft for electromagnetic interference (EMI) and
radio frequency interference (RFI). All navigation,
communication, engine, and flight control systems will
be operating in the selected aircraft. The ground
EMI/RFI evaluation should be conducted with the M-PED
equipment operating, and at the various locations in
the cabin where M-PED usage is expected (galley,
passenger aisles, etc.). If M-PED equipment can be
operated at any location in the cabin, then the
worst-case locations (proximity to cable bundles,
flight controls, electronic and electrical bays,
antennas, etc.) should be considered. Air carriers
planning to equip their aircraft with M-PED's will
provide evidence to the principal FAA inspector that
the M-PED equipment meets the RTCA/DO-160D Section 21,
Category M, emission levels, or conducts the ground
EMI/RFI evaluation described above. Operators will
incorporate procedures into their maintenance program
to determine the M-PED's serviceability based on the
equipment manufacturers' recommendations, to include
procedures for marking the date of the equipment's last
inspection. Operators will establish operational
procedures that require crewmembers to inform the PIC
when the M-PED is removed from its storage for use.
NOTE: For those M-PED's using Lithium Sulfur Dioxide
batteries (LiSO
2) as a power source, the batteries must be Technical
Standard Order C-97 (TSO-C97) approved and labeled
accordingly.
/s/
L. Nicholas Lacey
Director, Flight Standards Service
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Master switch alarm |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bobdeva@aol.com
This has worked great for me for over 20 yrs. I never turn my strobe off. If
I forget the master, as I have been known to do, I'll surely notice the
strobe when I get in the hangar. If I'm tying down outside, it's pretty hard to
miss. And even if you do miss it 90% of the time someone will see it and holler
"Hey dummie, you forgot something".
Bob Devaney
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:51 AM 8/4/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 08/03/2003 1:06:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Bottom line is that as OBAM aircraft builders
> > and users we're both free and obligated to deduce
> > for ourselves the suitability AND operating rules
> > for ANYTHING we choose to carry on board the
> > aircraft. In spite of the published results of
> > anyone claiming risk to life, limb and aircraft,
> > it's not difficult to do. Publish the findings of
> > your tests here on the AeroElectric-List
> > as guidance for folks doing the REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT
> > in their airplanes.
> >
> >
>
>Couldn't agree more with ALL your points, Bob, even down to the inherent
>cynicism of gvernment reports on any potentially hazardous activity. I
>want the
>freedom to use a cellular phone in my cockpit of my OBAM aircraft as I see
>fit,
>but I don't think I can do so without running afoul of laws that prohibit
>such use. Evidently these regs are promulgated not by the FAA, which is
>"cool
>with" any electronics used in flight if okayed by the captain, which is me in
>this case, but by the FCC, which would penalize me for use of a ground mobile
>device while airborne.
The FCC's interest has more to do with the nature of cell
phone systems than for aircraft systems. A cell phone site
expects to see a relatively modest signal, sites around the
one closest to you may have some degree of reception too ranging
from useable to highly broken . . . but it's all fairly predictable
and the cell system's software is designed to zero in on
and track your best signal as you move from cell to cell.
From an airplane, LOTS of cells get VERY GOOD signals. In
early days of analog cell phones, this could cause
of digital consternation for the cell system's computers.
The computers and software are more agile today . . .
in fact it may well be that if you attempt to access from
an airborne vehicle, the computers detect that you are
unreasonably "strong" in too many sites. All sites can
be instructed to ignore your phone. But at the very least,
if the request for connection is honored, loading of the
control system is significantly higher than normal and
the effect may deny connection to other users who would
otherwise be serviced.
>Thus there is suitably vague language on the website of
>the in-flight weather vendors concerning just how we might access their
>product on our Smart Phones while in flight. Their suggestion is to check
>the radar
>iimage while sitting at the end of the runway just before liftoff!
Good idea. You have no extraordinary advantage over other users
while sitting on the ground.
>
>Meanwhile, they whimper that the Smart phone operating in datalink mode is
>hardly more
>than a glorified pager and should not be subject to such strict regulation.
>
>I'm ready to order a headset adapter to let me talk and be heard in flight on
>my cellphone, and look forward to accessing realtime wx through cellular
>phone channels and say "screw the regs," but I would like to hear your
>comments on
>this approach first :-)
It may or may not work well airborne depending on how tolerant
the programming is for your particular cell service. I've tried
my PCS digital phone from 25,000 feet over I-35 (LOTS of cell
sites visible) and got a strong connect icon for about 10-15 seconds
before it shut down and displayed the "searching for service
screen".
Scanning Part 91 we find:
=========================================================================
Sec. 91.21 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-
registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate
or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft
has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
required
by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the
aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other
aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
operator of the aircraft.
========================================================================
Paragraph (a)(2) takes special note of any and all aircraft
operating IFR . . .
I note further that (b)(5) says you can use any device you've
tested and found no objectionable effects. I used to
put a lot of "extra" communications equipment in airplanes
for law enforcement, pipeline operators, news services,
etc. Installations were always followed up with a good
test of the new radio for potential problems. Don't
ever recall having to take a radio out of an airplane
because the test pilot didn't like what it was doing
to other systems.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Heinen" <mjheinen@adelphia.net>
I have the Kyocera 7135 smart phone and have TuroWX
see
http://www.turbopilot.com/turbowx/
It gives me real time weather,METAR,color satellite,nexRad images and lots
more....pretty cool. I to would love to use it at altitude legally as pilot
in command. Safety would be enhanced. My understanding is the network that
is used for this is not cellular based thus the cell phone ban may not
apply. The FCC bans cell phone usage once off the ground....but they are
reviewing this.
----- Original Message -----
From: <SportAV8R@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cell phone interference with avionics.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 08/03/2003 1:06:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Bottom line is that as OBAM aircraft builders
> > and users we're both free and obligated to deduce
> > for ourselves the suitability AND operating rules
> > for ANYTHING we choose to carry on board the
> > aircraft. In spite of the published results of
> > anyone claiming risk to life, limb and aircraft,
> > it's not difficult to do. Publish the findings of
> > your tests here on the AeroElectric-List
> > as guidance for folks doing the REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT
> > in their airplanes.
> >
> >
>
> Couldn't agree more with ALL your points, Bob, even down to the inherent
> cynicism of gvernment reports on any potentially hazardous activity. I
want the
> freedom to use a cellular phone in my cockpit of my OBAM aircraft as I see
fit,
> but I don't think I can do so without running afoul of laws that prohibit
> such use. Evidently these regs are promulgated not by the FAA, which is
"cool
> with" any electronics used in flight if okayed by the captain, which is me
in
> this case, but by the FCC, which would penalize me for use of a ground
mobile
> device while airborne. Thus there is suitably vague language on the
website of
> the in-flight weather vendors concerning just how we might access their
> product on our Smart Phones while in flight. Their suggestion is to check
the radar
> iimage while sitting at the end of the runway just before liftoff!
> Meanwhile, they whimper that the Smart phone operating in datalink mode is
hardly more
> than a glorified pager and should not be subject to such strict
regulation.
>
> I'm ready to order a headset adapter to let me talk and be heard in flight
on
> my cellphone, and look forward to accessing realtime wx through cellular
> phone channels and say "screw the regs," but I would like to hear your
comments on
> this approach first :-)
>
> -Bill B
> RV-6A
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Bob,
This is one of those areas of discussion where "hundreds of others don't
have this problem" is not a logical or proper method of addressing the basic
question/issue. Not that the "macro" statistical overview isn't without
merit, in some cases. But the "micro" (1 of a kind or 1 out of a thousand)
event, when catastrophic, is not to be dismissed so lightly.
I look at this scenario (engine might experience knock/detonation) the same
as "car/airplane engines catching fire". (We've disagreed on this, too, in
the recent past). E.g. I've seen countless black spots by and on roads
from burning vehicles and witnessed an RX-7 burn up in a local car parts
parking lot, and have personally attempted to extinquish 2 such firs on the
road (1 successful, 1 not).
I have 2 Ford Escorts - 93 and 95, both 1.9 litre engines, the '95
knocks/pings worse than the other (used to, until the '95 engine
self-destructed internally at 108,000 miles). We had to run "injector
cleaner" through that 95 regularly, and avoid a certain name brand local gas
station to keep the "pinging" at bay. (The used engine I replaced into the
'95 doesn't exhibit the same tendancy to ping).
Electronically controlled fuel injected engines make the injectors spray for
a calculated amount of time to get the desired F/A ratio, which SHOULD (is
supposed to) preclude pinging/detonation.
- BUT, all you have to do is gum up 1 or more injectors and get less
fuel than the engineer/programmer "assumed" would flow in a given bit of
time, and you wind up with a leaner than "assumed/engineered" mixture, which
tends toward the threshhold of detonation. There are other things that can
be different from "engineered/assumed" that do the same.
- That is why I will have a knock sensor on my (aircraft)
auto-conversion engine.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:20 PM 8/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski"
> ><swiderski@rocketjet.net>
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> > I am building a turbo version of the 3 cyl, 1 liter Geo Metro
> > engine. It uses an afternmarket computer for ignition & fuel control.
I
> > am looking for a panel mountable knock sensor that visually shows the
> > level of detonation with a series of LED's.
> > Anyone know of a resource for one? If not, how about a set of plans
> > for one?
> > If you're interested about the engine, you can check it out at
> > http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish/
> >Go to "My Kolb" then "Engine"
>
> Why do you expect to have knock that needs to be
> sensed and displayed? If there is an increased risk
> of poor fuel/ignition management by the electronics
> associated with this engine versus risk demonstrated
> by hundreds of other engines flying satisfactorily
> without knock sensors, are you sure that your choice
> of power plant is suited for use in an airplane?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|