---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 08/04/03: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:39:47 AM PST US From: "John Solecki" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Solecki" 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" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" > > Hi Richard, > > One source is the unit made by MSD. It is Summit part number MSD-8964 > on their site . ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 10:41:25 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:20 PM 8/3/2003 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski" > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:41:53 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electrically noisy prop ?????? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:29 PM 8/3/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" > > >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" >To: "David Carter" >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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:23:49 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: E-bus diode boeing.com> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:41:44 AM PST US From: PeterHunt1@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:00:00 PM PST US 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 7 _____________________________________ Time: 02:44:11 PM PST US From: richard@riley.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:57:36 PM PST US From: Bobdeva@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:59:04 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cell phone interference with avionics. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:17:00 PM PST US From: "Mike Heinen" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cell phone interference with avionics. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Heinen" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:24:41 PM PST US From: "David Carter" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" 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" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > At 07:20 PM 8/3/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski" > > > > > >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 ) > -------------------------------------------- > >