Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:49 AM - Re: Stall Horn (Olivier Le Carbonnier)
2. 04:08 AM - Re: Hmmmm... (Johnny Johnson)
3. 06:02 AM - Re: Re: Another bad story (Brian Lloyd)
4. 06:02 AM - Re: Re: Hmmmm... (Brian Lloyd)
5. 07:05 AM - ELT Access ()
6. 07:22 AM - Re: ELT (Glen Matejcek)
7. 07:33 AM - Re: Stall Horn (Matt Prather)
8. 07:38 AM - Re: Re: ELT (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:47 AM - Re: Grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:52 AM - Re: ELT Access (Glaeser, Dennis A)
11. 07:56 AM - Re: Ammeter/Loadmeter (Christopher Stone)
12. 07:56 AM - Re: Re: [RV-8] Single Point Grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 08:56 AM - Re: Ammeter/Loadmeter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: ELT (Mickey Coggins)
15. 10:37 AM - Re: Re:Stall Horn (czechsix@juno.com)
16. 11:29 AM - Re: Re: Re:Stall Horn (Matt Prather)
17. 12:31 PM - Re: Re: Re:Stall Horn (echristley@nc.rr.com)
18. 01:30 PM - Re: Re: Re:Stall Horn (erie)
19. 02:47 PM - Re: Grounding (Kingsley Hurst)
20. 03:15 PM - Re: Re: ELT (Jim Stone)
21. 05:33 PM - Keep warm circuit for Landing/Taxi lights (glaesers)
22. 08:27 PM - ELT Access ()
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olivier Le Carbonnier" <olcdlm@laposte.net>
where ?
Olivier
-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]De la part de Matt
Prather
Envoy : mardi 9 novembre 2004 21:19
: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Objet : RE: AeroElectric-List: Stall Horn
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Not cheap... I have seen them start at $600.
MAP
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olivier Le Carbonnier"
> <olcdlm@laposte.net>
>
> why not a AOA ?
>
> Olivier LC
> France
> ICQ#: 82067330
> sanglier@laposte.net
> http://sangliervolant.chez.tiscali.fr Van's RV-8 n81939 wings
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]De la part de
> czechsix@juno.com
> Envoy : lundi 8 novembre 2004 19:34
> : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com; rv-list@matronics.com
> Objet : AeroElectric-List: Stall Horn
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "czechsix@juno.com"
> <czechsix@juno.com>
>
>
> Guys,
>
> Does anyone know of a source for a cheap stall warning horn similar in
> sound to what's used on spam cans? I made my own spam-style stall
> vane/tab that I'm putting in the LE of the wing. I bought a piezo alarm
> from Digikey for something like $1 but it sounds like a fire
> alarm....it's a bit more shrill and shocking than I want. Aircraft
> Spruce sells a Safe Flight stall horn with light for $740.00. You read
> that right...$740! That doesn't include the vane. So anyway, if
> somebody knows of a non-aircraft source for such a beastie please let me
> know...
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D wiring...
>
> Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com!
> Look for special offers at Best Buy stores.
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson" <Johnny@wiktel.com>
The missile I lobbed yesterday was edited somehow, probably by automatic
stripping of MS Word formatting?? Most punctuation was gone--it looks
pretty corny. The missile I was replying to was fine for some reason.
And this was in the header, I didn't put it there. Wonder what that's all
about? I didn't think this was about winning or losing.
0.09 YOU_WON BODY: Who really wins?
This thread has died as far as I'm concerned, much to the relief of many I'm
sure. My apologies to all of you for venting.
Johnny Johnson
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Time: 12:39:03 PM PST US
From: "Johnny Johnson" <Johnny@wiktel.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Another bad story
0.09 YOU_WON BODY: Who really wins?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson"
<Johnny@wiktel.com>
Hi Brian,
I wasnt trying to pick a fight here, but you got my hackles up a bit so I
ll respond. You say we should keep the discourse public--fine for now to
the rest of you, my apologies.
My point--that I apparently didnt make very well--was simply that deriding
someone in public does no good, and in fact will discourage others from
contributing. That our victim didnt format it in a way that pleased you is
unfortunate, but please give us credit for being smart enough to get the
message. You make several excellent points about the situation, but I
humbly submit, sir, that you are not the only one in this old world with
discernment or insight. IMHO it simply was not necessary to drag this guy
thru the brambles in public--it should have been done privately, if at all.
You have a different God than I do if you believe that He might not be
there that day that preparation beats prayer all hollow that the fates
conspire but thats your right. Ive been shot at--have you? I KNOW that
Im here because of the intervention--on more than one occasion--by Someone
larger than myself, not because of making the right decisions, not because
of luck or beating the odds or having great skill. You can rationalize it
any way you want, lecture me all you want, but you wont change my mind. If
you could have been in the cockpit with me, I think you would look at things
a little differently today--twas single seat or I would have invited you
along :=)
Ive been pretty blunt, on purpose. Please understand that none of this is
intended to be a personal attack on your knowledge or integrity or any of
that good stuff. We disagree on style and apparently on core beliefs Im
simply calling it like I see it, without fluff. I trust it will be taken in
that spirit.
Regards,
Johnny Johnson
Johnny@wiktel.com <mailto:Johnny@wiktel.com>
Time: 07:09:58 AM PST US
From: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE:Another bad story
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Nov 7, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Johnny Johnson wrote:
I am probably beating the dead horse but since I started this, I feel I
should reply.
> Sure, the whole incident could have been avoided... the guy said so.
> Sure
> it was stupid... the guy said so. He thinks prayer helps... so do I...
Preparation beats prayer all hollow. One needs to learn and prepare to
deal with the daily mundane problems and leave to God those times when
the fates conspire to kill you regardless of having done all the right
stuff.
Or another way of looking at it, I *KNOW* that *I* will be in the
cockpit. God might not be my copilot that day.
> if
> you don't, that's your right but please leave it at that. So...
> where's the
> beef?
The beef is simple. When you decide to become a pilot you take
responsibility for the safe operation of your airplane to avoid harm to
yourself and others. More than any other endeavor flying requires you
to make the right decisions. There is no one else there to help you
and no one else to blame. The gentleman's problems were basic and
avoidable, problems that, if I thought one of my students couldn't
handle, I would not let him or her fly in the pattern, let alone go on
a solo cross country. They were all something that I am fairly certain
that he was taught how to deal with when learning to fly. He avoided
common sense.
And, lastly, his stupidity will eventually affect the rest of us by
becoming an accident statistic. That will prompt the insurance
companies to affect us all in the pocket book or, worst case, it will
give the FAA non-flying bureaucrats another nail for the general
aviation coffin.
That, in a nutshell, is my beef.
> C'mon people, all that this drivel accomplishes is to discourage the
> next
> guy from contributing something that may be very helpful. Who among us
> wants to take this sort of balderdash for making a
> confession/comment/whatever that is offered with the sole intention of
> being
> helpful?
What he said wasn't helpful. He didn't offer any sort of mechanism for
recovery. He did not identify a problem for others to avoid besides,
"do what you were taught, believe your instruments, and don't be
stupid." Well, boy howdy, how helpful was that?
> Before starting or perpetuating a negative thread like this,
> please ask yourself what it will accomplish.
Hopefully it will accomplish to scare someone like that from flying
again until they can come up to speed learning to handle their
airplane. It wasn't a mistake, it wasn't a surprise, it wasn't a
combination of things that demonstrated a chain of events that would
lead to an unusual result; it was just plain old stupidity. Sometimes
you have to give someone a dope-slap on the side of the head to get
their attention.
> Flame away... I'm too old to give a rip :=))
Too bad. We need more people who give a rip.
> Please don't clobber the list
> with fire, let's let this thread die... shoot direct at me:
> Johnny@wiktel.com
Well, you made the point in a public forum and the public forum is
where you talk it out. Unfortunately you don't get to have the last
word that way. ;-)
> Johnny Johnson
> Been flying since '62...
> Done lotza stupid things...
> And... God has been there lotza times
> Else... why am I still here?
Perhaps you are here because, ultimately, you made the right decisions
when they were needed.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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: RE: Another bad story |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Nov 9, 2004, at 4:38 PM, Johnny Johnson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson"
> <Johnny@wiktel.com>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> I wasnt trying to pick a fight here, but you got my hackles up a bit
> so I
> ll respond. You say we should keep the discourse public--fine for now
> to
> the rest of you, my apologies.
I am not trying to pick a fight either. I apologize for getting your
hackles up.
> My point--that I apparently didnt make very well--was simply that
> deriding
> someone in public does no good, and in fact will discourage others from
> contributing. That our victim didnt format it in a way that pleased
> you is
> unfortunate, but please give us credit for being smart enough to get
> the
> message. You make several excellent points about the situation, but I
> humbly submit, sir, that you are not the only one in this old world
> with
> discernment or insight. IMHO it simply was not necessary to drag this
> guy
> thru the brambles in public--it should have been done privately, if at
> all.
Hmm, he chose to make it public by submitting it to a very large public
forum. His behavior affects us all.
I apologize if you think I was too harsh. Unfortunately I live in a
world where my flying, something very important to me, is controlled by
the whims of government bureaucrats who know nothing of flying. They
believe that their job is to make flying safe at all costs. Since
flying is not inherently safe but is rendered safe by the proper
attitudes and responses of the people operating the airplanes, I get
powerfully annoyed when people operate an aircraft in a stupid and
unsafe manner. The bureaucrats are eventually going to figure out that
perfect safety occurs when there are no aircraft flying. That meets
their stated goals but I don't believe it meets mine.
> You have a different God than I do if you believe that He might not be
> there that day that preparation beats prayer all hollow that the fates
> conspire but thats your right.
I have had prayers that, for whatever reason, have gone unanswered. I
do not pretend to know or understand the wisdom of God. Since I have
no control over that aspect of life I focus on the things that I *CAN*
control. At no point did the gentleman in question need divine
intervention to solve his problem. All his problems would have been
solved by doing what he was taught in the beginning.
> Ive been shot at--have you?
Not that I believe that this is germane to the issue but, no. I have
had the muzzle of a gun placed in my face and I was fairly sure that I
was experiencing the last moments of my life. I have also faced
life-threatening situations, many in the cockpit of an airplane. When
one penetrates an embedded CB, one prays (yes, prays) that the AI
doesn't tumble because flying partial-panel in that situation would
probably lead to an end-of-life experience equal to that of being shot
with the exception that I would have minutes to contemplate the end. I
only hope that, should something like that happen, I will still be
trying to fly the airplane right up to the end.
That said, I do believe that I have met the challenges that life has
handed me and acquitted myself acceptably ... so far.
> I KNOW that
> Im here because of the intervention--on more than one occasion--by
> Someone
> larger than myself, not because of making the right decisions, not
> because
> of luck or beating the odds or having great skill. You can
> rationalize it
> any way you want, lecture me all you want, but you wont change my
> mind. If
> you could have been in the cockpit with me, I think you would look at
> things
> a little differently today--twas single seat or I would have invited
> you
> along :=)
And I would have liked to have gone along. The end of the Vietnam war
and the first Arab oil embargo convinced me that things were not going
to be all that interesting in the USAF for a pilot so I got out.
I am not interested in changing your mind. I would just like to see
people take responsibility for what they can change and not depend on
God to save their sorry ass when they have failed to do what they
should have done. Yes, I hope and pray for divine intervention when I
desperately need it. OTOH, I hope and pray that I have done all I can
to avoid the need for divine intervention.
You know, that is what this list is all about: preparation so as to
avoid the need for divine intervention. This is a very good thing.
> Ive been pretty blunt, on purpose.
Blunt is good. I like blunt as you no doubt have deduced.
> Please understand that none of this is
> intended to be a personal attack on your knowledge or integrity or any
> of
> that good stuff.
No worries. I will be happy to buy the first round should we meet.
> We disagree on style and apparently on core beliefs Im
> simply calling it like I see it, without fluff. I trust it will be
> taken in
> that spirit.
Which spirit do you prefer: beer, wine, or whisky? :-)
> Regards,
> Johnny Johnson
> Johnny@wiktel.com <mailto:Johnny@wiktel.com>
>
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Hmmmm... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Nov 10, 2004, at 8:07 AM, Johnny Johnson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson"
> <Johnny@wiktel.com>
>
> The missile I lobbed yesterday was edited somehow, probably by
> automatic
> stripping of MS Word formatting?? Most punctuation was gone--it looks
> pretty corny. The missile I was replying to was fine for some reason.
You should try to make sure that your mail program is sending plain
text, not HTML, RTF, or MS-anything. Matronics strips anything that
could possibly carry a virus or worm. If you prepare your messages
using MS-word you will most likely give your recipients formatting
heartburn. Plain text is understood by every email system in the
world. MS-word is far less universal.
> And this was in the header, I didn't put it there. Wonder what
> that's all
> about? I didn't think this was about winning or losing.
>
> 0.09 YOU_WON BODY: Who really wins?
My guess is that this is part of the SPAM identification system, the
most common being Spamassassin. It has many rules looking for key
words, phrases, and patterns. When you get enough of them it decides
the message is SPAM. You had a low probability phrase in your text,
probably, "who really wins," which matched so it assigned a value of
0.09 to it. Spamassassin usually requires the message to achieve a
score of 5 to be deemed SPAM.
>
> This thread has died as far as I'm concerned, much to the relief of
> many I'm
> sure. My apologies to all of you for venting.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.
glaeser@eds.com>
<<A review of FARs 91.205 (Equipment requirements) and 91.207 (ELTs)
shows no requirement for pilot access or control of an ELT. The documents you
mention are, I believe, performance specifications, not regulations. Dennis Glaeser>>
11/10/2004
Hello Dennis (and Bob Nuckolls), Thank you for your inputs.
Dennis, you are right. The answer to the question of what is the specific regulatory
requirement for pilot access to and control of the ELT while airborne cannot
be found in either FAR Sections 91.205 or 91.207.
But if the requirement for that access and control is contained in the references
to TSO-C91a and the basis for the *approved* ELT, that you are required to
have in your aircraft per FAR Sec 91.207, is TSO-C91a then you must by regulation
meet that requirement.
I am not satisfied with hearsay, gossip, rumor, beliefs, or speculation. These
are readily available very cheap and I can generate my own. They do not resolve
the issue.
The requirement either exists in black and white print or it does not and I feel
an obligation to know the facts. The facts are not in readily available US Govt
documents, but are instead contained (or not) in references provided by an
independent standards organization, the RTCA.
The closest that I have been able to come to these references is these two titles:
DO-183, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Emergency Locator
Transmitters-Automatic Fixed-ELT (AF), Automatic Portable-ELT (AP),
Automatic Deployable-ELT (AD), Survival-ELT (S) Operating on 121.5 and
243.0 Megahertz
DO-182, Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) Equipment Installation and
Performance
OC
PS: This issue may come up when the initial airworthiness inspector of your amateur
built experimental aircraft insists that you have such access and control
over your ELT because it is *required by regulations* or he will not grant the
airworthiness certificate.
Is he correct?
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi OC-
> 5) TSO-C91a, like so many other TSOs, is a bare shell of a document that
provides
> no meat within itself, but instead provides references to other documents
that
> are the real guts of the TSO.
FWIW, the EDMO wesite says: A remote panel control switch with visual
activation monitor, previously an optional accessory, is now required in
all (AF) automatic fixed installations and many of the (AP) automatic
portable installations, is now included in the complete kits.
My installation manual from Ameri- King says: NOTE: The Remote Unit is
Required by C91a. It is not optional.
My local fed says: Where is the remote control for the ELT? You know
that's required now...
> 6) Without access to the pertinent referenced documents the answer to my
question
> is unknown. I am unwilling to accept all the hearsay, gossip, and rumor
that
> so many people are willing to put forward on this subject. I want to see
the
> applicable portions of the referenced documents for myself.
>
> OC
If you still must see the source document (DO-183), it is available from
RTCA for $48, plus shipping and handling.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I'll take this opportunity to correct myself a bit.. Aircraft spruce has a
vane style unit for $545 here:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/aoartangle.php
It seems they pretty much go up from there. Another option, depending
on how much cool stuff you are going to put in the panel is the Dynon
EFIS. They are having some teething trouble, but I think they'll sort it
out. They offer an AOA pitot probe for $200 (only works with their
EFIS). The total cost would be about $2600 which while a pretty good
value is not cheap.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/efisd10.php
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olivier Le Carbonnier"
> <olcdlm@laposte.net>
>
> where ?
>
> Olivier
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]De la part de Matt
> Prather
> Envoy : mardi 9 novembre 2004 21:19
> : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Objet : RE: AeroElectric-List: Stall Horn
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> <mprather@spro.net>
>
> Not cheap... I have seen them start at $600.
>
> MAP
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olivier Le Carbonnier"
>> <olcdlm@laposte.net>
>>
>> why not a AOA ?
>>
>> Olivier LC
>> France
>> ICQ#: 82067330
>> sanglier@laposte.net
>> http://sangliervolant.chez.tiscali.fr Van's RV-8 n81939 wings
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]De la part de
>> czechsix@juno.com
>> Envoy : lundi 8 novembre 2004 19:34
>> : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com; rv-list@matronics.com
>> Objet : AeroElectric-List: Stall Horn
>>
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "czechsix@juno.com"
>> <czechsix@juno.com>
>>
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> Does anyone know of a source for a cheap stall warning horn similar in
>> sound to what's used on spam cans? I made my own spam-style stall
>> vane/tab that I'm putting in the LE of the wing. I bought a piezo
>> alarm from Digikey for something like $1 but it sounds like a fire
>> alarm....it's a bit more shrill and shocking than I want. Aircraft
>> Spruce sells a Safe Flight stall horn with light for $740.00. You
>> read that right...$740! That doesn't include the vane. So anyway, if
>> somebody knows of a non-aircraft source for such a beastie please let
>> me know...
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Mark Navratil
>> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>> RV-8A N2D wiring...
>>
>> Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com!
>> Look for special offers at Best Buy stores.
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:43 PM 11/9/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>From: "Giffen A. Marr" <GAMarr@Charter.Net>
>Date: 2004/11/09 Tue PM 07:34:41 EST
>To: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>Subject: ELT
>
><<The regulatory requirements are contained in FAR 91.207. If you want to
>look at the international standards, ICAO Annex 6 Part I contains the
>requirements in Chapter 4, Systems and Equipment. I would be very
>surprised if the RTCA Document has any reference to accessibility. It
>should only contain engineering performance requirements for the unit.
>Giff Marr>>
>
>11/09/2004
>
>Hello Giff, Thanks for your response. My question about the regulatory
>requirements for pilot access to or control of the ELT while in flight are
>not answered by FAR Sec. 91.207. The audit trail goes like this:
>
>1) FAR Sec. 91.207 (a) (1) says that one must have an *approved* ELT for
>our operations (with some exceptions). In FAA parlance that means approved
>by the FAA Administrator.
>
>2) There are other ways of having the FAA Administrator (or his authorized
>representative) approve things, but the TSO process is the most commonly
>recognized way.
>
>3) TSO-C91 is rendered obsolete for new installations after June 21, 1995
>by FAR Sec. 91.207 (a) (1).
>
>4) TSO-C91a is the currently effective TSO for ELTs. One must either have
>an ELT that meets TSO-C91a or have an ELT that has been approved by the
>FAA Administrator by some other means.
>
>5) TSO-C91a, like so many other TSOs, is a bare shell of a document that
>provides no meat within itself, but instead provides references to other
>documents that are the real guts of the TSO.
>
>6) Without access to the pertinent referenced documents the answer to my
>question is unknown. I am unwilling to accept all the hearsay, gossip, and
>rumor that so many people are willing to put forward on this subject. I
>want to see the applicable portions of the referenced documents for myself.
See
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/ELT's%20and%20Homebuilt%20Aircraft.html
http://www.artex.net/faq_remoteswitches.html
http://www.alaska.faa.gov/faifsdo/mechairnews1.htm
http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviation.owning/18/msg18463.htm
http://www.avionicswest.com/articles/eltupdate.htm
RAC's bizjets have 91a certified ELTs and no remote switches.
Bonanza's have had remote switches for a few years but did not
initially install them when the 91a ELTs became available.
Part 91 does not speak to installation requirements, only
to the periodic testing of "controls" as-installed.
I'm not clear about the concern . . .
It's not clear that installing the remote switch is a
REQUIREMENT or simply an option provided by the design
that adds some degree of optional convenience to the operator.
I presume you're planning to install an ELT irrespective of
any requirements to have one. If it's a new (TSO-C91a) model,
and comes fitted with a remote switch option, would it not
be a prudent thing to utilize it in your project irrespective
of requirements? For my money, if I wanted an ELT that REALLY
works, I'd go for the GPS aided location option as well.
This ELT broadcasts your exact location which has a lot
better resolution than satellite based locator system.
If you have a list of RTCA documents you'd like to see,
post it and I'll see if I can put my hands on them.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:33 PM 11/10/2004 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst"
><khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
>
>Bob,
>
>I will have my battery forward of the firewall and within 200mm (8") of
>the engine ground stud. I will also have a firewall ground kit (B&C) on
>the composite firewall no more than 300mm (12") from the battery.
>
>Assuming all cables will be properly restrained, in connecting up the
>earth straps which routing method would you prefer?
>
>1) Battery (-) to Firewall Gnd to Engine Gnd
>or
>2) Battery (-) to Engine Gnd to Firewall Gnd
>or
>3) Battery (-) to Firewall Gnd and another Battery -ive to Engine Gnd
>
>Left to my own devices I would choose No 2 because I think it is the
>most likely way to prevent the smoking behind the panel problem you
>cited in the 'connection'. Also, I think I would use a continuous strap
>with a third flag terminal somewhere in the middle so that in the event
>of the connection at the engine coming loose, I would still have battery
>power. I am well aware that losing battery power in my little VFR
>aircraft would not really matter, nevertheless, if there is such a thing
>as 'best practice' in this regard, I would prefer to adopt it.
For the most part, ground "reliability" is not a real issue.
Other than cases where a mechanic failed to properly install
fasteners, the actual configuration of grounding is important
only from a perspective of noise (ground loop minimization).
#4 wire is entirely sufficient for all fat wires in your
installation. A single braided strap from crankcase to
firewall ground stud is sufficient. A single 4AWG connection
between battery (-) and firwall ground stud is next. These
two wires take care of your fat-wire portion of the ground system.
Consider use of #4 welding cable for battery (-) and battery (+)
connections irrespective of what type of wire is choosen for the
rest of the system. Welding cable is quite flexible and will
reduce stresses on battery posts to an absolute minimum. Virtually
all battery post failures I've become aware of in OBAM aircraft
have been the result of connection with very stiff 2AWG Tefzel
wire or worse yet, connection with sheet metal or "bus bar" from
battery terminals to ground and/or adjacent contactor.
You are more at-risk for loss of battery due overly robust
terminal connections than from connections that are too
few or too light.
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 |
|
0.00 CELL_PHONE_IMPROVE BODY: Talks about cell-phone signal improvement
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
In short, NO, he is not correct! If your inspector says that control of the
ELT in the cockpit is required by regulation, ask him (or her) to show you
that regulation! (and a TSO is NOT a regulation)
Any references to cockpit controls in a TSO would be to specify the
performance requirements of such a device, but does not require that it
exists. The TSO may have specs for lots of options (i.e. portable antenna,
microphone, indicator lights, ...) but that does not mean that they are
required by regulation. If your unit is TSO'd, it's legal. If you want
optional stuff, it has to be covered by the TSO as well, but it is still
optional.
The FARs cited specify what is required - and cockpit controls are not
there, so they are not required! Go out to the flight line of your local
FBO and see how many certified airplanes have a cockpit control for the ELT
- I'll bet it will be very few, if any!
Cockpit controls are a convenience for testing (2 sweeps during the first 5
minutes after the hour), and occasionally re-setting after a 'firm arrival',
without having to open up access panels to get to the actual unit.
Dennis Glaeser
-----Original Message-----
From: bakerocb@cox.net [mailto:bakerocb@cox.net]
Subject: ELT Access
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.
glaeser@eds.com>
<<A review of FARs 91.205 (Equipment requirements) and 91.207 (ELTs)
shows no requirement for pilot access or control of an ELT. The documents
you mention are, I believe, performance specifications, not regulations.
Dennis Glaeser>>
11/10/2004
Hello Dennis (and Bob Nuckolls), Thank you for your inputs.
Dennis, you are right. The answer to the question of what is the specific
regulatory requirement for pilot access to and control of the ELT while
airborne cannot be found in either FAR Sections 91.205 or 91.207.
But if the requirement for that access and control is contained in the
references to TSO-C91a and the basis for the *approved* ELT, that you are
required to have in your aircraft per FAR Sec 91.207, is TSO-C91a then you
must by regulation meet that requirement.
I am not satisfied with hearsay, gossip, rumor, beliefs, or speculation.
These are readily available very cheap and I can generate my own. They do
not resolve the issue.
The requirement either exists in black and white print or it does not and I
feel an obligation to know the facts. The facts are not in readily available
US Gov't documents, but are instead contained (or not) in references
provided by an independent standards organization, the RTCA.
The closest that I have been able to come to these references is these two
titles:
DO-183, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Emergency Locator
Transmitters-Automatic Fixed-ELT (AF), Automatic Portable-ELT (AP),
Automatic Deployable-ELT (AD), Survival-ELT (S) Operating on 121.5 and
243.0 Megahertz
DO-182, Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) Equipment Installation and
Performance
OC
PS: This issue may come up when the initial airworthiness inspector of your
amateur built experimental aircraft insists that you have such access and
control over your ELT because it is *required by regulations* or he will not
grant the airworthiness certificate.
Is he correct?
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: Ammeter/Loadmeter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone <rv8iator@earthlink.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter/Loadmeter
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:23 PM 11/8/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
>
>Bob:
>
>What do you mean when you say "The only limitation on the entire field of
>instrumentation choices is that none of the Z-Figures is friendly to use
>of the
>classic minus-0-plus battery ammeter"? I am wiring to Figure Z-10 and where
>you call for a loadmeter I have installed Van's "classic" -40/0/+40 ammeter.
>Should I change something? I haven't lit the engine yet.
The ammeter you have was originally intended for installation
as a battery-ammeter in the historically popular automotive
electrical system architecture.
You can wire this instrument as an alternator loadmeter
just keep in mind that it will ALWAYS read zero and above.
Not a 'bad' thing, it simply tosses off half of the useful
scale of the instrument. The danger is that some individual
not familiar with how it's used may believe it to be
a battery-ammeter based on it's markings . . . and might
mis-interpret what it's saying. For example, after an hour
of flight, your loadmeter is going to read present load on
the alternator which is always a positive value. Another
pilot might become concerned when what he perceives as
a battery-ammeter never goes to zero indicating the battery
is charged. The important thing is that YOU understand
how it should function so that you can properly interpret
what it tells you.
Bob . . .
Bob...
Why not then just a voltmeter? No shunt required.
As long as it reads 13.8 - 14.5V you know the alternator is supplying power.
How does a loadmeter keep the B-lead out of the cockpit?.
The B-lead has to feed the bus. The bus is in the cockpit.
What am I missing here?
Chris Stone
Message 12
| 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: [RV-8] Single Point Grounding |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:44 AM 8/6/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <danobrien@cox.net>
>
>This issue arose recently for builders of Lancair ES's, which typically
>mount the battery(s) in the rear for weight and balance reasons. Awhile
>back Bob published a diagram labelled Z-14RearBats.pdf, or something like
>that. This is a modification of Z-14 when batteries are mounted in the
>rear. This diagram calls for groundblocks in front and back with a fat
>wire connecting them. Then you can ground items in back to the rear
>ground block.
>
>I can send this to you if you need it, or perhaps Bob can make it
>available on his site?
>................
>
>I have the same question, and I will have two batteries
>in the back.
>
>It seems like grounding on the airframe at the back,
>plus a good copper cable or Super-2-CCA FatWire
>http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm also
>running up front, grounded from place to place, would
>be the best solution. Perhaps I'm making this more
>complicated than it needs to be.
>Mickey
>
>At 11:53 06-08-04, Scott Chastain wrote:
>I took Bob Nuckoll's course last fall and am slowly getting through the
>manual. I will have an aft battery installation which presents a special
>problem. I had planned on using the Nuckoll's design for the single point
>grounding system, where the negative lead from the battery is brought up
>to a ground bus on the firewall. There, all avionics from the panel are
>grounded to a "forest" of fast-on
>connectors, and on the forward side of the firewall, the engine is
>grounded along with other components under the cowling. One benefit of
>doing this is to eliminate noise, according to Bob. However, I had not
>planned on having to run two battery leads up to the firewall. It would
>seem silly to add the extra weight by having both the negative and
>positive leads run up that far on an aluminum bird. Has anyone already
>done this to conform with the Bob Nuckoll's
>design? If not, for those of you who are aleady flying with a rear battery
>installation, where have you run the negative lead and where do you ground
>most, if not all, of your panel equipment? Have you encountered noise
>problems by not having the single point ground?
>Thanks!
The rear mounted two-battery grounding diagram was published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/Z-14_Rear_Bats.pdf
Airplanes have used airframe ground for rear mounted batteries for
nearly 80 years and the vast majority have performed "satisfactorily"
to this day. There is a high probability that if you use airframe
as battery (-) connections for your rear mounted batteries in an
aluminum airplane, you'll be fine . . . especially if you adhere
to the single point ground philosophy for potential victim systems.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| 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: Ammeter/Loadmeter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>At 06:23 PM 11/8/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
> >
> >Bob:
> >
> >What do you mean when you say "The only limitation on the entire field of
> >instrumentation choices is that none of the Z-Figures is friendly to use
> >of the
> >classic minus-0-plus battery ammeter"? I am wiring to Figure Z-10 and where
> >you call for a loadmeter I have installed Van's "classic" -40/0/+40 ammeter.
> >Should I change something? I haven't lit the engine yet.
>
> The ammeter you have was originally intended for installation
> as a battery-ammeter in the historically popular automotive
> electrical system architecture.
>
> You can wire this instrument as an alternator loadmeter
> just keep in mind that it will ALWAYS read zero and above.
> Not a 'bad' thing, it simply tosses off half of the useful
> scale of the instrument. The danger is that some individual
> not familiar with how it's used may believe it to be
> a battery-ammeter based on it's markings . . . and might
> mis-interpret what it's saying. For example, after an hour
> of flight, your loadmeter is going to read present load on
> the alternator which is always a positive value. Another
> pilot might become concerned when what he perceives as
> a battery-ammeter never goes to zero indicating the battery
> is charged. The important thing is that YOU understand
> how it should function so that you can properly interpret
> what it tells you.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>Bob...
>
>
>Why not then just a voltmeter? No shunt required.
>As long as it reads 13.8 - 14.5V you know the alternator is supplying power.
>
>How does a loadmeter keep the B-lead out of the cockpit?.
>The B-lead has to feed the bus. The bus is in the cockpit.
>What am I missing here?
Sure! How about no meters at all? They don't help you fly or
operate the airplane, only troubleshoot the airplane. Since
you don't need to troubleshoot in flight then the active notification
of low voltage (warning light) combined with proper attention
to battery condition is all you'll ever need to comfortably
bore holes in the sky.
Wrong cause-and-effect. Loadmeters don't keep b-leads out of
cockpit, taking the b-lead out of the cockpit necessitates
elimination of the battery ammeter. See chapter on electrical
system in instrumentation. If you really gotta HAVE an ammeter
then loadmeters are as good as any and are less subject to
ambiguous deductions due to lack of understanding. Re: recent
thread concerning dark-n-stormy-night story on generator failure.
But as you've correctly observed, voltmeters are good too . . . but
again, you gotta watch 'em. 95% of pilots in certified ships
are unaware of failure of alternator until the panel goes black
and by then they're all out of options.
By all means, install whatever number of steam or digit gages
strikes your fancy but don't leave the ground without active
notification of low voltage and a confident knowledge of battery
condition with respect to capacity.
Bob . . .
Message 14
| 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Bob,
Can you point me to a model? I'm in the market for one,
and can only find the portable units.
Thanks,
Mickey
> ... For my money, if I wanted an ELT that REALLY
> works, I'd go for the GPS aided location option as well.
> This ELT broadcasts your exact location which has a lot
> better resolution than satellite based locator system.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
Message 15
| 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: Re:Stall Horn |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "czechsix@juno.com" <czechsix@juno.com>
>
>> If you need a horn to tell you when your RV is about to quit flying -
>> then
>> you aren't flying enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
Now, now...
I didn't mean to start a long thread on the merits of Stall Warning. I agree wholeheartedly
that a stall warning device shouldn't replace good piloting skills
and thorough knowledge of how an airplane handles and feels leading up to (and
through) the stall. When I'm flying any airplane, I don't depend on the stall
warning system to make up for carelessness on my part....my goal is to never
allow myself to get into a situation where the stall warning would need to
alert me of an impending stall that I'm not already well aware of. But...statistics
say that some people get bit by stall/spin accidents year after year.
Some of them were probably careless, ignorant or unfamiliar with the airplane,
but not all of them...a number have been highly experienced pilots flying an
airplane in which they had thousands of hours logged. How many of those statistics
happened in airplanes with stall warning devices vs. those without, I don't
know (i.e. I don't know how much of a safety ben
efit a stall warning system is statistically). Stall warning doesn't guarantee
my safety, but I don't think it means I'm paranoid or inept if I decide to put
it in my airplane. I just think it's nice to have, just in case.
There are other things on my airplane that are nice to have, but not necessary,
like autopilot, attitude indicator (I'm VFR only), a fuel flow meter, a nosewheel,
an electronic engine monitor with alarm, a GPS, etc. None of these devices
should replace good piloting skills, judgement, or careful attention to flying/navigating
the airplane. But all of them have been deemed useful and practical
by ME for making MY flying experience safer and more convenient. I'm sure
some will disagree, which is fine...but this is my airplane, my money and my
butt in the seat, so I get to decide what goes in it and for what reasons :
) Some will assume that my decisions are based on lack of confidence in my flying
abilities, and I don't expect anything I've said here will change their perception
of me, or their perception of themselves that their superior abilities
will never ever allow them get bit...to each their own.
In the case of my stall warning system, I bought a microswitch and small piezo
alarm and rolled my own. I have all of about $5 invested in it right now. I'm
not convinced that spending upwards of $1K for a full-blown AOA system is worth
it for MY goals (although I think AOA would be nice to have!). My original
post was just asking about alternatives for the warning horn because my piezo
alarm sounds, well, a bit more "alarming" than I want it to. I'd like it to
get my attention but not give my passenger a heart attack. I'll take the advice
of several folks and call an aircraft salvage yard...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D wiring....
Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com!
Look for special offers at Best Buy stores.
Message 16
| 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: Re:Stall Horn |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Makes perfect sense to me.. In addition to finding a different warning
horn, you might be able to make one you have sound like you want. How
does it sound if you wrap it in a layer of duct tape? Or, how about putting
a 100ohm resistor in series with it?
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "czechsix@juno.com"
> <czechsix@juno.com>
>
>
>>
>>> If you need a horn to tell you when your RV is about to quit flying -
>>> then
>>> you aren't flying enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>
> Now, now...
>
> I didn't mean to start a long thread on the merits of Stall Warning. I
snip
> would be nice to have!). My original post was just asking about
> alternatives for the warning horn because my piezo alarm sounds, well, a
> bit more "alarming" than I want it to. I'd like it to get my attention
> but not give my passenger a heart attack. I'll take the advice of
> several folks and call an aircraft salvage yard...
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D wiring....
>
>
> Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com!
> Look for special offers at Best Buy stores.
>
>
Message 17
| 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: Re:Stall Horn |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Prather <mprather@spro.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re:Stall Horn
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt
Prather"
> <mprather@spro.net>
> Makes perfect sense to me.. In addition to
finding a different
> warninghorn, you might be able to make one you
have sound like you
> want. How
> does it sound if you wrap it in a layer of duct
tape? Or, how
> about putting
> a 100ohm resistor in series with it?
>
> Regards,
>
Here's an idea you can experiment with. The piezo
alarms work by creating an oscillation across a
crystal, right? The frequency is that of the
crystal. What happens if you scratch or drop a
touch of glue onto the crystal to changes its frequency?
Message 18
| 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: Re:Stall Horn |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: erie <erie@shelbyvilledesign.com>
Many years ago, as a poor teenager, I often used a soft pencil to add
mass to scanner xtals to lower the freq...
erie
echristley@nc.rr.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Matt Prather <mprather@spro.net>
>Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:28 pm
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re:Stall Horn
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt
>>
>>
>Prather"
>
>
>><mprather@spro.net>
>>Makes perfect sense to me.. In addition to
>>
>>
>finding a different
>
>
>>warninghorn, you might be able to make one you
>>
>>
>have sound like you
>
>
>>want. How
>>does it sound if you wrap it in a layer of duct
>>
>>
>tape? Or, how
>
>
>>about putting
>>a 100ohm resistor in series with it?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>
>Here's an idea you can experiment with. The piezo
>alarms work by creating an oscillation across a
>crystal, right? The frequency is that of the
>crystal. What happens if you scratch or drop a
>touch of glue onto the crystal to changes its frequency?
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
Re: my grounding question
Thank you again Bob.
Kingsley
Do not archive
Message 20
| 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jsto1@tampabay.rr.com>
FYI, here is a website that evaluated several of the 406 Mhz EPIRBs,
some with built in GPS. McMurdo Ltd had a unit in their booth at
Ohskosh, but nobaby seemed to have been briefed on it availablilty or
cost. Good luck.
http://www.equipped.com/406_beacon_test_toc.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Mickey Coggins
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT
Message 21
| 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: | Keep warm circuit for Landing/Taxi lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Bob,
I have questions about the implementation of a keep-warm circuit you
recommend in Chapter 12 of the Connection for filament bulbs. I plan to use
75W Halogen bulbs for Landing & Taxi lights (CreativeAir). How do you
determine what amperage these bulbs will draw at lower voltages? Is there a
way to predict this, or do you just test?
You also mention a DIY keep warm power supply, but I don't see one
described, unless: Is it the solid state dimming control circuit in Fig
12.8 with a fixed resistor set to get the desired voltage per above?
I also did a search for DC-DC converters and found this:
http://www.datel.com/data/power/lsn-d12.pdf. These claim over 80 percent
efficiency, which sounds good. How efficient is the LM317K circuit in
comparison? Are their other circuits you'd recommend for this function?
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
Message 22
| 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 |
|
0.00 CELL_PHONE_IMPROVE BODY: Talks about cell-phone signal improvement
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
Subject: RE: ELT Access
11/10/2004
Hello Dennis, Thank you for your response. It is very passionate, but a bit shy
on logic and facts. Ill comment in pieces below:
<>
We dont know that yet because we have not seen the pertinent documents referenced
by TSO-C91a.
<>
Not every regulatory requirement is spelled out in detail in the FARs themselves.
Something can be a regulatory requirement because it appears in an approval
document for a piece of equipment that is required by regulation to be approved.
<<(and a TSO is NOT a regulation)>>
You are right. A TSO itself is not a regulation, but if a regulation requires an
approved piece of equipment and you are using a TSOd item to show that your
item is indeed approved, then that TSO is fulfilling a regulatory requirement.
Here is FAR Sec 21.601 (b) (4) QUOTE: An article manufactured under a TSO authorization,
an FAA letter of acceptance as described in 21.603(b), or an appliance
manufactured under a letter of TSO design approval described in 21.617 is
an approved article or appliance for the purpose of meeting the regulations of
this chapter that require the article to be approved. UNQUOTE. Does this leave
any doubt in anyones mind regarding the regulatory status of a TSOd piece of
equipment that is fulfilling a regulatory approval requirement?
<<Any references to cockpit controls in a TSO would be to specify the performance
requirements of such a device, but does not require that it exists. The TSO
may have specs for lots of options (i.e. portable
antenna, microphone, indicator lights, ...) but that does not mean that they are
required by regulation. If your unit is TSO'd, it's legal. If you want optional
stuff, it has to be covered by the TSO as well, but it is still optional.>>
That is your opinion, not fact, and it is not shared by someone at AOPA who wrote
on this subject. Here is an extract from an email that I received from AOPA.
QUOTE: One of the major changes the FAA made in going from TSO C91 to TSO C91a
was to require a cockpit mounted remote switch to allow the pilot to manually
activate the ELT and as a visual monitor of when the ELT is active. The requirement
is outlined in RTCA/DO-183, Section 2.1.12 and DO-204, Section 2.2.6.UNQUOTE
Unfortunately the person at AOPA who sent me the email was not the original author
of that extract. He had extracted it from some TSO material that he found
at AOPA while searching for an answer to my ELT access question. AOPA does not
have the RTCA documents so they are unable to confirm what the documents say.
<<The FARs cited specify what is required - and cockpit controls are not there,
so they are not required!>>
Just stating an opinion vehemently does not make it fact.
<<Go out to the flight line of your local FBO and see how many certified airplanes
have a cockpit control for the ELT- I'll bet it will be very few, if any!>>
The reason for the many aircraft that will be found without cockpit control and
access of their ELT is that those installations were made prior to June 21, 1995.
See FAR Sec 91.207 (a) (1). We know that cockpit control and access were
not required prior to that date.
<<Cockpit controls are a convenience for testing (2 sweeps during the first 5
minutes after the hour), and occasionally re-setting after a 'firm arrival', without
having to open up access panels to get to the actual unit. Dennis Glaeser>>
I have no disagreement with what you write there, but for new ELT installations
after June 21, 1995 cockpit control and access of the ELT while airborne may
be a regulatory requirement and Id like to absolutely confirm or deny that fact
by reading the pertinent RTCA documents.
It was never my intent to get sidetracked into semantical discussions regarding
regulatory requirements in general and I apologize to readers for proceeding
down that rabbit trail above. It is just not in my nature to accept hearsay, gossip,
rumor, speculation, opinion, and beliefs when I am looking for facts and
I know that the facts do exist.
OC
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! --
|