---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 12/25/04: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:23 AM - Re: KN65A DME (Brian Lloyd) 2. 06:57 AM - Re: KN65A DME (sarg314) 3. 07:49 AM - Alternative navigation sources, was: KN65A DME (BobsV35B@aol.com) 4. 07:49 AM - Re: KN65A DME (Paul McAllister) 5. 11:09 AM - Re: KN65A DME (Brian Lloyd) 6. 12:45 PM - Re: KN65A DME (BobsV35B@aol.com) 7. 01:54 PM - Re: KN65A DME (Brian Lloyd) 8. 05:23 PM - Re: Kitfox Electrical (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 08:23 PM - Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO () ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:23:31 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Dec 24, 2004, at 9:49 PM, Ron Koyich wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Koyich" > > Merry Christmas all! > > Why would anyone want to install a KN-65 DME - or any old DME in an > aircraft in 2005? Uh, let's see: 1. it is dirt simple to use; 2. the Air Force is unlikely to turn it off in the middle of your approach; 3. ATC understands what, '35 DME from foobar' means; 4. it is faster and easier to get a distance from a VORTAC with a DME than it is with a GPS. Need I go on? > Heavy, old, junk, IMO. I was making money fixing those things in 1975 > and > they weren't reliable then. I had a KN-64 in one airplane and a KNS-80 in another. They both have been more reliable than GPS. There are some really interesting ways that GPS fails. > Sure they're a TSO'd DME - and a Garmin 196 isn't - but I'd rather > the > Garmin any day. Until it stops working. GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there tend to be more airports along or near the airways. 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:57:01 AM PST US From: sarg314 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 Brian Lloyd wrote: > GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you > >cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my >VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the >most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there >tend to be more airports along or near the airways. > Not to pile-on, but I have to agree with Brian. GPS is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but my plane will also have a VOR receiver. Partly, I guess, I'm just being retro, but it seems prudent to have 2 independent, unrelated (except thru the electrical system) means of navigating. -- Tom Sargent RV-6A, firewall. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:49:06 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternative navigation sources, was: KN65A DME --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 12/25/2004 8:57:40 A.M. Central Standard Time, sarg314@comcast.net writes: Not to pile-on, but I have to agree with Brian. GPS is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but my plane will also have a VOR receiver. Partly, I guess, I'm just being retro, but it seems prudent to have 2 independent, unrelated (except thru the electrical system) means of navigating. -- Tom Sargent RV-6A, firewall. Good Morning Tom, I suppose I should start by mentioning that my current steed has GPS, ADF, DME and dual VORs, However!! I see nothing dangerous or even inconvenient with having nothing more than one GPS as long as it is a GPS that is legally authorized for single source navigation. To my knowledge, the only box so authorized also has a VOR in the same unit so I guess the question is academic. Nevertheless, I flew many hours and many approaches in airplanes equipped with one Low Frequency range receiver and one HF transceiver capable of transmitting on only one frequency. I did not consider that to be an unusual risk at the time and I would not consider a similar piece of equipment to entail a high risk today. I fly a single engine airplane equipped with a single alternator quite often with full confidence. Engines quit and wings break off. We do what we can to alleviate such disasters, but there are safety options that can be used to ameliorate both of those conditions. I have known many fine and experienced aviators who will not fly in a single engine airplane unless it is equipped with a parachute equipped, zero altitude, ejection seat. We do all need to operate to our own level of comfort. I try very hard to fly airplanes that have wings that won't break. That, I think we will all agree, is not too hard to do. The engine situation is a little tougher. Engines do quit. Fortunately, under most flight conditions, an engine failure can be handled adequately so as to result in a survivable landing. Some of us do accept that additional risk. A far more likely to occur situation is one where the entire electrical system fails. In the days of the low frequency range, I tried to carry enough fuel so that I could DR to a point where visual flight to a landing could be assured. With modern fuel efficient airplanes, that is a lot easier to do than it was sixty years ago! On top of that, we now have excellent, lightweight, low cost, handheld communication and navigation devices. I firmly believe that reliance on a single source of navigation is a very rational decision, and always has been, provided that alternative plans have been made. Today, alternative plans are a snap. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:49:34 AM PST US From: "Paul McAllister" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" Brian, Interesting observations I have a GX60 and yes it great, but.... you can be sure that ATC will think up some way to re vector you that takes a good amount of button pushing to accommodate. I have both now, A Narco 122 VOR/LOC/GS and a GPS. On VOR approaches a simple twist of the dial gets you where you want to be every time. Paul > Uh, let's see: > > 1. it is dirt simple to use; > 2. the Air Force is unlikely to turn it off in the middle of your > Need I go on? > > GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you > cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my > VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the > most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there > tend to be more airports along or near the airways. > > Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:09:26 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Dec 25, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Paul McAllister wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" > > > Brian, > > Interesting observations I have a GX60 and yes it great, Yeah, I have one in my Comanche. I just performed my first GPS approach the other day too. Nice. But when ATC says, "say DME from frotzblat," the DME is still a lot easier and quicker to use. > but.... you can be > sure that ATC will think up some way to re vector you that takes a good > amount of button pushing to accommodate. I have. Once when my area nav was an IFR-certified LORAN (now replaced by the GX-60) I was on an IFR flight across the LA TCA (now class-B) and they amended my routing three times in five minutes. They so overloaded me with button pushing and knob twisting that I gave up, asked for an approach to a nearby airport, landed, and quit for the day. > I have both now, A Narco 122 > VOR/LOC/GS and a GPS. On VOR approaches a simple twist of the dial > gets you > where you want to be every time. Ah grasshopper, you show wisdom. There are certainly people on this list with more experience with older nav systems than I but I have a fair bit of experience. I have flow IFR using everything from the Adcock range with a GCA/PAR at the end of the flight, ADF/NDB, VOR, VOR/DME, RNAV, ILS, LORAN, GPS enroute, and now GPS approach. The interesting thing is that as the technology has gotten more capable and sophisticated the learning curve has gotten much steeper. My father has been flying for 52 years and has amassed something like 20,000 hours. He can fly IFR just fine using VOR/DME/ADF but the LORAN and GPS learning curves have just proven too steep for him. Still, he can get the airplane anywhere and then shoot an ILS to minimums at the end of the flight. Not every improvement is. There is great beauty in simplicity. (Do you really need that gizmo in your airplane?) Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201 +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802 I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:45:02 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 12/25/2004 1:10:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, brianl@lloyd.com writes: Not every improvement is. There is great beauty in simplicity. Good Afternoon Brian, I agree totally with the above statement, but I think the GPS IS the simplification. It is, in my mind, much easier to use than the average DME. Obviously, some GPSs are easier to use than others and some DMEs are easier to use than others, but I can't see how setting a GPS identifier in a window is ever any harder than tuning a frequency in a DME receiver. For some DME receivers there are even auxiliary switches that must be set correctly to display the desired information in the manner that will be most usable. The same is true of the GPS. If you know how to use the box you own, neither the DME nor the GPS is hard to tune. I find my GPS to be easier to set for distance measurements than most DMEs. If one wants to learn how to use all of the other functions available in a GPS, it can be daunting. However, I have been flying for quite a bit longer than has your father and I think I have managed to be able to learn how to use the functions of my GPS adequately for my purposes. I am sure if he wanted to, he could do as well, probably better. It was amazing how many people complained about having to learn to use the VOR when we first got them. Now some folks are saying the same thing about GPS. The GPS is cheaper, more accurate and more reliable than anything we have had before. It took training to use the Loop range, the ADF, the VOR, the ILS and the Radar approach. The GPS is no different. I think it is easier, but it is certainly no harder! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 01:54:42 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Dec 25, 2004, at 2:44 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > > In a message dated 12/25/2004 1:10:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, > brianl@lloyd.com writes: > > Not every improvement is. There is great beauty in simplicity. > > > Good Afternoon Brian, > > I agree totally with the above statement, but I think the GPS IS the > simplification. In some ways it is. In others, it is not. > It is, in my mind, much easier to use than the average DME. Obviously, > some > GPSs are easier to use than others and some DMEs are easier to use than > others, but I can't see how setting a GPS identifier in a window is > ever any harder > than tuning a frequency in a DME receiver. For some DME receivers > there are > even auxiliary switches that must be set correctly to display the > desired > information in the manner that will be most usable. The same is true > of the > GPS. I have never met a GPS or LORAN that I could use completely without referring to the manual at least once. I have never met a DME I could not use immediately. The reason is that the knobs on the DME are clearly labeled as to their function. They are not overloaded. About the only think you really need to know about the DME is whether it is being remotely channeled by the Nav and whether you have to press the 'hold' button to lock the DME frequency when you switch to the localizer freq on an ILS/DME approach that uses the DME off the on-field VORTAC. Most people can use the 'direct-to' feature of their GPS without too much trouble but when it comes time to define and/or modify a flight plan, all bets are off. Also, using the GPS to provide DME functions from a nearby navaid while still using the GPS to navigate a flight-plan route can be a real challenge. Again, the DME wins hands-down in this area for simplicity. > If you know how to use the box you own, neither the DME nor the GPS is > hard > to tune. No, GPS is not difficult but it is still more difficult than using VOR/DME. It requires much more training but if used correctly can greatly improve situational awareness. > I find my GPS to be easier to set for distance measurements than most > DMEs. Oh well, my experience differs from yours. > If one wants to learn how to use all of the other functions available > in a > GPS, it can be daunting. However, I have been flying for quite a bit > longer > than has your father Sorry. It seems I can't subtract in my head anymore. He has been flying for 62 years. He started in 1942. He is 82. Not too many people still flying who have been flying longer than my father. Regardless I know you have a great deal of experience. > and I think I have managed to be able to learn how to use > the functions of my GPS adequately for my purposes. Many (most) people do. My point is that not all advances are simplification. > I am sure if he wanted to, he could do as well, probably better. Perhaps. It does not come naturally to him. Most GPSes have abysmal user interfaces that are anything but obvious to use. This is where I make the point that DME is easier to use. > It was amazing how many people complained about having to learn to use > the > VOR when we first got them. Now some folks are saying the same thing > about > GPS. The VOR requires interpretation in your head. That can be more of a challenge too. The GPS is more direct in that respect. OTOH they keep loading more and more features in and it makes the user interface more and more complex. > The GPS is cheaper, more accurate and more reliable than anything we > have > had before. It is more accurate. It is not necessarily more reliable. As I have said, I found some interesting ways in which GPS fails. If you don't fly often enough or long enough for it to get a full update of its Almanac and its ephemeris it just stops working after a couple of months. I had that happen to me in flight. Poof -- no more GPS halfway to the destination. It is most disconcerting. The solution? Let is sit on the ramp for 45 minutes without moving it. Yeah, I knew that ... after a call to the manufacturer. In the southwest the Air Force plays games with the accuracy. This is also quite disconcerting. And I have had the pleasure of holding a Russian GPS jammer in my hand. To think that I could have taken out GPS in the LA basin with that little gadget. Do you think I could have taken out all VOR/DME/ILS with one little hand-held box? I don't. So, yes, GPS is wonderful. It just isn't quite as wonderful as everyone hoped it would be. Now a GPS/LORAN combo would be quite robust. > It took training to use the Loop range, the ADF, the VOR, the ILS and > the > Radar approach. The GPS is no different. > > I think it is easier, but it is certainly no harder! Well, you caught me playing devil's advocate. I own an approach GPS and wouldn't trade it for the world. I was trying to make the point that the old stuff is not necessarily worse and a DME is certainly useful. I do know that when ATC amends my clearance enroute I can shift gears more easily when flying VOR or VOR/DME than when flying GPS. You should hear the young guys grumble in the cockpit when they hear the words, "I have amended routing. Advise when ready to copy clearance." Imagine trying to write a new flight plan into your GPS at night, on the gauges, in turbulence without an autopilot or copilot to keep the wings level. It is a challenge. > Happy Skies, Always. > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Airpark LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8502 Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201 +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802 I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 05:23:52 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Kitfox Electrical --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:01 AM 12/24/2004 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan >(by way of Matt Dralle ) > > >Hi all! > I'm finishing a Kitfox with a 582 and Bob's Z-17 electrical. The >question is where to put everything. > >1. I searched the list and it seemed the consensus was to put the Rotax >264870 finned regulator on the engine side of the firewall, even though it >might suffer from the heat, to minimize the comm interference. Still true? >Any experience with it on the back side of the firewall? I'd rather put it on the cool side. There's no evidence that this regulator is any more prone to radiated noise into comms or any other radio. However, given the relatively low area of real estate on the firewall of this airplane, I'd have no problem putting it out in the engine side. It's not as hot out there as one might think in flight . . . and that's the only time this regulator is going to be putting out much heat. >2. What about the large filter cap? Since it's filtering noise I guess it >really wants to be forward of the firewall as well. This filter has nothing to do with radio specific noise. I.e., if you're hearing noises in a radio where the noise goes up and down with volume control (means radiated into the antenna) then the fat electrolytic capacitor intended for ripple filtering is not likely to help with high frequency noises as well. >3. I need to mount a Sigtronics RES-401 intercom control box. Is this box >OK next to the regulator? Is it OK on the firewall? Or should I mount it to >the back of the instrument panel for some vibration isolation? It's a good idea to isolate power control and generation equipment as far as practical from small signal avionics and audio systems. This has to do more with MAGNETIC coupling from the power system into the small signal system and is MUCH more difficult to deal with later. 4. Is the overvoltage relay OK aft of the firewall? Or should I put it forward as well to minimize noise? It's not a contributor to the noise issues. Mount it on same side as regulator. Bob . . . -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:23:19 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger" > ....skip....... It cannot be installed in a production aircraft, unless it > is FAA-approved by other means, such as an STC.....skip.....>> >> My question to you is: What is the basis for your statement above? > Think it works like this. Part 91 isn't the only rule for maintaining > type-certificated aircraft, but also Parts 21 and 43. These make it > clear it to me at least that only actual aircraft parts go into actual > airplanes....skip... > However, an altimeter is not a trivial item, and the Regs forbid > anyone from making one and selling it as an aircraft part, except for > homebuilts and ultralights. If they sell a nonTSOd instrument but > with a PMA, maybe a shop might go with that, if it's not the specific > part the airframe mfr used. Is there such an animal out there? None > of the instruments I have, sold for homebuilt only, say PMA. Fred F. 12/25/2004 Hello Fred, Thanks for your prompt and on point response. I am inclined to agree. FAR Sec21.303 says "....no person may produce a modification or replacement part for sale for installation on a type certificated product unless it is produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart."** That would seem to prevent the manufacture of non approved parts intended to be installed in type certificated aircraft. But what FAR Sec in Part 43, or elsewhere in the regulations, do you feel prevents the installation of non approved parts in type certificated aircraft? The closest that I can come to such a prohibition is FAR Sec 43.13 (b) which says "Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness).## Thanks for your help. OC **PS: This is the FAR that Bill Bainbridge of B&C was accused of violating by the FAA in a famous case in which the FAA was forced to drop the charges and apologize. ##PPS: We had some pompous FAA ass who made a presentation to our local EAA Chapter several years ago that tried to tell us that that section of the FAR's meant that we could not make modifications to our amateur built experimental aircraft that improved any of those characteristics because the aircraft must remain equal to the condition that it was in when it received its original airworthiness inspection.