Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:24 AM - Re: WAAS or not (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 07:36 AM - Re: TIS vs ADS-B (Brian Lloyd)
3. 08:03 AM - Re: ultraviolet light dimmers (Brian Lloyd)
4. 08:03 AM - Re: RF Bypass (Brian Lloyd)
5. 08:08 AM - Re: ultraviolet light dimmers (Brian Lloyd)
6. 10:24 AM - Re: ultraviolet light dimmers (Kenneth Melvin)
7. 11:13 AM - Re: ultraviolet light dimmers (cgalley)
8. 11:22 AM - Re: Cat 5 (Phil Birkelbach)
9. 11:33 AM - Re: RF Bypass (richard dudley)
10. 11:46 AM - Re: avionics master (B Tomm)
11. 11:54 AM - Re: TIS vs ADS-B (Mickey Coggins)
12. 11:58 AM - Cat 5 (Glen Matejcek)
13. 11:58 AM - Re: WAAS or not (Chuck Jensen)
14. 12:11 PM - Re: The dragon is slain . . . or at least hog-tied. (Dww0708@aol.com)
15. 01:20 PM - Re: ultraviolet light dimmers (BobsV35B@aol.com)
16. 01:58 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Dj Merrill)
17. 02:18 PM - Re: WAAS or not (BobsV35B@aol.com)
18. 02:49 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 01/15/05 (Graham Singleton)
19. 03:40 PM - Re: Dynon Efis (D Fritz)
20. 03:41 PM - Re: Load Dump (Brian Lloyd)
21. 04:21 PM - Re: WAAS or not (BobsV35B@aol.com)
22. 04:22 PM - Re: avionics master (GMC)
23. 04:37 PM - Re: avionics master (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
24. 05:26 PM - Re: ultraviolet light dimmers (Brian Lloyd)
25. 05:33 PM - Re: ultraviolet light dimmers (Brian Lloyd)
26. 05:40 PM - Re: ultraviolet light dimmers (Brian Lloyd)
27. 05:44 PM - Turn and Push Knob (Steve Thomas)
28. 05:45 PM - Re: Load Dump (Paul Messinger)
29. 05:50 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Brian Lloyd)
30. 06:18 PM - Re: avionics master (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
31. 06:18 PM - Re: avionics master (Sam Chambers)
32. 06:45 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Dj Merrill)
33. 07:13 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Benford2@aol.com)
34. 08:00 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Dj Merrill)
35. 08:15 PM - Re: WAAS or not (cgalley)
36. 08:38 PM - Re: avionics master (Richard E. Tasker)
37. 08:39 PM - Re: avionics master (Richard E. Tasker)
38. 08:39 PM - Re: Dynon Efis (Kevin Horton)
39. 08:50 PM - Re: WAAS or not (John Schroeder)
40. 09:45 PM - Re: avionics master (BobsV35B@aol.com)
41. 10:34 PM - Re: WAAS or not (BobsV35B@aol.com)
42. 10:59 PM - WAAS or Not (BobsV35B@aol.com)
43. 11:10 PM - Re: WAAS or Not (Dj Merrill)
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: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2005 1:12:14 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Rob@logan.com writes:
posted this on a Lancair list, but you guys might
enjoy it too. -Rob
Good Morning Rob,
Interesting stuff, but I wonder if it really belongs on this forum?
I will comment a bit and hope others will let us know if the discussion
should continue or be taken elsewhere.
Now, about some of the numbers.
You list nine LPVs yet the FEDs are showing forty-nine LPVs as of November
2004. Whither the discrepancy?
I get the impression that you are not too impressed with WAAS accuracy and
reliability. Is that a fair assumption?
Since I have never used an IFR certified WAAS receiver, possibly I shouldn't
comment, but I have used three different handhelds that use WAAS
corrections. Those units have all been very accurate and reliable.
My gripe with WAAS is not with it's accuracy or it's reliability (I can't
begin to follow Keith's arguments as I don't have any idea how all that magic
works anyway), but with the way the FAA has chosen to implement that accuracy.
The LPV approaches, as designed under current development policy, primarily
provide a back up to existing ILS approaches. In order to execute an approach
much below three hundred AG, you must have some sort of ground based lighting
and/or markings to allow the transition to visual flight for the final
portion of the approach.
It is my feeling that we GA types would be better served if the FAA would
use the greater accuracy available with WAAS to tighten the error budget on the
basic non precision approach so as to allow maximum use of existing TERPs
criteria to allow lower MDAs.
The current implementation policy for LPV approaches has, on occasion,
actually caused circling minimums to be raised for the accompanying NPAs. That
has resulted in NDB approaches to the same runway having lower circling minima
than does the vaunted WAAS approach.
For some reason, which completely escapes me, the LNAV portion of an RNAV
approach containing an LPV often has a lot higher MDA than did the GPS which it
replaces.
Clearly, something is wrong with the implementation policy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TIS vs ADS-B |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 13, 2005, at 12:55 AM, Dj Merrill wrote:
> Is ADS-B a "superset" of TIS? In other words, does
> it display all of the TIS data, plus send your
> aircraft position, or does it see only other ADS-B
> traffic, and not include the radar info?
> Which one is better overall for seeing more traffic?
ADS-B is a system whereby each participating aircraft broadcasts its
position and velocity to any listening station.
TIS is a system whereby the ATC computers uplink their traffic
information to an aircraft using a mode-S transponder.
They are totally different systems.
Now they can be combined as in ATC has ADS-B reception and repeats that
information into TIS so you can see it in your cockpit but that does
not equip you to see ADS-B traffic directly.
Likewise, if you have ADS-B reception capability in your aircraft, it
will only show you other ADS-B-equipped aircraft in your vicinity and
not everything that ATC sees.
Right now TIS appears to offer more information to the pilot since
there are so few ADS-B-equipped aircraft in the lower 48. OTOH, TIS
depends on you having transponder coverage and a link to ATC so it
could go away along with all your traffic information. There are many
places in the western US where you are not going to have RADAR/mode-S
coverage.
ADS-B is independent and distributed and so is pretty hard to break.
In the long run I think that a distributed system like ADS-B is more
desirable since it is going to be hard to break and is independent of
anything on the ground.
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 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: ultraviolet light dimmers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 13, 2005, at 7:20 AM, lucky wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Speaking of Ultraviolet lights. Question for you all. In my WWII era
> and post WWII era Dad's aircraft maintenance stuff there are a few
> small boxes with rotary knobs on them that look like some kind of
> ultraviolet light dimmers based upon the labelling. Was that that
> type of light common in military transports and such back then?
> Probably even into the 60s and early 70s? If so, why?
Yes, it was common. Most instruments had their markings painted with
florescent paint. They would glow green or yellow when illuminated with
UV light. The advantage is that only the markings emitted light
allowing you to see the instruments without a lot of glare that would
compromise your night vision.
The standard Nanachang CJ6A I fly is equipped with UV cockpit lighting.
Most instrument overhaul shops can provide you with florescent
instrument face markings if you request them. I did this when I
replaced the Chinese altimeter, VSI, and manifold pressure gauges with
US units.
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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 13, 2005, at 8:28 AM, richard dudley wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard dudley
> <rhdudley@att.net>
>
> Bob,
>
> I am using Van's + 0 - ammeter. I believe that Van's meters use an op
> amp circuit. When I key my Comm2 transmitter, the meter pegs. This does
> not happen with Comm1. I am suspecting that RF is the cause. I would
> like to try a capacitor bypass from ammeter termnals to ground. What
> capacitance would you suggest?
.01 microfarad disc ceramic caps. Add ferrite beads to the wire also.
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 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ultraviolet light dimmers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 13, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Kenneth Melvin wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
> <melvinke@direcway.com>
>
> Most WW2-era aircraft were equipped with instruments with radium dials,
> activated by ultraviolet cockpit lamps.
Not quite. Many have Radium in their dials and they glow all the time
without any UV light. The radioactive decay of the Radium provides the
energy to make the markings glow. You could read the instruments even
if you lost your electrical system.
Later they did away with the Radium so you have to have the UV light
source to make the instrument markings glow.
It seems that the Chinese still use Radium or did until fairly
recently. My 1984 CJ6A had Radium on the instrument and control
markings. We had a bit of a scare when someone climbed into one with a
geiger counter and discovered that nearly everything in the cockpit was
radioactive! It turns out that the exposure is really small though.
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
| 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: | ultraviolet light dimmers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin <melvinke@direcway.com>
If you wish to quibble, I can tell you from personal experience that the
flourescence in the AT6 and P51 Mustang dials (radium)was insignificant
unless activated by the UV cockpit lamps.
Kenneth Melvin.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ultraviolet light dimmers
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 13, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Kenneth Melvin wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
> <melvinke@direcway.com>
>
> Most WW2-era aircraft were equipped with instruments with radium
> dials, activated by ultraviolet cockpit lamps.
Not quite. Many have Radium in their dials and they glow all the time
without any UV light. The radioactive decay of the Radium provides the
energy to make the markings glow. You could read the instruments even if you
lost your electrical system.
Later they did away with the Radium so you have to have the UV light source
to make the instrument markings glow.
It seems that the Chinese still use Radium or did until fairly recently. My
1984 CJ6A had Radium on the instrument and control markings. We had a bit of
a scare when someone climbed into one with a geiger counter and discovered
that nearly everything in the cockpit was radioactive! It turns out that the
exposure is really small though.
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
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ultraviolet light dimmers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
I have a "radium" dial altimeter sitting on my desk. I have taken it into a
pitch black room and I can't see anything. It is a ware surplus gage that
came from the Bellanca factory in 1948. Still works fine and was built in
1943 by C.G. Conn a "real" instrument maker. says it is certified to 50,000
feet and has white alternated with green numerals on the dial.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Bellancas every day
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ultraviolet light dimmers
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
> > <melvinke@direcway.com>
> >
> > Most WW2-era aircraft were equipped with instruments with radium dials,
> > activated by ultraviolet cockpit lamps.
>
> Not quite. Many have Radium in their dials and they glow all the time
> without any UV light. The radioactive decay of the Radium provides the
> energy to make the markings glow. You could read the instruments even
> if you lost your electrical system.
>
> Later they did away with the Radium so you have to have the UV light
> source to make the instrument markings glow.
>
> It seems that the Chinese still use Radium or did until fairly
> recently. My 1984 CJ6A had Radium on the instrument and control
> markings. We had a bit of a scare when someone climbed into one with a
> geiger counter and discovered that nearly everything in the cockpit was
> radioactive! It turns out that the exposure is really small though.
>
> 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
| 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: Phil Birkelbach <phil@petrasoft.net>
Category 5, 5e & 6 are all 4 unsheilded twisted pair wire for use in
phone and computer networks. There are some very stringent requirements
on the manufacturing of each that gives them suitable characteristics
for the relatively high frequencies that they must carry. Most of these
cables are solid conductor and most have PVC insulation. Tefzel
insulation can handle heat much better than PVC. Both will give off
noxious fumes when burning but Tefzel burns at a much higher
temperature. You don't want to have any solid conductor wiring in your
airplane. It won't hold up to vibration or stresses in installation
nearly as well as stranded cable. The more strands the better. The
normal aircraft grade tefzel wiring is very finely stranded which makes
it much more flexible and robust. There is such thing as stranded Cat
5, it is generally used to make up patch cables. It is harder to find
in rolls but you can buy some long patch cables and cut the ends off.
If it were me I'd leave the Cat 5 in the network closet where it belongs
and stick to aircraft grade wire. You can buy multi-conductor sheilded
wire from a number of sources. I have some 5 conductor 26AWG, some 3
conductor 18AWG and some 4 conductor 24AWG tefzel wire in my plane.
Then you have the comfort of knowing that you have wire in your airplane
that was designed to be in an airplane.
Godspeed,
Phil
Glen Matejcek wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
>Hi All-
>
>Can someone explain to me the significance of cat5 and or cat5e cable?
>What makes it special? When would I want to use it vs a bundle of plain
>old fashioned MS tefzel?
>
>Thanks guys- I haven't found any help locally!
>
>
>Glen Matejcek
>aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
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: richard dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
Thanks, Brian.
I'll report results when I get a chance to try bypassing and ferrite beads.
Richard Dudley
Do not archive
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>
>On Jan 13, 2005, at 8:28 AM, richard dudley wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard dudley
>><rhdudley@att.net>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>I am using Van's + 0 - ammeter. I believe that Van's meters use an op
>>amp circuit. When I key my Comm2 transmitter, the meter pegs. This does
>>not happen with Comm1. I am suspecting that RF is the cause. I would
>>like to try a capacitor bypass from ammeter termnals to ground. What
>>capacitance would you suggest?
>>
>>
>
>.01 microfarad disc ceramic caps. Add ferrite beads to the wire also.
>
>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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
How about a double pole master avionics switch with both poles wired in parellel
to accomplish redundancy.
Bevan
RV7A fuse
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Logan [SMTP:Rob@logan.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: avionics master
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Logan <Rob@Logan.com>
there are some items that don't have power buttons
and one doesn't want on when you are trying to start
the plane... in my case
http://rob.com/lancair/Others/woody/2005.01/mahar-gp4-03-011205.pdf
things like:
FPD
MFD
AHRS
T&B
ALTRAK
XPNDR
ENCODER
WSI
WX500
so this is a perfect case for an avionics master.. as much
as I hid in the lancair world http://lancair.net/lists/lml/
I must admit to having heard of this group and its distain for
the avionics master switch... after some research it seemed
to focus on "single point of failure" of the switch or relay
feed. so what about two potter & brumfield switch/breakers
to feed the avionics buss bar? this way either could feed
the bar in the event the first failed. wouldn't that solve
the single failure point and remove 9 switches for each
thing on the avionics buss?
Rob
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: TIS vs ADS-B |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> ...
>
> ADS-B is independent and distributed and so is pretty hard to break.
>
> In the long run I think that a distributed system like ADS-B is more
> desirable since it is going to be hard to break and is independent of
> anything on the ground.
If the "pc revolution" and the internet have not convinced people
that a distributed system is inherently more robust, then I guess
nothing will. Do you know of any products for the experimental
market that will at least broadcast ADS-B information? Not
sure I can afford to receive it!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Guys-
Thanks for your quick responses to my questions. I guess I should have
read my post again before hitting send, as I worded it rather poorly. I
have no particular desire to use the cat5 cables, but I have heard it
mentioned and was wondering why. IE, what's the attraction. Does it have
some special property, is it shielded, is it somehow superior for data
transmission / EMI rejection, etc.
Thanks again; you guys are a huge resource!
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Only another single data point but I've been flying the CNX80 (ne Garmin
480) with WAAS turned on and have yet to see a loss of signal, loss of
position or failure of RAIM to be sat for the approach. I can't imagine
that I'm favored with particularly good GPS service in Tennessee. Why would
GPS be different then everything else in TN?
But Bob, the Ole Aviator, has an excellent perspective on the implementation
approach taken by the FAA. Seems odd to have an improved system that
sometimes results in higher minimums? I would think they'd want to focus on
replacing/supplementing non-precision approaches with LNAV/VNAV instead of
investing their time...and our money...in providing redundant service at
aerodromes that already have ILS. I'm sure there's a logical explanation,
but then, maybe they just didn't think about it when they were
prioritizing--it happens.
Chuck
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: The dragon is slain . . . or at least hog-tied. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dww0708@aol.com
The ground fault system is pretty sensitive stuff. Kinda like if it ain t
broke leave it be. Love hearing hangar floor stuff from a big shop. To make
brake out boxes sounds devine but oh so expensive. Good Day
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: ultraviolet light dimmers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2005 12:50:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
melvinke@direcway.com writes:
If you wish to quibble, I can tell you from personal experience that the
flourescence in the AT6 and P51 Mustang dials (radium)was insignificant
unless activated by the UV cockpit lamps.
Kenneth Melvin.
Good Afternoon Kenneth,
Just to quibble a bit, It All Depends on how old the instruments are, or
were.
When they were new, they glowed quite brightly even without the ultraviolet
light. They also glowed better after some exposure to the UV lights, but
that effect did wear down as the days went by.
Getting in an airplane with brand new radium dials at night was an awesome
experience. I didn't learn to fly until after WW II, but many of the
airplanes that I worked on as an Aviation Electricians Mate were only a couple
of
years from brand new. Those panels glowed brightly at night long before we
turned on the UV lights.
Also, almost all of the airplanes in which I learned to fly in the late
forties had surplus instruments which were no more than four or five years old.
Those instruments glowed more than adequately with no UV lights installed in
the airplane.
Once Again, It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Chuck Jensen wrote:
> But Bob, the Ole Aviator, has an excellent perspective on the implementation
> approach taken by the FAA. Seems odd to have an improved system that
> sometimes results in higher minimums? I would think they'd want to focus on
> replacing/supplementing non-precision approaches with LNAV/VNAV instead of
> investing their time...and our money...in providing redundant service at
> aerodromes that already have ILS. I'm sure there's a logical explanation,
> but then, maybe they just didn't think about it when they were
> prioritizing--it happens.
One reason I can think of is that ILS requires
ground facilities, and GPS does not. In theory, maintaining
the GPS system is cheaper in the long run than maintaining
all of the ground installations of ILS across the country.
They also don't have to add ground facilities to an airport
to give it a decent WAAS GPS approach, so should be cheaper to
add ILS-like approaches to many airports for the cost of
a single ILS installation at a single airport.
My half cents, anyways...
-Dj
do not archive
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2005 2:24:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
cjensen@dts9000.com writes:
I would think they'd want to focus on
replacing/supplementing non-precision approaches with LNAV/VNAV instead of
investing their time...and our money...in providing redundant service at
aerodromes that already have ILS. I'm sure there's a logical explanation,
but then, maybe they just didn't think about it when they were
prioritizing--it happens.
Chuck
Good Afternoon Chuck,
I have it on reasonably good authority that they started out trying to build
those RNAVs at the small airports where they were most needed, but the air
carrier and corporate types screamed bloody murder that they wanted to see that
money spent where it would help them. The pressure they put on the FAA is
a lot heavier than the pressure we produce.
They are also the ones who have insisted that all approaches start out with
the premise that they will eventually morph into a full automatic approach. To
accommodate the fully automatic approach and landing, the approach path
needs to be precisely lined up with the runway centerline. There needs to be
a
glide path available that will allow a constant angle all the way to touch
down.
When a high speed airplane is using that automatic approach, the flare
maneuver is easier to accomplish if the rate of descent is low. In order to get
a
low rate of descent, you need to make a flat approach. Consequently, we end
up with approaches that are perfectly aligned with the runway, that are
capable of having a constant three degree glide path all the way to touch down
and that have no fixes between the FAF and the DA or DH.
All of that sounds good and I would like to have such an approach every
place I have the need to land. Unfortunately, the obstacle environment of many
small, lightly used, airports will not accommodate that style approach. Using a
steeper approach path will work fine for any but automatic landings.
One of the big reasons for using the MLS approach was that it was going to
allow two approach segments, the first was much steeper with only the very
last portion at something as flat as three degrees. There are quite few older
approaches that have glide paths of four and a half degrees or more.
Restricting us to the three degrees desired for high speed aircraft's automatic
landing capability requires that fewer obstacles be in the approach area.
If you tell the average competent Bonanza or Cessna Two Ten pilot to set up
his own eyeballed glide path to the average small airport, you will find that
most will set up about a four and a half degree angle of descent. In
obstacle rich environments, it is common for the average pilot to use approach
angles as steep a six degrees.
IF the greater accuracy available with WAAS was to be used to allow us to
get closer to obstacles, we could have lower minima
If a steeper approach angle was used for Category A and B aircraft, we could
get lower minima.
IF the course was offset a few degrees so as to clear obstacles, we could
get lower minima.
IF suitable step downs were to be set up using that greater WAAS accuracy,
we could get lower minima.
Randy Kenagy of the AOPA staff is aware of these problems and is trying hard
to get our voices heard, but the heavy iron boys speak with a stronger
voice. Unless we are able to convince the appropriate local authorities to ask
the
FAA to build approaches the way we want them built, they will continue to
build all approaches to accommodate the high speed, heavy aircraft that desire
to make automatic landings.
On top of that, the FAA is interpreting the rules in a way that is raising
our circling minima at most runways that have a VLP. Very disgusting, and
most folks don't even know it is happening!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 01/15/05 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Graham Singleton <graham@gflight.f9.co.uk>
At 23:55 15/01/2005 -0800, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>The dragon is slain . . . or at least hog-tied.
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>I think I mentioned that I've been extra ordinarily pre-occupied
>with troubleshooting a tripping generator problem in a Beechjet for
>the past few weeks. Thought I'd share some of the blood and gore
>with our friends on the List.
Fascinating Bob
thanks for sharing that
Graham,
still in England
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
For those interested in how well the Dynon unit performs, I will give my impressions
after using it for about 125 hours in a Thorp T-18. I bought the Dynon
unit to act as backup to my Bluemountain Avionics EFIS-One in the Velocity I'm
building. SInce I'm still a ways off from flying the Velocity and I had the
Thorp at the time, I decided to mount it in the Thorp for some VFR evaluation
of its performance. Overall, I was quite impressed with the performance of the
unit AS A BACKUP, but would not launch into the weather with it as my only attitude
reference (this was the original D-10 unit). The unit was quite stable
in normal IFR flight (minor stepping in attitude as I maneuvered) and would
serve just fine to perform an approach to full-stop landing. The unit was actually
better than most of the backup attitude indicators I've had in the military
aircraft I fly. I subjected the Dynon to a long test involving many 360 degree
turns at progressively larger bank angles from 4
degrees
to 60 degrees (try your patience sometime with a 4 degree banked 360 degree turn!)
The Dynon performed flawlessly. However, on initial takeoff and chandelle
type maneuvers (such as a closed pull-up, or first turn out of traffic), the
unit had significant acceleration errors and frequently showed erroneous bank
angles. This may have been addressed in future Dynon revisions; but was enough
for me to swear off launching into the weather with only this unit as an attitude
reference. This is all in keeping with what the Dynon folks are advertising
as they say it is not intended for sole-source IFR flight. They have built
a great little unit that I would trust for recovery and have used for several
long night flights on moonless nights.
Dan Fritz
---------------------------------
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: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 12, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Paul Messinger wrote:
> You may have a point as I do not think the regulator latched on unless
> the
> alternator is producing voltage above the battery alone voltage.
It doesn't actually have to reach battery voltage level to turn on.
The internally-regulated alternator 'bootstraps' itself into the on
state. The regulator needs sufficient excitation to generate enough
field current to activate the regulator. This can happen two ways: from
the idiot light circuit or from the residual magnetism in the armature.
When the idiot light is hooked up it provides just enough current to
activate the regulator and provide a tiny field current (limited by the
idiot lamp current). This is enough to begin to produce output in the
unloaded stator. When the voltage rises high enough the diode trio
conducts and provides power to the regulator independent of the idiot
light circuit. As more current becomes available for the regulator to
deliver to the field the greater power is available at the B+ terminal.
Once it gets to that point the current is no longer needed from the
idiot light circuit and the regulator stops drawing current from there.
The idiot light then goes out.
Most internally regulated alternators are self-exciting and don't need
the idiot-light circuit. The residual magnetism in the armature is
sufficient to produce enough power in the stator to power up the
regulator. The regulator dumps that current into the field which
produces more output. This process of positive feedback continues until
the alternator is totally on. The only problem with this process is
that you may have to spin the alternator up to a higher RPM to get this
process to begin. Once on the regulator gets its power from the diode
trio and you can't turn it off until you stop rotating the alternator.
Some IR alternators have a separate input to provide initial excitation
from the battery that is independent of the idiot-light circuit. In
that case you just need to provide battery voltage on this terminal to
provide the initial excitation to get the alternator to 'turn on' at
low RPM. Once on this excitation is no longer needed and the alternator
remains on until it stops rotating.
If you want to operate an IR alternator as if it were an
externally-regulated alternator, remove the diode trio and provide a
lead from the battery bus to the input of the regulator. Now you can
turn the alternator on and off just by controlling power on this lead.
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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2005 4:24:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu writes:
They also don't have to add ground facilities to an airport
to give it a decent WAAS GPS approach, so should be cheaper to
add ILS-like approaches to many airports for the cost of
a single ILS installation at a single airport.
Good Evening DJ,
That sounds good, but it doesn't work out well in practice. Getting down to
two hundred feet above the ground and then trying to find that average small
airport runway just doesn't work. Part and parcel of an ILS, or an ILS loo
kalike guided by GPS, is the approach light system.
Without the approach lights, there is no way you can have an approach that
only requires one half mile visibility. Without such lighting, the visibility
requirement is generally a minimum of one mile.
So far so good.
Let us suppose that the powers that be decide to draw an approach to Podunk
Runway 30 that has nothing more than medium intensity runway lighting. Let's
even say there are no obstacles in either the approach path or the departure
path. It is not at all unlikely that a DH of 300 feet would be established.
At three hundred feet on a three degrees glide path, the airplane would be
almost one mile from the runway. If the ceiling is at three hundred feet, that
means the pilot has one or two seconds to locate the runway and transition
to a visual landing for that last mile.
How good a chance do you think the average transient pilot would have of
seeing that runway?
I think that pilot would have much better chance of making a successful
approach and landing if there was an MDA at four hundred feet and the visibility
requirement was one mile.
The pilot could descend to four hundred feet. He/she could then maintain
level flight at that altitude until the runway was absolutely in sight. If the
aircraft was then too close to the airport to land straight in, it would be
duck soup to circle and land from a nice one eighty side approach. Much
easier than trying to dive down and land on a suddenly appearing runway.
Incidentally, if that airport truly does have absolutely no obstacles
nearby, the lowest possible circling MDA could be three hundred feet. Circling
at
three hundred feet can be done safely, but it need to be trained for and such
training is rarely, if ever, given.
While such a low circling minima is possible, I know of none that are.
Incidentally, the FAA has recently added the circling approach to the list
of things that are to be accomplished on an Instrument Competency Check.
I think that is great idea.
All of the emphasis on shooting ILS and ILS lookalike approaches have meant
that very few folks have any idea of the procedures required to safely and
efficiently execute circling approaches in minimum weather conditions.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: GMC <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
Some folks seem to think an Avionics Master (toggle) Switch is a bad idea
because it might be a single failure point that has a lot of important stuff
attached, I have never considered this to be a risk.
Never having had a switch fail my question would be, when do switches fail,
during the activation cycle (ON/OFF) or will a switch that is supplying
power suddenly fail open? If switches normally fail during
activation/deactivation this would not normally cause a in-flight failure.
It seems to me that a bigger problem would be a master switch that is slowly
failing with burned contacts. Am I wrong in assuming a slowly failing switch
will be running hot and will be detected when I run my hand along the back
of my switch bank as I occasionally do after a flight?
Do not archive.
George in Langley BC
6A Flying
7A fuel tanks
Message 23
| 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: avionics master |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:12:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
fvalarm@rapidnet.net writes:
How about a double pole master avionics switch with both poles wired in
parellel to accomplish redundancy.
Bevan
RV7A fuse
That still leaves you with a single point failure item: The mechanics of the
single switch.
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
Message 24
| 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: ultraviolet light dimmers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 16, 2005, at 1:10 PM, Kenneth Melvin wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
> <melvinke@direcway.com>
>
> If you wish to quibble, I can tell you from personal experience that
> the
> flourescence in the AT6 and P51 Mustang dials (radium)was insignificant
> unless activated by the UV cockpit lamps.
I wasn't quibbling. I was pointing out that some instruments had
Radium/florescent paint and some had florescent-only paint (no Radium).
The US stopped using Radium paint in the early '50s as I recall. Many
WW-II vintage instruments are classified as radioactive waste and
cannot be worked on by instrument shops because of the Radium in their
markings.
I know that the Radium paint doesn't glow brightly without the UV
lights but it does glow and is readily readable in the dark when your
eyes become dark-adapted even without the excitation of the UV light. I
had an airplane with Radium-painted instruments and cockpit control
markings and UV lighting.
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 25
| 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: ultraviolet light dimmers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 16, 2005, at 2:00 PM, cgalley wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> I have a "radium" dial altimeter sitting on my desk. I have taken it
> into a
> pitch black room and I can't see anything. It is a ware surplus gage
> that
> came from the Bellanca factory in 1948. Still works fine and was built
> in
> 1943 by C.G. Conn a "real" instrument maker. says it is certified to
> 50,000
> feet and has white alternated with green numerals on the dial.
If there is no discernible glow when in a dark room after your eyes are
dark-adapted then the paint is probably Radium-free. A geiger counter
or other detector of alpha particles will tell you but you may have to
remove the glass face as glass will stop alpha particles. You can get
florescent instrument markings without Radium. I suspect some WW-II
instruments were so painted.
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 26
| 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: ultraviolet light dimmers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 16, 2005, at 4:08 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Just to quibble a bit, It All Depends on how old the instruments are,
> or
> were.
Radium-226, the material used in instrument markings, has a half-life
of 1600 years. If the instrument faces were painted with florescent
paint containing Radium, they would still be glowing about 97% as
brightly now as when they were made 60 years ago.
Nowadays Tritium (H3) is used for glow-in-the-dark marking on gun
sights and wristwatches. It has a half-life of 12.3 years so it does
indeed get noticeably dimmer with time.
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 27
| 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: | Turn and Push Knob |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello aeroelectric-list,
I'm looking for a high-quality turn and push switch. The turn
function will scroll through a series of menu items and the push
will select that function.
Any suggestions from anyone who has found a good component?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
Message 28
| 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: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Interesting, but you are not looking at the Jap alternators I have
experience with, which are wired somewhat differently. They REQUIRE the
external power on to start and then can NOT be turned off. Also they have a
direct connection from the "B" lead to the regulator. The number of diodes
and configuration vary but the ND, HI, and MI brands I have looked at, but
all have direct internal connection to the "B" lead and no diodes in line
etc.to the reg power. Thus its not the diodes you need to cut its the direct
"B" lead connection and then also bring out the REG power lead in addition
to needing the ON lead and in some cases the idiot light is an essential
part of the circuit.
Your point is important as EVERY brand and various models within a brand are
somewhat different. USA brands are quite different (at least in those I have
looked at) from the Jap brands.
ALL the more reason to forget internally regulated alternators and use an
external regulator.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
> On Jan 12, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Paul Messinger wrote:
> > You may have a point as I do not think the regulator latched on unless
> > the
> > alternator is producing voltage above the battery alone voltage.
>
> It doesn't actually have to reach battery voltage level to turn on.
>
> The internally-regulated alternator 'bootstraps' itself into the on
> state. The regulator needs sufficient excitation to generate enough
> field current to activate the regulator. This can happen two ways: from
> the idiot light circuit or from the residual magnetism in the armature.
>
> When the idiot light is hooked up it provides just enough current to
> activate the regulator and provide a tiny field current (limited by the
> idiot lamp current). This is enough to begin to produce output in the
> unloaded stator. When the voltage rises high enough the diode trio
> conducts and provides power to the regulator independent of the idiot
> light circuit. As more current becomes available for the regulator to
> deliver to the field the greater power is available at the B+ terminal.
> Once it gets to that point the current is no longer needed from the
> idiot light circuit and the regulator stops drawing current from there.
> The idiot light then goes out.
>
> Most internally regulated alternators are self-exciting and don't need
> the idiot-light circuit. The residual magnetism in the armature is
> sufficient to produce enough power in the stator to power up the
> regulator. The regulator dumps that current into the field which
> produces more output. This process of positive feedback continues until
> the alternator is totally on. The only problem with this process is
> that you may have to spin the alternator up to a higher RPM to get this
> process to begin. Once on the regulator gets its power from the diode
> trio and you can't turn it off until you stop rotating the alternator.
>
> Some IR alternators have a separate input to provide initial excitation
> from the battery that is independent of the idiot-light circuit. In
> that case you just need to provide battery voltage on this terminal to
> provide the initial excitation to get the alternator to 'turn on' at
> low RPM. Once on this excitation is no longer needed and the alternator
> remains on until it stops rotating.
>
> If you want to operate an IR alternator as if it were an
> externally-regulated alternator, remove the diode trio and provide a
> lead from the battery bus to the input of the regulator. Now you can
> turn the alternator on and off just by controlling power on this lead.
>
> 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 29
| 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: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 16, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
> One reason I can think of is that ILS requires
> ground facilities, and GPS does not. In theory, maintaining
> the GPS system is cheaper in the long run than maintaining
> all of the ground installations of ILS across the country.
I am not sure that is true. As I recall, it was costing about $40M each
for the LORAN and VOR/DME systems per year. GPS maintenance was over
$2B per year. Big difference. I can't imagine that the ILS systems cost
that much more.
> They also don't have to add ground facilities to an airport
> to give it a decent WAAS GPS approach, so should be cheaper to
> add ILS-like approaches to many airports for the cost of
> a single ILS installation at a single airport.
The key point is, once you have paid for the GPS system, you may as
well use it. OTOH, it ain't cheap.
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 30
| 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: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
if switch failure is still an issue for airplanes operated at the relatively low
frequency of most recreational GA aircraft then why not just go ahead and replace
the switch every 5 years or something and not worry about it.
Anyone on the list actually had a toggle switch fail on a GA aircraft?
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: GMC
>
>
> Some folks seem to think an Avionics Master (toggle) Switch is a bad idea
> because it might be a single failure point that has a lot of important stuff
> attached, I have never considered this to be a risk.
>
> Never having had a switch fail my question would be, when do switches fail,
> during the activation cycle (ON/OFF) or will a switch that is supplying
> power suddenly fail open? If switches normally fail during
> activation/deactivation this would not normally cause a in-flight failure.
>
> It seems to me that a bigger problem would be a master switch that is slowly
> failing with burned contacts. Am I wrong in assuming a slowly failing switch
> will be running hot and will be detected when I run my hand along the back
> of my switch bank as I occasionally do after a flight?
>
> Do not archive.
>
> George in Langley BC
> 6A Flying
> 7A fuel tanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
ifswitch failure is still anissue for airplanes operated at the relatively low
frequency of most recreational GA aircraft then why not just go ahead and replace
the switch every 5 years or something and not worry about it.
Anyone on the list actually had a toggle switch fail on a GA aircraft?
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: GMC <GMCNUTT@SHAW.CA>
Some folks seem to think an Avionics Master (toggle) Switch is a bad idea
because it might be a single failure point that has a lot of important stuff
attached, I have never considered this to be a risk.
Never having had a switch fail my question would be, when do switches fail,
during the activation cycle (ON/OFF) or will a switch that is supplying
power suddenly fail open? If switches normally fail during
activation/deactivation this would not normally cause a in-flight failure.
It seems to me that a bigger problem would be a master switch that is slowly
failing with burned contacts. Am I wrong in assuming a slowly failing switch
will be run
ning hot and will be detected when I run my hand along the back
of my switch bank as I occasionally do after a flight?
Do not archive.
George in Langley BC
6A Flying
7A fuel tanks
_-
= 7-Day Browse: http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
Message 31
| 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: avionics master |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sam Chambers" <schamber@glasgow-ky.com>
Doesn't provide mechanical redundancy. See Aeroelectric Connection articles
to determine if you really want/need an avionics master.
Sam Chambers
Long-EZ N775AM
EAA Tech & Flt Advisor
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: avionics master
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
> How about a double pole master avionics switch with both poles wired in
parellel to accomplish redundancy.
>
> Bevan
> RV7A fuse
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Logan [SMTP:Rob@logan.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: avionics master
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Logan <Rob@Logan.com>
>
>
> there are some items that don't have power buttons
> and one doesn't want on when you are trying to start
> the plane... in my case
> http://rob.com/lancair/Others/woody/2005.01/mahar-gp4-03-011205.pdf
> things like:
>
> FPD
> MFD
> AHRS
> T&B
> ALTRAK
> XPNDR
> ENCODER
> WSI
> WX500
>
> so this is a perfect case for an avionics master.. as much
> as I hid in the lancair world http://lancair.net/lists/lml/
> I must admit to having heard of this group and its distain for
> the avionics master switch... after some research it seemed
> to focus on "single point of failure" of the switch or relay
> feed. so what about two potter & brumfield switch/breakers
> to feed the avionics buss bar? this way either could feed
> the bar in the event the first failed. wouldn't that solve
> the single failure point and remove 9 switches for each
> thing on the avionics buss?
>
> Rob
>
>
Message 32
| 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: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> That sounds good, but it doesn't work out well in practice. Getting down to
> two hundred feet above the ground and then trying to find that average small
> airport runway just doesn't work. Part and parcel of an ILS, or an ILS loo
> kalike guided by GPS, is the approach light system.
Hi Bob,
I'm not instrument rated yet, so take this
for what it might not be worth... :-)
There are bunches of smaller airports
that don't have any approach, or at best an
NDB approach. An ILS-like approach with
WAAS, even if it has higher minimums, would
seem to be an improvement for a lot of
these airports. No additional ground facilities
would have to be added. If there is some
extra $$$, adding the extra lights to lower
the minimums would be great, and still a lot
cheaper since you don't have to add the
ground radio ILS equipment. IMHO the positives
of WAAS far outweigh any negatives that I can
think of.
GPS WAAS, TIS, ADS-B, in-flight weather,
in-flight terrain, etc., are revolutionizing
the way we think of IFR, IMHO.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
Message 33
| 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: Benford2@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2005 1:24:30 PM Mountain Standard Time,
cjensen@dts9000.com writes:
> I would think they'd want to focus on
> replacing/supplementing non-precision approaches with LNAV/VNAV instead of
> investing their time...and our money...in providing redundant service at
> aerodromes that already have ILS. I'm sure there's a logical explanation
This comes from the same government that has us 7+ TRILLION in debt. The FAA
has failed in the computer modernization, and just this week the news
announced the 175 million FBI system to cross check info was a complete failure.
My
thoughts are to investigate all option, test all the systems and make a
"logical" decision to fly behind a navagation source you feel comfortable with.
IMHO
the GPS system is pretty hard to beat unless it gets disabled by a offshore
threat or some other malfunction. When that happens all hell will breakout...
Ben Haas N801BH
Message 34
| 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: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> I am not sure that is true. As I recall, it was costing about $40M each
> for the LORAN and VOR/DME systems per year. GPS maintenance was over
> $2B per year. Big difference. I can't imagine that the ILS systems cost
> that much more.
Hi Brian,
I don't have any reports or anything to refer to,
but I remember reading some time ago that this was one of the selling
points for them moving towards it. The GPS system is
maintained to serve multiple uses, not just aviation, so
the overall cost to aviation of GPS is cheaper than the
ILS/VOR/NDB cost times the number of installations at/near airports.
I'm sure someone on the list probably has a reference
and can show some actual numbers. I could be completely
in the dark about this.
I consider the Garmin 295 handheld GPS one of the best
investments I've ever made in aviation equipment. It is just
so completely more powerful, flexible and far easier for me to use
than the VOR installed in my panel for VFR usage. I always know
exactly where I am, especially in these days of
location paranoia TFR-hell.
-Dj
do not archive
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
Message 35
| 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: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Seems the numbers I heard was that ONE satellite was the cost of ONE ILS
approach. There are only about 25 satellites but the are many more ILS
approaches. there are at least 2 at our airport alone.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
> On Jan 16, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> > One reason I can think of is that ILS requires
> > ground facilities, and GPS does not. In theory, maintaining
> > the GPS system is cheaper in the long run than maintaining
> > all of the ground installations of ILS across the country.
>
> I am not sure that is true. As I recall, it was costing about $40M each
> for the LORAN and VOR/DME systems per year. GPS maintenance was over
> $2B per year. Big difference. I can't imagine that the ILS systems cost
> that much more.
>
> > They also don't have to add ground facilities to an airport
> > to give it a decent WAAS GPS approach, so should be cheaper to
> > add ILS-like approaches to many airports for the cost of
> > a single ILS installation at a single airport.
>
> The key point is, once you have paid for the GPS system, you may as
> well use it. OTOH, it ain't cheap.
>
> 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 36
| 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: avionics master |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
For what it's worth, I have had a switch suddenly go open for no
apparent reason (while it was on and supplying power). The failure was
permanent - it would no longer turn on even though it would physically
toggle from off to on and back.
However, I would say that this is not the typical way for a switch to
fail. Other switches I have had fail do so as they are turned on and
fail to actually make contact. If the switch is used within its rating,
having the contacts go bad is very unusual. The more likely is a
mechanical failure.
Dick Tasker
GMC wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: GMC <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
>
>
>Some folks seem to think an Avionics Master (toggle) Switch is a bad idea
>because it might be a single failure point that has a lot of important stuff
>attached, I have never considered this to be a risk.
>
>Never having had a switch fail my question would be, when do switches fail,
>during the activation cycle (ON/OFF) or will a switch that is supplying
>power suddenly fail open? If switches normally fail during
>activation/deactivation this would not normally cause a in-flight failure.
>
>It seems to me that a bigger problem would be a master switch that is slowly
>failing with burned contacts. Am I wrong in assuming a slowly failing switch
>will be running hot and will be detected when I run my hand along the back
>of my switch bank as I occasionally do after a flight?
>
>Do not archive.
>
>George in Langley BC
>6A Flying
>7A fuel tanks
>
>
>
>
Message 37
| 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: avionics master |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
And the mechanics are the more likely to fail if the contacts are used
within their ratings.
Dick Tasker
KITFOXZ@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:12:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>fvalarm@rapidnet.net writes:
>
>How about a double pole master avionics switch with both poles wired in
>parellel to accomplish redundancy.
>
>Bevan
>RV7A fuse
>
>
>That still leaves you with a single point failure item: The mechanics of the
>single switch.
>
>John P. Marzluf
>Columbus, Ohio
>Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
>
>
>
>
Message 38
| 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: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
>
>For those interested in how well the Dynon unit performs, I will
>give my impressions after using it for about 125 hours in a Thorp
>T-18. I bought the Dynon unit to act as backup to my Bluemountain
>Avionics EFIS-One in the Velocity I'm building. SInce I'm still a
>ways off from flying the Velocity and I had the Thorp at the time, I
>decided to mount it in the Thorp for some VFR evaluation of its
>performance. Overall, I was quite impressed with the performance of
>the unit AS A BACKUP, but would not launch into the weather with it
>as my only attitude reference (this was the original D-10 unit).
>The unit was quite stable in normal IFR flight (minor stepping in
>attitude as I maneuvered) and would serve just fine to perform an
>approach to full-stop landing. The unit was actually better than
>most of the backup attitude indicators I've had in the military
>aircraft I fly. I subjected the Dynon to a long test involving many
>360 degree turns at progressively larger bank angles from 4
> degrees
> to 60 degrees (try your patience sometime with a 4 degree banked
>360 degree turn!) The Dynon performed flawlessly. However, on
>initial takeoff and chandelle type maneuvers (such as a closed
>pull-up, or first turn out of traffic), the unit had significant
>acceleration errors and frequently showed erroneous bank angles.
>This may have been addressed in future Dynon revisions; but was
>enough for me to swear off launching into the weather with only this
>unit as an attitude reference. This is all in keeping with what the
>Dynon folks are advertising as they say it is not intended for
>sole-source IFR flight. They have built a great little unit that I
>would trust for recovery and have used for several long night
>flights on moonless nights.
>
>Dan Fritz
>
>
I'd like to confirm one thing - did you have the Dynon EFIS connected
to the pitot and static systems? The reason I ask is that I
understand that they use the airspeed input to partially correct for
acceleration errors. The unit might behave strangely if it saw
accelerations but no airspeed.
Thanks for the Dynon report.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
Message 39
| 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: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Chuck -
Where did you install your antenna?
What kind of airplane is the CNX-80 installed in.
We are about to install our antenna and your experience might be very
helpful and timely.
Thanks,
John Schroeder
Lancair ES
> Only another single data point but I've been flying the CNX80 (ne Garmin
> 480) with WAAS turned on and have yet to see a loss of signal, loss of
> position or failure of RAIM to be sat for the approach. I can't imagine
> that I'm favored with particularly good GPS service in Tennessee. Why
> would
> GPS be different then everything else in TN?
Message 40
| 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: avionics master |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2005 6:48:14 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gmcnutt@shaw.ca writes:
It seems to me that a bigger problem would be a master switch that is slowly
failing with burned contacts. Am I wrong in assuming a slowly failing switch
will be running hot and will be detected when I run my hand along the back
of my switch bank as I occasionally do after a flight?
Do not archive.
Good Evening George in Langley BC,
While the folks here generally don't like Master Avionics Switches, one
popular method is the one used by Beechcraft on their production airplanes. They
use a master relay or contactor which is in the normally closed position.
When the master switch is turned "off", it is actually closed and sends power
to the contactor coil so as to open the circuit. The theory being that if
the power to the switch fails, the contactor will fall to the closed position
and power the Avionics Buss.
My spam can came with such an arrangement and it has served me well for lo
these many years.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 41
| 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: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2005 9:11:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu writes:
An ILS-like approach with
WAAS, even if it has higher minimums, would
seem to be an improvement for a lot of
these airports.
Good Evening DJ,
There is no question that the ILS lookalike is easier to fly. The problem
is that when the weather is bad, you are going to have to miss an approach
that could be safely conducted using a standard level flight segment non
precision approach.
It is my opinion that the vertically navigated approaches should be built,
but they should also include a non precision approach if that approach will
allow lower minima.
We shoot approaches in bad weather to make a safe landing at an airport, not
just to practice our flying skills.
At airports located in high obstacle fields, the lowest minima will almost
always be via a non precision level flight segment approach. In the situation
where the required MDA is at six hundred feet or more, the circling approach
is almost always going to allow a successful approach in conditions where a
straight in approach would result in a miss.
I don't think there is anyone, me included, who does not prefer the ILS look
alike approach, but if the intent is to land rather than to just execute the
approach, the NPA should be available as well as the vertically guided one.
In addition to just providing that NPA, it should be built using the WAAS
accuracy instead of the VOR accuracy currently being used.
If that is done, the WAAS will be doing what it is capable of doing.
Providing us with a safe method of operating in challenging weather conditions.
Some folks never want to shoot approaches at all. They have an instrument
rating to allow easier and safer enroute flight. Nothing wrong with that.
Other folks regularly add a couple of hundred feet to every published
minima. That is also a fine thing to do. No one should fly in any weather that
does not feel comfortable to them.
Those who do not feel qualified to execute the approaches that will allow
the lowest minima should establish the minima they are comfortable with and
divert to an alternate if minimum conditions exist.
All of those options are appropriate, but for those of us who do have the
training and equipment to execute approaches to the lowest minimums authorized,
we should have such approaches available. The FAA regulations allow such
approaches to be built, but they won't be built if we do not ask for them.
Unfortunately, very few instructors are teaching the fine points of non
precision approaches, let alone the quirks and twists required for safe and
efficient circling approaches. The regulations allow them and they can be safely
conducted if the pilot is properly trained and maintains adequate
proficiency. Isn't that true of every thing we do with airplanes?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 42
| 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: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2005 9:11:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu writes:
An ILS-like approach with
WAAS, even if it has higher minimums, would
seem to be an improvement for a lot of
these airports.
Good Evening DJ,
There is no question that the ILS lookalike is easier to fly. The problem
is that when the weather is bad, you are going to have to miss an approach
that could be safely conducted using a standard level flight segment non
precision approach.
It is my opinion that the vertically navigated approaches should be built,
but they should also include a non precision approach if that approach will
allow lower minima.
We shoot approaches in bad weather to make a safe landing at an airport, not
just to practice our flying skills.
At airports located in high obstacle fields, the lowest minima will almost
always be via a non precision level flight segment approach. In the situation
where the required MDA is at six hundred feet or more, the circling approach
is almost always going to allow a successful approach in conditions where a
straight in approach would result in a miss.
I don't think there is anyone, me included, who does not prefer the ILS look
alike approach, but if the intent is to land rather than to just execute the
approach, the NPA should be available as well as the vertically guided one.
In addition to just providing that NPA, it should be built using the WAAS
accuracy instead of the VOR accuracy currently being used.
If that is done, the WAAS will be doing what it is capable of doing.
Providing us with a safe method of operating in challenging weather conditions.
Some folks never want to shoot approaches at all. They have an instrument
rating to allow easier and safer enroute flight. Nothing wrong with that.
Other folks regularly add a couple of hundred feet to every published
minima. That is also a fine thing to do. No one should fly in any weather that
does not feel comfortable to them.
Those who do not feel qualified to execute the approaches that will allow
the lowest minima should establish the minima they are comfortable with and
divert to an alternate if minimum conditions exist.
All of those options are appropriate, but for those of us who do have the
training and equipment to execute approaches to the lowest minimums authorized,
we should have such approaches available. The FAA regulations allow such
approaches to be built, but they won't be built if we do not ask for them.
Unfortunately, very few instructors are teaching the fine points of non
precision approaches, let alone the quirks and twists required for safe and
efficient circling approaches. The regulations allow them and they can be safely
conducted if the pilot is properly trained and maintains adequate
proficiency. Isn't that true of every thing we do with airplanes?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 43
| 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: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> It is my opinion that the vertically navigated approaches should be
> built, but they should also include a non precision approach if that
> approach will allow lower minima.
Oh, definitely! I wasn't trying to infer otherwise, although
I can see where you might have gotten that impression from my posts.
> In addition to just providing that NPA, it should be built using the
> WAAS accuracy instead of the VOR accuracy currently being used.
I agree - this would make complete and logical sense.
Now having said that, how often does our gov't make sense??? *wink*
In fact, with WAAS, it might even be possible for the
GPS to assist with the step-down points in the NPA approach,
which is something that the current non-WAAS GPS approaches
do not (at least mine doesn't). It would be nice to have the GPS
tell you to descend to X number of feet at the appropriate point during
the approach. Should be fairly easy to implement this, from a technical
perspective. I always wondered why they didn't do this anyways
with regular GPS approaches. The info is in the database, all they
have to do is print it up on the screen at the appropriate time.
-Dj
do not archive
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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! --
|