Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:15 AM - emergency battery disconnect (Christopher Stone)
2. 06:15 AM - AK-350 Harness (Pete Howell)
3. 06:37 AM - VFR Lighting Requirements ()
4. 07:08 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 07:32 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
6. 08:46 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements (craig@craigsteffen.net)
7. 09:00 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements (Guy Buchanan)
8. 09:00 AM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements (Guy Buchanan)
9. 12:13 PM - Diplexer splitter (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
10. 02:23 PM - Re: Diplexer splitter (Bob C.)
11. 02:23 PM - Re: Diplexer splitter (Richard Dudley)
12. 03:35 PM - Re: VFR Lighting (Jim Baker)
13. 03:45 PM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements (Frank Stringham)
14. 07:45 PM - Connectors for AT-50A (Matt & Jo)
15. 08:12 PM - Amateur Built Requirements ()
16. 09:26 PM - Re: VFR Lighting (Guy Buchanan)
17. 10:17 PM - Re: VFR Lighting Requirements (wfinnell@earthlink.net)
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 |
|
Subject: | emergency battery disconnect |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone <rv8iator@earthlink.net>
I came across this device:
http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/DelphiConnectionSystems/Battery_Disconnect_Safety_Device/25086/1
In the course of other research.
This disconnect could be triggered by an accelerometer to force a battery disconnect
in the event of (heaven forbid) a crash.
It could also be used to disconnect a runaway IR alternator. Maybe in series with
the contactor as a means of positively taking the alternator off line?
Maybe this will spark some ideas!?
I am in no way affiliated with Delphi.
Chris Stone
Newberg, OR
RV-8 x2
Electric done on no. 1
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Hello - I have a factory AK-350 harness that has all the right wire
colors in it, but other than the power and ground leads, they are not
connected to the right pins in the encoder 15 pin connector (per the
label on the encoder). I am planning on removing and re inserting
pins in the correct location (I wired the Transponder pins based on
the wire colors) Is this the right approach or am I missing
something? Has any one else found a harness like this miswired from
the factory?
Thnaks - Pete
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: | VFR Lighting Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
10/19/2005
Hello Old Bob and Guy, The subject of equipment and instrument requirements
for amateur built experimental aircraft is a bit confusing because it is
covered by three different sources: The FAR's, The aircraft Operating
Limitations, and FAA policy.
As Old Bob says, FAR Sec 91.205 does not apply to amateur built experimental
aircraft, all of which receive special category airworthiness certificates.
But all of those aircraft will have the following words in their Operating
Limitations "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless
appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." The entire
Operating Limitations and these words are part of the aircraft's
airworthiness certificate.
The FAA policy is that if you operate your amateur built aircraft VFR day
only none of FAR 91.205 applies -- I repeat, NONE. If you operate it at VFR
at night then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (c) applies. If you operate it
IFR day only then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (d) applies. If you
operate it night IFR then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), (c), and (d) applies.
But there are some other gotchas, some a bit subtle. I have put all of this
in a MS Word table and will be sending a copy to Old Bob and Guy by
attachment to a separate email. If anyone else would like a copy of this
table please email me. If Bob Nuckolls or someone else has a web site where
I could post this table I would appreciate it. This subject comes up fairly
frequently and is widely misunderstood.
OC
PS: Dick Koehler has a great article on this subject starting on page 62 of
the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation. Unfortunately the table included on
page 68 is for standard category aircraft and interpretation is required to
determine what is required for amateur built experimental aircraft. My table
has already done that interpretation. I welcome questions on this subject.
PPS: Guy, Please pass this email and my table on to the San Diego FSDO
people for their education. Not all FAA people are familiar with amateur
built experimental aircraft requirements.
<<AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/18/2005 1:58:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bnn@nethere.com writes:
All, Currently my day VFR Kitfox has no lights. It appears I am
required to run an anti-collision light at a minimum. (FAR 91.205b11) Does
this sound correct? Does anyone have a recommendation for a minimalist
anti-collision light system? Thank you in advance,
Good Morning Guy,
I may be stepping into an area about which I know nothing, but isn't your
Kit Fox an experimental airplane?
The way I read the FAR quoted is that those regulations apply to Standard
Category Airplanes.
Is there something in the experimental regulations that requires you to
comply with the provisions noted?
Happy Skies, Old Bob>>
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/19/2005 8:53:35 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb@cox.net writes:
Hello Old Bob and Guy, The subject of equipment and instrument requirements
for amateur built experimental aircraft is a bit confusing because it is
covered by three different sources: The FAR's, The aircraft Operating
Limitations, and FAA policy.
Thank You OC,
That "policy" situation does cover a multitude of sins, doesn't it?
I have been shown a policy/interpretations book by my supervising inspector
and it was about four times the thickness of the FARs it covered. It is no
wonder we poor souls who try to use the FARs find the FAA interpretations so
hard to fathom.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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: | VFR Lighting Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
The thing to remember on these type of issues is that just because we
are not required to do something, does it make safety sense to do it. At
an uncontrolled airport you are not required to announce your position
but you do because it decreases the chance of a mid-air collision. So
with this being said would not a strobe or rotating beacon also aid in
being scene thus reducing the likely hood of a collision?
Come on guys, I am assuming your kit fox already has an electrical
system, and for the additional cost of putting a beacon on it is minimal
compared to if someone collides with you, and besides it makes you that
much safer. Do not just think of yourself in this case, it is also safer
for everyone around you. We have all been taught to see and be seen, and
anything that can aid in this is a valuable device. Flying is a risky
endeavor, and we all are able to mitigate that risk to an acceptable
level for each of us, but these types of things not only effect us, but
our fellow pilot. So yes in this case you are buying something to help
someone else out, and this is the best type of purchase to make when it
concerns someone else's safety.
My .02
Dan
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
10/19/2005
Hello Old Bob and Guy, The subject of equipment and instrument
requirements
for amateur built experimental aircraft is a bit confusing because it is
covered by three different sources: The FAR's, The aircraft Operating
Limitations, and FAA policy.
As Old Bob says, FAR Sec 91.205 does not apply to amateur built
experimental
aircraft, all of which receive special category airworthiness
certificates.
But all of those aircraft will have the following words in their
Operating
Limitations "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless
appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance
with
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." The
entire
Operating Limitations and these words are part of the aircraft's
airworthiness certificate.
The FAA policy is that if you operate your amateur built aircraft VFR
day
only none of FAR 91.205 applies -- I repeat, NONE. If you operate it at
VFR
at night then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (c) applies. If you
operate it
IFR day only then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (d) applies. If you
operate it night IFR then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), (c), and (d)
applies.
But there are some other gotchas, some a bit subtle. I have put all of
this
in a MS Word table and will be sending a copy to Old Bob and Guy by
attachment to a separate email. If anyone else would like a copy of this
table please email me. If Bob Nuckolls or someone else has a web site
where
I could post this table I would appreciate it. This subject comes up
fairly
frequently and is widely misunderstood.
OC
PS: Dick Koehler has a great article on this subject starting on page 62
of
the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation. Unfortunately the table included
on
page 68 is for standard category aircraft and interpretation is required
to
determine what is required for amateur built experimental aircraft. My
table
has already done that interpretation. I welcome questions on this
subject.
PPS: Guy, Please pass this email and my table on to the San Diego FSDO
people for their education. Not all FAA people are familiar with amateur
built experimental aircraft requirements.
<<AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/18/2005 1:58:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bnn@nethere.com writes:
All, Currently my day VFR Kitfox has no lights. It appears I am
required to run an anti-collision light at a minimum. (FAR 91.205b11)
Does
this sound correct? Does anyone have a recommendation for a minimalist
anti-collision light system? Thank you in advance,
Good Morning Guy,
I may be stepping into an area about which I know nothing, but isn't
your
Kit Fox an experimental airplane?
The way I read the FAR quoted is that those regulations apply to
Standard
Category Airplanes.
Is there something in the experimental regulations that requires you to
comply with the provisions noted?
Happy Skies, Old Bob>>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: craig@craigsteffen.net
> But there are some other gotchas, some a bit subtle. I have put all of this
> in a MS Word table and will be sending a copy to Old Bob and Guy by
> attachment to a separate email. If anyone else would like a copy of this
> table please email me.
I would like a copy of this document, if you wouldn't mind. Please send it to
craig@craigsteffen.net.
> If Bob Nuckolls or someone else has a web site where
> I could post this table I would appreciate it.
I have a web site at www.craigsteffen.net. I would be happy to post your
document there if you'd like.
Craig Steffen
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
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: | VFR Lighting Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 07:32 AM 10/19/2005, you wrote:
>So
>with this being said would not a strobe or rotating beacon also aid in
>being scene thus reducing the likely hood of a collision?
I hadn't thought so, so that was why I was questioning the requirement.
Certainly the rotating beacons don't improve visibility in the air, though
they might keep someone out of the prop on the ground. I can't think of
when I've picked up an aircraft during the day because of the strobes, so I
wonder about their visibility. Certainly there's not so much of a
difference that I feel compelled to wire my Kitfox for a full set of
strobes, at some cost in system complexity. I don't think a single strobe
is going to do much, even on the tip of the rudder. (Assuming I could get
it there on a completely built aircraft.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 06:36 AM 10/19/2005, you wrote:
>PPS: Guy, Please pass this email and my table on to the San Diego FSDO
>people for their education. Not all FAA people are familiar with amateur
>built experimental aircraft requirements.
I'll pass it along, but I certainly will refer all questions to you! ;->
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Diplexer splitter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Morning all,
Just been told I need a Diplexer splitter with the GNS430...Is this
true?...I know the SL30 had a diplexer built in so I was kinda expecting
the same thing with the GNS???
Secondly I was told I need a Commant CI-507...I assume a splitter is a
splitter so I don't need that specific make??
Thanks guys
Frank
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Diplexer splitter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
Frank,
I believe everything you said is more or less "true" . . . and you are
right there are a number of "diplexers" that will work . . . it looks like
the CI-507 would do the job but there are others with similar specs that
will work.
You could install a glide slope antenna and eliminate the need for the
diplexers but I'm installing a diplexers on mine.
Good Luck,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 Bldr - SE Iowa
On 10/19/05, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) <frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Morning all,
>
> Just been told I need a Diplexer splitter with the GNS430...Is this
> true?...I know the SL30 had a diplexer built in so I was kinda expecting
> the same thing with the GNS???
>
> Secondly I was told I need a Commant CI-507...I assume a splitter is a
> splitter so I don't need that specific make??
>
> Thanks guys
>
> Frank
>
>
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: Diplexer splitter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
Hi Frank,
1. You do need either separate antennas for VOR/LOC and Glide Slope or
a splitter for your GNS430.
2. The SL30 has the splitter built in.
3. I've been through a prolonged and painful process to couple the 430
and SL30 to a single VOR ("catswhisker) antenna, first with a "T" (as
recommended by the avionics supplier) with one leg going to the SL30 and
the other leg to a DM splitter to the 430. Neither VOR worked reliably.
Then, I replaced the"T" with a Comant C5120 VOR/GS splitter again with
one leg going to the DM splitter to the 430 and the other leg going to
the SL30. No improvement. My final solution was to add a wingtip VOR
antenna servicing the SL-30 and a Comant CI-507 to the 430 from the
original VOR antenna. I now have two working Nav/COMs that function on
VOR and ILS. It is possible that the DM splitter was at fault but I
have tired of doing the experiments with a flight per experiment with
all the combinations and permutations and I have a pragmatic solution.
Conclusion: The CI-507 does work as a splitter for the GNS430.
Hope this is some help.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A flying
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Morning all,
>
>Just been told I need a Diplexer splitter with the GNS430...Is this
>true?...I know the SL30 had a diplexer built in so I was kinda expecting
>the same thing with the GNS???
>
>Secondly I was told I need a Commant CI-507...I assume a splitter is a
>splitter so I don't need that specific make??
>
>Thanks guys
>
>Frank
>
>
>
>
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> On a more humorous note, I asked about the new AC 20-27
> requirement that the "Passenger Warning" be in 3/8" high type.
Devil's Advocate time.....where does the FAA define the term
placard...and where does it say it has to be a permanently/fixed
mounted item? And is this proposed? In place? I can't find it in
AC20-27F.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | VFR Lighting Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
I would like a copy of the MS word Table
Frank @ SGU and SLC fstringham@hotmail.com
>From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements
>Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:36:28 -0400
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>10/19/2005
>
>Hello Old Bob and Guy, The subject of equipment and instrument requirements
>for amateur built experimental aircraft is a bit confusing because it is
>covered by three different sources: The FAR's, The aircraft Operating
>Limitations, and FAA policy.
>
>As Old Bob says, FAR Sec 91.205 does not apply to amateur built
>experimental
>aircraft, all of which receive special category airworthiness certificates.
>But all of those aircraft will have the following words in their Operating
>Limitations "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless
>appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance
>with
>91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." The entire
>Operating Limitations and these words are part of the aircraft's
>airworthiness certificate.
>
>The FAA policy is that if you operate your amateur built aircraft VFR day
>only none of FAR 91.205 applies -- I repeat, NONE. If you operate it at VFR
>at night then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (c) applies. If you operate
>it
>IFR day only then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (d) applies. If you
>operate it night IFR then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), (c), and (d) applies.
>
>But there are some other gotchas, some a bit subtle. I have put all of this
>in a MS Word table and will be sending a copy to Old Bob and Guy by
>attachment to a separate email. If anyone else would like a copy of this
>table please email me. If Bob Nuckolls or someone else has a web site where
>I could post this table I would appreciate it. This subject comes up fairly
>frequently and is widely misunderstood.
>
>OC
>
>PS: Dick Koehler has a great article on this subject starting on page 62 of
>the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation. Unfortunately the table included on
>page 68 is for standard category aircraft and interpretation is required to
>determine what is required for amateur built experimental aircraft. My
>table
>has already done that interpretation. I welcome questions on this subject.
>
>PPS: Guy, Please pass this email and my table on to the San Diego FSDO
>people for their education. Not all FAA people are familiar with amateur
>built experimental aircraft requirements.
>
><<AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 10/18/2005 1:58:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>bnn@nethere.com writes:
>
>All, Currently my day VFR Kitfox has no lights. It appears I am
>required to run an anti-collision light at a minimum. (FAR 91.205b11) Does
>this sound correct? Does anyone have a recommendation for a minimalist
>anti-collision light system? Thank you in advance,
>
>Good Morning Guy,
>
>I may be stepping into an area about which I know nothing, but isn't your
>Kit Fox an experimental airplane?
>
>The way I read the FAR quoted is that those regulations apply to Standard
>Category Airplanes.
>
>Is there something in the experimental regulations that requires you to
>comply with the provisions noted?
>
>Happy Skies, Old Bob>>
>
>
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Connectors for AT-50A |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt & Jo" <archermj@swbell.net>
Hello all, I have an AT-50A transponder and try. But the tray is missing
the connector. Does anyone know are the connectors for KT-76A compatable
with the AT-50?
Thanks
Matt Archer
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: | Amateur Built Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
10/19/2005
Hello Fellow Builders, I invite your attention to the following two web
pages courtesy of Bob White.
http://www.rotarywiki.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Minimum+Requirements+for+Experimental+Aircraft
http://tinyurl.com/b6r6f
OC
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 03:34 PM 10/19/2005, you wrote:
>Devil's Advocate time.....where does the FAA define the term
>placard...and where does it say it has to be a permanently/fixed
>mounted item? And is this proposed? In place? I can't find it in
>AC20-27F.
You're absolutely right! I was looking at 20-27E, which was sent by the San
Diego FSDO two weeks ago. I guess they haven't heard of the 2003 revision!
Apparently the person I talked to was unaware that the 3/8" requirement had
been dropped as well.
Thanks for the heads-up!
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99.9% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: VFR Lighting Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: wfinnell@earthlink.net
-----Original Message-----
From: bakerocb@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
10/19/2005
Hello Old Bob and Guy, The subject of equipment and instrument requirements
for amateur built experimental aircraft is a bit confusing because it is
covered by three different sources: The FAR's, The aircraft Operating
Limitations, and FAA policy.
As Old Bob says, FAR Sec 91.205 does not apply to amateur built experimental
aircraft, all of which receive special category airworthiness certificates.
But all of those aircraft will have the following words in their Operating
Limitations "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless
appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." The entire
Operating Limitations and these words are part of the aircraft's
airworthiness certificate.
The FAA policy is that if you operate your amateur built aircraft VFR day
only none of FAR 91.205 applies -- I repeat, NONE. If you operate it at VFR
at night then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (c) applies. If you operate it
IFR day only then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), and (d) applies. If you
operate it night IFR then all of FAR 91.205 (a), (b), (c), and (d) applies.
But there are some other gotchas, some a bit subtle. I have put all of this
in a MS Word table and will be sending a copy to Old Bob and Guy by
attachment to a separate email. If anyone else would like a copy of this
table please email me. If Bob Nuckolls or someone else has a web site where
I could post this table I would appreciate it. This subject comes up fairly
frequently and is widely misunderstood.
OC
PS: Dick Koehler has a great article on this subject starting on page 62 of
the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation. Unfortunately the table included on
page 68 is for standard category aircraft and interpretation is required to
determine what is required for amateur built experimental aircraft. My table
has already done that interpretation. I welcome questions on this subject.
PPS: Guy, Please pass this email and my table on to the San Diego FSDO
people for their education. Not all FAA people are familiar with amateur
built experimental aircraft requirements.
<<AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/18/2005 1:58:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bnn@nethere.com writes:
All, Currently my day VFR Kitfox has no lights. It appears I am
required to run an anti-collision light at a minimum. (FAR 91.205b11) Does
this sound correct? Does anyone have a recommendation for a minimalist
anti-collision light system? Thank you in advance,
Good Morning Guy,
I may be stepping into an area about which I know nothing, but isn't your
Kit Fox an experimental airplane?
The way I read the FAR quoted is that those regulations apply to Standard
Category Airplanes.
Is there something in the experimental regulations that requires you to
comply with the provisions noted?
Happy Skies, Old Bob>>
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! --
|