---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 10/19/05: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:15:15 AM PST US From: Christopher Stone Subject: AeroElectric-List: emergency battery disconnect --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:15:15 AM PST US From: "Pete Howell" Subject: AeroElectric-List: AK-350 Harness --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pete Howell" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:37:47 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 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. <> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:05 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:32:59 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." 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: 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. <> ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:46:32 AM PST US From: craig@craigsteffen.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:00:12 AM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:00:12 AM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:13:32 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Diplexer splitter From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:23:21 PM PST US From: "Bob C. " Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diplexer splitter --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " 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) wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:23:21 PM PST US From: Richard Dudley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diplexer splitter --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Dudley 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)" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:35:33 PM PST US From: "Jim Baker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:45:17 PM PST US From: "Frank Stringham" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" I would like a copy of the MS word Table Frank @ SGU and SLC fstringham@hotmail.com >From: >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >To: >Subject: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting Requirements >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:36:28 -0400 > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >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. > >< >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:45:06 PM PST US From: "Matt & Jo" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Connectors for AT-50A --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt & Jo" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:12:19 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Amateur Built Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:26:45 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VFR Lighting --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:17:01 PM PST US From: wfinnell@earthlink.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: 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. <>