---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 11/30/05: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:18 AM - Last "Official" Day To Make Your List Contribution!! (Matt Dralle) 2. 10:16 AM - Re: Garmin 300xl/KI-202 (BobsV35B@aol.com) 3. 11:37 AM - Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for yourcomments) () 4. 12:31 PM - Van's ND alternator failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 01:45 PM - Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C () 6. 03:02 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel (D Wysong) 7. 05:46 PM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (D Wysong) 8. 07:13 PM - Re: Should I use shielded wire for power/ground (CardinalNSB@aol.com) 9. 07:20 PM - Re: Engine cooling modifications (Speedy11@aol.com) 10. 07:40 PM - Re: Re: Should I use shielded wire for (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 07:42 PM - Re: Engine cooling modifications () 12. 08:52 PM - Re: Garmin 300XL and Database intent () 13. 09:34 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 300XL and Database intent (BobsV35B@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:18:15 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: AeroElectric-List: Last "Official" Day To Make Your List Contribution!! --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Listers, Well, its November 30th and that means three things... 1) Today I am officially 42 years old (sympathy is appreciated)! 2) It marks that last "official" day of the List Fund Raiser! 3) Its the last day I will be bugging everyone for a whole year! :-) If you use the Lists and enjoy the content and the no-advertising, no-spam, and no-censorship way in which they're run, please make a Contribution today to support their continued operation and upkeep. Your $20 or $30 goes a long way to further the List operation and keep the bills paid. A Lister wrote a funny message in the comments field of his Contribution that I thought summed things up pretty well: "Worth every penny and I'm a tightwad!" Thank you to everyone that has made a Contribution so far this year! It is greatly appreciated. Contributions: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Best regards, Matt Dralle List Administrator Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 10:16:09 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 300xl/KI-202 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning OC, Sorry for being so late in getting back, but things have been a bit hectic for us recently. The intent of the FAA is not always easy to discern, but I would put a slightly different emphasis on that than do you. They seem to write volumes and say very little. (I guess I do that as well). Also, C-129 did have a late 2003 rewrite of which I do not have a copy, so there may be some changes with which I am not familiar. I have not installed an IFR GPS since the spring of 2003 so my knowledge and discussion will concern the data available to me at that time. If conditions have materially changed since then, I would appreciate references thereto. Based on a fairly extensive reading of TSO C-129 and AC-20-138, I believe the FAA is quite clear that they intend for the operator of an IFR Approved GPS to use only data contained within the database for IFR navigation. They also spell out quite clearly how to determine if the data available is current and accurate data. In Appendix 2, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the AC 20-138 document, they suggest the following language be placed in the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement: "IFR en route and terminal navigation is prohibited unless the pilot verifies the currency of the data base or verifies each selected waypoint for accuracy by reference to current approved data." Paragraph 4 of the same section has the following suggested language: "Instrument approaches must be accomplished from the GPS equipment data base. The GPS equipment data base must incorporate the current update cycle". Language identical or very close to the suggested language has been in every FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement that I have ever read, except for supplements for the Apollo units that were approved after the fall of 1997. It was at an Oshkosh "Meet The Administrator" meeting in 1996 that I first heard of using the method of checking the data by checking publication dates and/or the Julian date. That thought was presented to the Administrator who said they would take it under advisement. By the fall of 1997, Apollo had managed to convince their controlling ACO that checking the dates met the intent of the AC-20-138 guidance. Since each individual flight manual supplement has to be individually approved by the local inspector via the local approval process, variances do occur. Some of the local inspectors did not like the guidance given in AC-20-138 and insisted that any unit they approved had to have a current data base at the time of use. The vast majority of the inspectors just used the language that each manufacturer had used when they got the original sets approved. A very few liked the Apollo 1997 style wording and were willing to adopt it for sets other than the Apollo units. I am personally aware of two folks who have King 89Bs with the Apollo wording used in their FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement. The intent of the FAA, in my opinion was, and still is, that the data being used must be current and that it must be retrieved from the database. The pilot is NOT allowed to self load the data. However, the FAA did provide a method whereby an out of date card could be used if a method was available to cross check that data against other current approved data. That provision was in the very first issue of the suggested supplement language and is found in every supplement I have read. While any action we take should be an action that we are willing to support at a hearing, I think there is very good data showing that the FAA did, and still does, allow any data available in the database to be used if it can be shown that the data is current. It is current data that controls the situation, not just a current data card. Such a provision was not considered by the FAA for the use of GPS in Lieu of ADF and DME. For that purpose, the FAA specifically says that only data from a current data card could be used. I was involved in that decision. It arose because the folks who wrote the "In Lieu Of" provisions, didn't find out about the Apollo method until just before the "In Lieu Of" provision was to be published. They had no gripe with the Apollo method, but that had not been what they had told the other departments of the FAA they were going to do. It was felt that if they went back to the rest of the FAA to change the language previously agreed to it would take many months, quite likely a year or more. I will have to admit to being the guilty party who caused the problem. The fellow who wrote the final language and was about to publish the interpretation in the AIM asked me if I would sooner have it published with the requirement for a current data card or wait for the self checking process to be cleared by all responsible parties. I asked that it be published with the restriction in the hope we could get it changed later. I was unable to develop enough interest within the AOPA and other alphabet groups to get it changed so that is why there is a discrepancy between what we need to do to use a GPS in lieu of ADF and DME and what is required to fly enroute or execute an approach. Things are not always as simple as they should be! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 11/28/2005 7:41:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb@cox.net writes: I think the intent of the FAA is very clear -- current data base is required for IFR operations -- and that an FAA ramp check inspector, an NTSB judge, and a jury of your peers would agree with the FAA intent. I don't think that anything that an amateur builder of an experimental aircraft wrote in his aircraft's AFM or supplement would convince them otherwise. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:37:59 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for yourcomments) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Thanks Dan for the comments. I agree that is another way to go and concern is understood. I would make one comment or clarification: "starter system failure cannot take out the avionics" With modern starters (ones with out Bendix drives) it is almost impossible that the starter would stick, remaining engaged or engage by itself. What skytec says: [I]Stuck firewall solenoids: "What about the Bendix? Maybe it stuck. Since Sky-Tec starters do not use mechanical Bendix drives to actuate the starter, this is actually nearly impossible for a Sky-Tec starter to keep itself engaged with the aircraft ring gear. Sky-Tec starters are electromechanically engaged therefore requiring voltage to engage the starter's drive pinion gear with the ring gear. Without voltage, the pinion simply cannot remain in the flywheel. A spring and a helical return will both force the drive pinion back out of the ring gear and into the rest position. If utilizing a Bendix starter, then yes, this very well may have caused the problem (and likely did - it is a very common failure mode of starter Bendix drives).[I] (ref http://www.skytecair.com/Cessna_Solenoids.htm) The concern of the battery cable shorting is also an issue that you addressed by retaining the FW starter solenoid. Other wise I think a wiring scheme that at least omits a BIG OLD master relay altogether seems to be a very viable way to wire the aircraft. George >Subject: Re: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for yourcomments) >From: "Dan Beadle" > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" > > >I like light. But I like safe. I think I will go with a starter >contactor with the big fuse down stream (a starter system failure >cannot take out the avionics). >Dan --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 12:31:20 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Van's ND alternator failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Just took a book order from an IA in GA who is retired from certified aviation but maintains his own airplanes which include an RV and Glasair. His Glasair is fitted with the B&C system. He reports no problems with it. Within 4 hours of installing an alternator from Van's on the RV, he was out flying over the countryside and noted an acid smell in the cockpit. He first assumed the odor was from a local Kaolin plan which uses sulphuric acid in its manufacturing processes and often smells like this. After a few minutes, he noted that his present position was upwind of the plant. He started looking around the panel and noted that the voltmeter was pegged. He reports that after shutting the alternator OFF, the voltage dropped to levels appropriate to battery only operations and he landed without further deterioration of the situation. The alternator shop said that the regulator had failed (but obviously not in a way that prevented the pilot from shutting it off) and had overheated the stator windings as well. The Odyssey battery case was bulged out. No other damage was done to the airplane's accessories After $150 work on alternator and new battery, the system operates normally. He asked if there was a way to prevent this from happening again and I gave him a brief rundown on topical conversations that had transpired on the List over the past year. I told him we were working on a methodology for operating the ND and similar machines under the same design goals as alternators in certified aircraft but that the solution was still perhaps months off. I sent him a copy of the original Z-24 along with operating limitations for not operating the alternator control switch while the alternator was loaded and at high RPMs. I don't know if he plans to install this system as an interim fix. Just wanted to post this additional data point for incorporation as appropriate into future deliberations on the subject. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 01:45:43 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Does anyone know of a maker of an adapter to convert the output of these capacitive probes to a 0-5V DC output? Or a way to do it? Thanks, Bill Bradburry ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 03:02:53 PM PST US From: D Wysong Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong Bill - Van's sells them for $45/ea. Part # IE P-300C D bbradburry@allvantage.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > Does anyone know of a maker of an adapter to convert the output of these > capacitive probes to a 0-5V DC output? Or a way to do it? > > Thanks, > Bill Bradburry > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:46:09 PM PST US From: D Wysong Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Do I Need an Ammeter? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong Stein - Do you have a preferred supplier of those current sensors? D -------- Stein Bruch wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" > > Couple things.... > > Most "glass" (assuming you're including an engine monitor) systems include > both volts and amps, so your question may be a moot point. > > 2nd, a simple hall effect current sensor adds maybe 1/2 to 1 ounce and a > wire to the plane...not overly complex or heavy, so I wouldn't worry about > it. > > Plan on both Volts/Amps and then you needn't worry! > > Just my 2 cents as usual. > > Cheers, > Stein. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dennis > Johnson > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Do I Need an Ammeter? > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" > > > Greetings, > > I'm building a Lancair Legacy composite airplane, installing a "glass > cockpit." I'm using the Z-13 "all electric airplane on a budget" wiring > plan. I'll have a voltmeter, but I'm not planning to install an ammeter. I > wonder if that's a mistake. > > I'll have one battery, a main alternator, and an SD8 aux alternator. Both > alternators have overvoltage crowbar protection. The main bus has a low > voltage warning light. I'm not planning to install an ammeter for several > reasons: additional weight of a shunt, higher parts count, more money, and > the temptation to do troubleshooting in flight that is better done on the > ground. No voltmeter means I'll have to test my pitot heat by touching it > during preflight, but other than that, is an ammeter worth the additional > complexity, cost, and weight in my robust electrical system? > > Thanks, > Dennis Johnson > Legacy #257: finishing the engine installation and getting ready to start > wiring > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:13:19 PM PST US From: CardinalNSB@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Should I use shielded wire for power/ground --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CardinalNSB@aol.com Would it be appropriate to use shielded multiple wire for my power/ground? Its already twisted (or do I need more twist)? Its nicely bundled. I've seen it in 16 gauge with 2 wires inside. With 20 gauge 4 wire I could run power and a dimmer, for instance. Would the shield help reduce noise? Should I ground the shield at either end, or float? Other than additional expense (and being less flexible), is there any negatives about using shielded cable for power? Thank you, Skip Simpson ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:20:19 PM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Engine cooling modifications HTML_TEXT_AFTER_BODY@roxy.matronics.com, BODY:, HTML@roxy.matronics.com, contains@roxy.matronics.com, text@roxy.matronics.com, after@roxy.matronics.com, BODY@roxy.matronics.com, close@roxy.matronics.com, tag@roxy.matronics.com --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com In a message dated 11/30/2005 2:58:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: Thanks for the fuel flow charts. I noticed while browsing your site, that you have tried to fair in the lumps and bumps at the rear of your engine compartment. I hope to do the same on my 8A project. Could you email me higher resolution photos of the mods you've made? Have you noticed any improvement in drag or engine cooling as a result? Charlie and Alex, I would like to know about the engine mount fairing results, too, and I'm interested in your plans for the mount fairings, Charlie. Do you think fiberglas fairings could be used? Stan Sutterfield _www.rv-8a.net_ (http://www.rv-8a.net) ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:40:54 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" power/ground Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Should I use shielded wire for power/ground --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" power/ground At 10:11 PM 11/30/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CardinalNSB@aol.com > >Would it be appropriate to use shielded multiple wire for my power/ground? >Its already twisted (or do I need more twist)? >Its nicely bundled. >I've seen it in 16 gauge with 2 wires inside. >With 20 gauge 4 wire I could run power and a dimmer, for instance. >Would the shield help reduce noise? Should I ground the shield at either >end, or float? > >Other than additional expense (and being less flexible), is there any >negatives about using shielded cable for power? Shielding has a very limited effectiveness for the reduction of noise. Shield only those leads which are called out in the manufacturer's installation instructions paying careful attention to which end (if not both) is connected to a connector pin or perhaps general system ground. Twisting pairs is useful only when the wires pass in close proximity to the compass . . . like within a foot for most wiring. Again, useful to a limited degree for reducing limited kinds of interference. Perfectly quiet systems are flying with very little shielded wire and no twisting. To add these techniques without specific noise issues to be fixed is a no-value-added effort. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:42:45 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Engine cooling modifications "IMB Recipient 1" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com In a message dated 11/30/2005 2:58:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: Thanks for the fuel flow charts. I noticed while browsing your site, that you have tried to fair in the lumps and bumps at the rear of your engine compartment. I hope to do the same on my 8A project. Could you email me higher resolution photos of the mods you've made? Have you noticed any improvement in drag or engine cooling as a result? Charlie and Alex, I would like to know about the engine mount fairing results, too, and I'm interested in your plans for the mount fairings, Charlie. Do you think fiberglas fairings could be used? Stan Sutterfield _www.rv-8a.net_ (http://www.rv-8a.net) ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:52:22 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Garmin 300XL and Database intent --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 11/30/2005 Hello Old Bob, Thank you for your detailed and well considered comments. I believe that some of your information may be out of date. To explain: <> I agree. <> AC20-138A dtd Dec 22, 2003 is current (available on the FAA website). Appendix 4 is titled: "SAMPLE AIRPLANE/ROTORCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT" Paragraph 3 of Section 2 LIMITATIONS reads "A valid and compatible database must be installed and contain current data." << You write: "It is current data that controls the situation, not just a current data card." So it appears to me that you are correct if one is following AC20-138, but that AC20-138A has a specific limitation wording recommendation that the ".... database must be installed and contain current data." I interpret that to mean that all of the data in the data base must be current. As a practical matter it would be very difficult for a pilot flying IFR in IMC who was taken off his planned route to confirm that all of the data points on his new routing were in fact accurately portrayed in his out dated data base. And if they were not accurately portrayed he is prevented from making manual correction entries to the data base (from what source?) per TSO-C129a and then using those entries in IFR operations. I much appreciate our exchange. OC PS: TSO-C129a dtd 2/20/1996 is currently posted on the FAA web site. Do you know the status of the 2003 rewrite? ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Garmin 300XL and Database intent > Good Morning OC, > > Sorry for being so late in getting back, but things have been a bit hectic > for us recently. > > The intent of the FAA is not always easy to discern, but I would put a > slightly different emphasis on that than do you. > > They seem to write volumes and say very little. (I guess I do that as > well). > Also, C-129 did have a late 2003 rewrite of which I do not have a copy, > so > there may be some changes with which I am not familiar. > > I have not installed an IFR GPS since the spring of 2003 so my knowledge > and > discussion will concern the data available to me at that time. If > conditions have materially changed since then, I would appreciate > references thereto. > Based on a fairly extensive reading of TSO C-129 and AC-20-138, I > believe > the FAA is quite clear that they intend for the operator of an IFR > Approved > GPS to use only data contained within the database for IFR navigation. > They > also spell out quite clearly how to determine if the data available is > current > and accurate data. > > In Appendix 2, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the AC 20-138 document, they > suggest the following language be placed in the FAA Approved Airplane > Flight Manual > Supplement: > > "IFR en route and terminal navigation is prohibited unless the pilot > verifies the currency of the data base or verifies each selected waypoint > for > accuracy by reference to current approved data." > > Paragraph 4 of the same section has the following suggested language: > > "Instrument approaches must be accomplished from the GPS equipment data > base. The GPS equipment data base must incorporate the current update > cycle". > > Language identical or very close to the suggested language has been in > every > FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement that I have ever read, except for > supplements for the Apollo units that were approved after the fall of > 1997. > > It was at an Oshkosh "Meet The Administrator" meeting in 1996 that I > first > heard of using the method of checking the data by checking publication > dates > and/or the Julian date. That thought was presented to the Administrator > who > said they would take it under advisement. > > By the fall of 1997, Apollo had managed to convince their controlling ACO > that checking the dates met the intent of the AC-20-138 guidance. > > Since each individual flight manual supplement has to be individually > approved by the local inspector via the local approval process, variances > do occur. > Some of the local inspectors did not like the guidance given in AC-20-138 > and insisted that any unit they approved had to have a current data base > at > the time of use. The vast majority of the inspectors just used the > language > that each manufacturer had used when they got the original sets approved. > A > very few liked the Apollo 1997 style wording and were willing to adopt it > for > sets other than the Apollo units. > > I am personally aware of two folks who have King 89Bs with the Apollo > wording used in their FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement. > > The intent of the FAA, in my opinion was, and still is, that the data > being > used must be current and that it must be retrieved from the database. The > pilot is NOT allowed to self load the data. > > However, the FAA did provide a method whereby an out of date card could be > used if a method was available to cross check that data against other > current > approved data. That provision was in the very first issue of the > suggested > supplement language and is found in every supplement I have read. > > While any action we take should be an action that we are willing to > support > at a hearing, I think there is very good data showing that the FAA did, > and > still does, allow any data available in the database to be used if it can > be > shown that the data is current. > > It is current data that controls the situation, not just a current data > card. > > Such a provision was not considered by the FAA for the use of GPS in Lieu > of > ADF and DME. For that purpose, the FAA specifically says that only data > from > a current data card could be used. > > I was involved in that decision. > > It arose because the folks who wrote the "In Lieu Of" provisions, didn't > find out about the Apollo method until just before the "In Lieu Of" > provision > was to be published. They had no gripe with the Apollo method, but that > had > not been what they had told the other departments of the FAA they were > going to > do. It was felt that if they went back to the rest of the FAA to change > the > language previously agreed to it would take many months, quite likely a > year > or more. > > I will have to admit to being the guilty party who caused the problem. > > The fellow who wrote the final language and was about to publish the > interpretation in the AIM asked me if I would sooner have it published > with the > requirement for a current data card or wait for the self checking process > to be > cleared by all responsible parties. I asked that it be published with the > restriction in the hope we could get it changed later. I was unable to > develop > enough interest within the AOPA and other alphabet groups to get it > changed so > that is why there is a discrepancy between what we need to do to use a > GPS > in lieu of ADF and DME and what is required to fly enroute or execute an > approach. > > Things are not always as simple as they should be! > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:34:00 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Garmin 300XL and Database intent --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Evening OC, The reference you give has considerably shortened the suggested language in the Appendix. It no longer separates enroute uses from approach data. I absolutely agree with your interpretation of the suggested language. The next question is: Have the manufacturers changed any of the language in their current suggested supplements? I guess I will have to get my hands on a current copy of a Garmin installation manual. I believe that any supplement approved prior to the date of the source you have provided would still be applicable to that individual installation as the FAA has issued no guidance telling us that the approval is not valid. Unfortunately, those install manuals are no longer available on the web which makes accessing them much more difficult. If you have any supplements that have been written since 2003, I would be interested in knowing what they say. All of the ones I have are from 1998 or earlier. As to the TSO C-129 update, I find no information concerning it anywhere. I thought I read in one of the aviation newsletters that such a modification was made. Maybe what I saw was a reference to AC-20-138A.. In any case, my family and I have all maintained our databases with current datacards because we wanted to be able to use the "In Lieu Of" provisions. Thank you for the updated information. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 11/30/2005 10:54:38 P.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb@cox.net writes: AC20-138A dtd Dec 22, 2003 is current (available on the FAA website). Appendix 4 is titled: "SAMPLE AIRPLANE/ROTORCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT" Paragraph 3 of Section 2 LIMITATIONS reads "A valid and compatible database must be installed and contain current data."