Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:11 AM - Re: elt antenna ()
2. 03:44 AM - Re: Re: elt antenna (Mickey Coggins)
3. 05:46 AM - Re: Re: elt antenna (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 07:18 AM - Re: Whining Radio (LarryRobertHelming)
5. 07:24 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Placement (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:26 AM - Re: elt antenna (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:43 AM - Re: Whining Radio (Brian Lloyd)
8. 09:30 AM - Strategies for survival (Glen Matejcek)
9. 09:59 AM - Re: Whining Radio (Greg Grigson)
10. 11:11 AM - Re: Strategies for survival (Brian Lloyd)
11. 11:19 AM - Re: Whining Radio (Brian Lloyd)
12. 11:30 AM - Re: elt antenna (Wayne Sweet)
13. 11:51 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Placement (Bruce McGregor)
14. 12:10 PM - Re: Strategies for survival (Craig Payne)
15. 12:19 PM - Re: Re: elt antenna (Bill Schlatterer)
16. 01:19 PM - GRT / Radio interference (Marcus Cooper)
17. 01:19 PM - Re: Re: elt antenna (Craig Payne)
18. 01:34 PM - Re: Whining Radio (Matt Prather)
19. 02:50 PM - Grounding Question (Larry E. James)
20. 02:57 PM - Re: Re: elt antenna (Mickey Coggins)
21. 03:03 PM - Two New Email Lists at Matronics and Wiki Reminder! (Matt Dralle)
22. 03:39 PM - Re: GRT / Radio interference (Tim Olson)
23. 04:01 PM - Re: Strategies for survival (Paul McAllister)
24. 05:41 PM - Re: Strategies for survival (Ed Holyoke)
25. 06:18 PM - Re: GRT / Radio interference (N777TY)
26. 07:03 PM - Re: Strategies for survival (Brian Lloyd)
27. 07:16 PM - Re: Strategies for survival (n801bh@netzero.com)
28. 07:16 PM - Re: GRT / Radio interference (Brian Lloyd)
29. 07:19 PM - Re: Whining Radio (Brian Lloyd)
30. 07:32 PM - Re: Strategies for survival (Craig Payne)
31. 08:10 PM - noise filter alternative? (Dj Merrill)
32. 10:58 PM - Re: Strategies for survival (Brian Lloyd)
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: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Here is why ELT's exist (first par):
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/SAR/ELT_History.htm
The rest is extremely interesting and highlights the state of
confusion with the new 406 ELT's. You may be able to use
your old 121.5/243 ELT after Feb 2009 but it may be even
less effective than it's today. Clearly the 406 ELT can get
your position within a mile or two to 100 yards with GPS.
Faults alarms where addressed with TSO-C91a (verse the old C91)
http://www.avionicswest.com/myviewpoint/boringarticle.htm
The newer TSO ELTs require small annunciator/control
panel to be installed somewhere in the cabin and provide a
visual indication via a blinking light when the ELT is
activated and of course, turn off the ELT if need be.
However the wsdot article says many ELT faults alerts
are not even from ELT's!
The avionicswest article mentions the new PLB's as
others have mentioned. I agree there awesome devices
many should consider as a backup, especially if you are
into outdoor sports of any kind. I remember stories of
people going off the side of the road and not being
found for many days just feet from a major freeway, hurt
but alive. Many PLB's have built in GPS position!
What I hear and read the 2009 deadline may be extended.
That's not a good thing since the satellites WILL? still stop
monitoring 121.5/243 regardless! AOPA is asking for a
voluntary replacement program. Reading the advantage
of 406 ELT's it seems like a no brainier?
Before the satellites monitored for ELT's in the 70's ELT
location method was with local DF only. Lets say 406 ELTs
are not made mandatory. With out the satellites your
chance of being found with old fashion DF is slim to none.
George
__________________________________________________
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: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> What I hear and read the 2009 deadline may be extended.
> That's not a good thing since the satellites WILL? still stop
> monitoring 121.5/243 regardless! AOPA is asking for a
> voluntary replacement program. Reading the advantage
> of 406 ELT's it seems like a no brainier?
>
> Before the satellites monitored for ELT's in the 70's ELT
> location method was with local DF only. Lets say 406 ELTs
> are not made mandatory. With out the satellites your
> chance of being found with old fashion DF is slim to none.
I can argue both sides of the mandatory ELT issue. With
my Libertarian hat on, I think it should be up to the builder
to decide if they want a PLB/ELT in their aircraft, and
they have to live (or die) with the consequences. The
problem comes in when there are unwary passengers on the
aircraft, and/or public resources are used to try to find
the downed aircraft.
Of course, we could simply say that if you don't have a
PLB/ELT, then you need to placard this for passengers,
and if there is a search and rescue launched to recover
your body, then your spouse/estate will get billed for the costs.
Putting on the Statist hat (I don't have one - I'd have to
borrow it), if PLB/ELT devices are required, then they
will end up costing less, and search and rescue missions
will probably also cost less and be more effective. We
may even find a survivor or two.
I fly with an ELT simply because I am required to do so,
and I plan to upgrade to a PLB "soon", but I wouldn't
want to impose my choices on anyone else.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/29/2006 5:46:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mick-matronics@rv8.ch writes:
I fly with an ELT simply because I am required to do so,
and I plan to upgrade to a PLB "soon", but I wouldn't
want to impose my choices on anyone else.
Me Too
(Sorry Matt, I just couldn't resist!)
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 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: Whining Radio |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Like you report, I too developed a whine --and-- within a month my
alternator failed. This all happened shortly after I did my night flights
where I stressed my alternator to 90% of its limit by having all my
electronics on while doing the required take offs and landings. I plan to
install a larger alternator that will have a rating about twice what my
maximum draw need will be. I was able to replace the 30A Vans alt. with the
same type that I purchased at the local AutoZone store. I believe my
original 30A came from a Suzuki of some sort about 1987. For now with
replaced alt. I do not turn all the lights on at one time.
It is in the archives somewhere and I believe Sam Buchanan made a post about
it.
Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Grigson
> <iflyhawaii2@yahoo.com>
>
> I'm chasing down a new noise in the headset on my 60 hour RV-6A with the
> Z-11 architecture. The whine starts when I turn the radio on and will go
> off when the alternator switch is turned off (or, of course, if the radio
> goes off), and is RPM dependent.
>
> The noise is not load dependent, i.e. after the battery is topped off
> ( I have an ammeter) the whine is still the same intensity. The funny
> thing is that after an hour flight the noise intensity is much less (maybe
> only 1/3 the level) than the first 10-20 of flight. Is the alternator is
> now "warmed up" and producing less noise?
> I'm thinking the source is the alternator (#$%&* Van's special) and the
> victim is the radio, but how and where is the RF leaking and absorbing?
>
> More Info:
> B & C linear regular inside the cockpit.
> All fat wire seperated from skinny wires.
> Recently did some work on the brake hoses and could have bumped a wire.
> On day one of this machine I did have a very mild whine on the intecomm
> that went away with battery top off. (new noise is not affected by
> intercomm settings.)
>
> Should I be thinking about wire routings, loose connections, grounds
> first? Then check the power wire from a clean source?
>
> Please help.
> Dumfounded in Honolulu.
> Greg
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
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: ELT Antenna Placement |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:43 AM 5/28/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>Dear Bob:
>
> To imply or suggest that an ELT is not important or complying
>with installation instructions is of little consequence is not the
>precise scientific well thought out response I've come to expect
>out of you. The manufactures of ELT's provide instructions based
>on facts and service (crash) history.
And when did I say any such thing? What I said was that
every manufacturer of a product has his/her wish list
of things you should do to optimize the performance of his/her
product. Your ABILITY to comply with all those wishes is limited
by the particulars of your installation and one seldom
finds it possible to comply with ALL the manufacturer's
wishes.
The notion that the ELT manufacturer did anything based on
service history (other than fixing failures) is wishful thinking.
ELTs, like all other black boxes on TC aircraft are built to
specifications written by folks who almost never have any
experience in the manufacturing venue. The specs are then blessed
by a cadre of bureaucrats who have some knowledge of crash
history but only a few understand what they know. The golden
idea is that if Tonka Toys decides to get into the ELT business
and they've been ISO 9000 qualified, then all the have to do
is jump the intermediate hoops and meet the spec and all will
be right with the world. The idea that most manufacturers
have a nervous system that extends to the far reaches of
their customer's experience base is wishful thinking.
>
> I partially agree with you, not to lose sleep and often the ELT
>installation instructions can't be fully met on some small planes.
>
>However to say:
>
> *deviations..MOST have no major contribution to the outcome
>of ANY crash/recovery scenario* is shooting from the hip.
>
> MOST? ANY? Have proof? Data? Define, what is a deviation?
A deviation is anything which does not fully comply with
the manufacturer's recommendations . . . which are often
sufficiently vague as to defy any quantification as to
cause/effect or cost/benefits.
Knowing what I've learned and come to understand about
over the years about transmitters, receivers, antennas,
patterns and propagation efficiencies, I was NOT shooting from the
hip. Each communications link is first designed with
head-room for uncontrollable losses due to atmospheric and
physical conditions. We know that NO ELT antenna installation
on an aircraft can be ideal, especially small aircraft.
Therefore, worries as to exact placement are pointless.
As I mentioned, it's more important that the antenna SURVIVE
than for the antenna to be 100% effective with respect to
ideal conditions.
>
> No offense, flying over Kansas or what ever flat state you're in,
>is not like flying over wilderness in the Western half of the US,
>Canada and Alaska, I am glad to have an ELT installed per
>manufactures recommendations.
>
> ELT manufactures might know something, you think Bob?
Yup, they USUALLY know everything there is to know about
their product (until the guy who designed it retires or
gets a better job, then big chunks of tribal-knowledge
goes out the door with him).
But they have limited understanding of the situations in which
their product will be used . . . there are simply too many
variations on a theme. Hence, the broad brush, sweeping,
generally non-quantified recommendations.
>
>My suggestion is try to comply as much as possible. I know if
>you call the manufacture they can provide guidance solution
> (compromise). It will be more than it does not matter.
Never recommended anything different . . . do the BEST
you can knowing that even the manufacturer cannot tell
you what effect "deviations" might have. They can only
say that deviations generate risks to performance. Will
your particular "deviation" reduce probability of being
found by 50%, 1%, 0.1%? Nobody knows, ESPECIALLY the
folks who make the ELT.
I work with those folks George. I install and trouble
shoot installations of their equipment. For the most part,
when things are not going well their fall-back position
is the same as for any other farmed-out black-box installed
on a certified aircraft: "We meet the specs, we passed our
acceptance test procedure, and our QA manual has been
blessed by your QA police. Therefor, our product is golden."
Translation: "Yes, we know how our box works but haven't
the foggiest notion of how YOU might have screwed up
in YOUR installation." In the recent case cited for
ELT self-test trips, we DID screw it up.
>
>Please don't make this about you being right and me wrong.
>This is about learning. A cavalier attitude is not appropriate to
>the topic. Bob, you pride yourself in your facts and repeatable
>experiments. I say the 1000's of crashes that the manufacture
>and FAA have studied in developing the guidelines have merit,
>period. If you have specifics than please say, but the general
>dismissal of ELT manufactures recommendation as found
>wishes is condescending.
>
> Bob you often have FONDEST WISHES for your ideas and
>concepts, you claim are based on irrefutable logic and
>experiments. I think you should give other professionals in
>the aerospace industry the same professional courtesy and
>respect for their expertise.
Respect is not a right George, it must be earned. Many
folks I've worked with over the years have my highest
respect and confidence. Others in spite of their QA manuals,
holy-watered PMAs and TSOed products would not be allowed
to wash my dog. It's not that they're evil, have unsavory
personalities, etc. They just don't understand and do
not have a charter from their management to achieve
necessary levels of understanding.
It's the very rare manufacturer who understands both
his product and its utilization well enough to be an
effective assistant in solving problems. I've been doing
this for 25 years George and I can remember only a hand-full
of cases where the manufacturer of a mis-behaving product
has been helpful in deducing and fixing root cause. The
sum total of these situations have cost my employers
tens of $millions$ . . . I can name you a half dozen
situations right now that piddle away $millions$ a year
on truly dumb wrestling matches between suppliers (them)
and customers (us).
But I never said that it wasn't a good thing to attempt
compliance with the ELT manufacturer's instructions
to the letter. What I did say was that your ability to
fully comply was not only difficult but that the effects
of your non-compliance are impossible to deduce. I'll
suggest further that no fielded installation fully complies
with the manufacturer's fondest wishes.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:26 PM 5/28/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>As best I can tell feeding GPS coordinates into the new generation of ELTs
>is a *very* expensive proposition - at least when sticking to Artex's
>products. First you have to switch from their "cheap" model ME406 to the
>G406 to get a unit which accepts GPS coordinates ($1456 vs. $839). Then you
>have to buy their Nav/ELT interface box (455-6500), about $1358). And (from
>what I can make out from the specs) the interface box only accepts serial
>data in the form sent by expensive in-panel GPS receivers, not the NMEA 0183
>format from cheap portable units.
Here's an opportunity for some of you byte thrashers out there.
A $1 PIC microcontroller and a handful of jellybean parts could
probably be crafted to convert NMEA 0183 into the golden format.
GPS engines are about $50 each. You could craft a stand-alone
GPS enhancement adapter for the bare-bones GPS capable ELT.
Bob . . .
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: Whining Radio |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On May 28, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Greg Grigson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Grigson
> <iflyhawaii2@yahoo.com>
>
> I'm chasing down a new noise in the headset on my 60 hour RV-6A
> with the Z-11 architecture. The whine starts when I turn the radio
> on and will go off when the alternator switch is turned off (or, of
> course, if the radio goes off), and is RPM dependent.
In all probability one or more diodes in your alternator have failed.
This is usually a precursor to total alternator failure. Pull your
alternator and get it checked at an alternator shop.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
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 |
|
Subject: | Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
HI All-
Not to beat a dead horse, but it's sometimes easy to forget that we have a
very diverse crowd on the list and sometimes things that some of us take
for granted are unclear or unknown to others. Along those lines, I'd like
to make a few points about VFR flight following. First, ATC's role in this
is to offer traffic advisories to participating aircraft. To participate,
all you need a radio and a transponder. That's it. Also, you are NOT
under ATC control. When using flight following you can loop, roll, change
altitude, go sight seeing, generally wander about, and perhaps not even
leave the local area. ATC doesn't care, as long as what you are doing is
legal.
The second point is that when you participate, they generate a data block
for you and positively identify your aircraft. Should radar contact be
lost, the controller gets active notification of that fact. If radio
contact is also lost, the controller will pass that info along to their
supervisor. Actually initiating SAR procedures is discretionary and the
timing will vary with the specific circumstances, but if you end up being
overdue they know where to start the search. Of course, if you are talking
to them and know you're going down, help is just one push of the PTT away.
Might as well put our tax dollars to work-
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Whining Radio |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Grigson <iflyhawaii2@yahoo.com>
Wow. I replaced the first Van's alternator at 10 hours due to amps jumping from
+ 32 amps to - 32 amps. I would hate to just replace the second alternator.
Is there a way to test it on the plane?
Greg
---------------------------------
Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger
with Voice
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: Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On May 29, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Glen Matejcek wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek"
> <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
> HI All-
>
> Not to beat a dead horse, but it's sometimes easy to forget that we
> have a
> very diverse crowd on the list and sometimes things that some of us
> take
> for granted are unclear or unknown to others. Along those lines,
> I'd like
> to make a few points about VFR flight following.
Flight following is a pretty good thing. It gets you another set of
eyes looking for traffic (and, no, they won't point out every bit of
traffic to you), and if you do have a problem, it does mean someone
knows where you are. Out here in the west RADAR coverage does not go
all the way to the ground so you can't get it everywhere and
sometimes they are busy and tell you to go away. But, as Glen put it,
the price is right.
And one other thing: with this being an election year you can expect
TFRs to pop up around places where the Grand PooBahs go. If you don't
want to bust a TFR you need to *always* get a briefing before flying.
Getting traffic advisories from ATC will also usually catch the
surprise TFR that happens after you got your weather briefing.
The other thing I have found is that if you are on VFR flight
following and the weather starts to degrade, it is a lot easier to
get a pop-up IFR clearance since you are already "in the system."
So, I don't see any down-side to asking ATC for VFR traffic
advisories. You can't be the service for the price.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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: Whining Radio |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On May 29, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Greg Grigson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Grigson
> <iflyhawaii2@yahoo.com>
>
> Wow. I replaced the first Van's alternator at 10 hours due to amps
> jumping from + 32 amps to - 32 amps. I would hate to just replace
> the second alternator. Is there a way to test it on the plane?
Yes. Put it under some kind of load and look at the output with an
oscilloscope. Just connect the o-scope to the main distribution bus
where the alternator B-lead connects. Do you have a 12VDC power jack
for your GPS? That will work too and it is very easy to get to.
An alternator with all three phases working will have almost ripple-
free output. An alternator that has lost a diode will lose the phase
associated with that diode. The result will be greatly increased
ripple in the bus voltage. (That ripple is what you are hearing in
your comm radio.) Some automotive test meters have an "alternator
test" scale that just measures the amount of ripple and gives you a
"good/bad" reading which accomplishes essentially the same thing.
And if you have lost one diode it means that the load is being
carried on only two of the three phases. This means that the
remaining phases are now carrying 50% more load (each) for the same
output from the alternator. That is why I said that losing a diode is
a precursor to losing the whole alternator since most people don't
think to reduce the load on the alternator by 1/3.
I wish I could give you better news. This is why it is probably
cheaper to buy a really good alternator that is "hot rated" to run at
its full rated output. Not having to fix it several times is worth a
fair amount of money.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I feel much the same as Bob Nuffs. However I NEVER file an VFR flight =
plan. UHHHH...... OOOOHHHH
I ALWAYS use flight following and have been refused service rarely and =
only in high density areas around Class B airspace. If one has a problem =
while under radar contact, you get immediate assistance in the form of =
radar vectors if needed. AND more importantly, they know precisely =
where you are. Only in very mountainous situations is radar contact =
lost, but at least the area of crash landing is known. Too many =
searches, when there is one, begin searching nearly a whole state. More =
important than that is the search will be put in motion right then at =
the time of radar contact lost. ATC can even be an aid in vectoring =
search aircraft to the general area.=20
ELT's need a quantum jump is technology to provide the needed =
information and reliability to be truly useful.
Wayne
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: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys@comcast.net>
The April 2006 issue of Sport Aviation, the EAA's primary magazine, had a
lengthy article on ELTs. Here are some quotes:
[....with studies showing the false alarm rate is 99 percent.
[....with the older units failing to activate when intended two-thirds of
the time.
[Evidence also suggests the units broadcast a satellite-useable post-crash
signal only a tenth of the time.
[The new ELTs...digital transmitter broadcasts in bursts at 5 watts, a huge
improvement over the 0.1 watt analog signal of the 121.5 frequency ELTs.]
So Bob has it right. The ELT manufacturers and the FAA came up with a
flawed system using 30 year old technology, which never worked as intended.
Unlike some participants on this forum, they have learned from experience,
and designed the new 406 MHz ELT system as a replacement.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
>
> Please don't make this about you being right and me wrong.
> This is about learning. A cavalier attitude is not appropriate to
> the topic. Bob, you pride yourself in your facts and repeatable
> experiments. I say the 1000's of crashes that the manufacture
> and FAA have studied in developing the guidelines have merit,
> period. If you have specifics than please say, but the general
> dismissal of ELT manufactures recommendation as found
> wishes is condescending.
>
> Bob you often have FONDEST WISHES for your ideas and
> concepts, you claim are based on irrefutable logic and
> experiments. I think you should give other professionals in
> the aerospace industry the same professional courtesy and
> respect for their expertise.
>
> Cheers George ATP/CFII-MEI, B73/75/767
>
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: | Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
>> VFR flight following
Isn't all this subject to how busy they are with IFR aircraft? My vague
memory is that they can turn down your request for tracking if their IFR
workload is too high.
Also does coverage exist outside the mode C veil and IFR flyways? Here in
the western US there is lots of terrain outside of that.
-- Craig
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Mickey, I think the PLBs are a better option as well but have not seen any
data on them in actual use. Do you have any info that would suggest that a
PLB signal is more likely to be received than a ELT if the PLB is inside an
upside down metal aircraft ?? (typical Vans) Would the burst signal that a
PLB generates, be more likely to radiate out or be contained by the
structure? I assume the PLB to be a line of sight signal.
Thanks Bill S
7a wiring
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey
Coggins
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: elt antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
--> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> What I hear and read the 2009 deadline may be extended.
> That's not a good thing since the satellites WILL? still stop
> monitoring 121.5/243 regardless! AOPA is asking for a voluntary
> replacement program. Reading the advantage of 406 ELT's it seems like
> a no brainier?
>
> Before the satellites monitored for ELT's in the 70's ELT location
> method was with local DF only. Lets say 406 ELTs are not made
> mandatory. With out the satellites your chance of being found with old
> fashion DF is slim to none.
I can argue both sides of the mandatory ELT issue. With my Libertarian hat
on, I think it should be up to the builder to decide if they want a PLB/ELT
in their aircraft, and they have to live (or die) with the consequences.
The problem comes in when there are unwary passengers on the aircraft,
and/or public resources are used to try to find the downed aircraft.
Of course, we could simply say that if you don't have a PLB/ELT, then you
need to placard this for passengers, and if there is a search and rescue
launched to recover your body, then your spouse/estate will get billed for
the costs.
Putting on the Statist hat (I don't have one - I'd have to borrow it), if
PLB/ELT devices are required, then they will end up costing less, and search
and rescue missions will probably also cost less and be more effective. We
may even find a survivor or two.
I fly with an ELT simply because I am required to do so, and I plan to
upgrade to a PLB "soon", but I wouldn't want to impose my choices on anyone
else.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: | GRT / Radio interference |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
I have a Garmin 480 and SL-30 in my RV-10 running to a bent whip antenna =
on
the bottom and a copper foil antenna on the roof. Anytime I transmit on =
the
bent whip antenna (regardless of radio, I tried swapping things around), =
the
Grand Rapids EFIS displays and Engine monitor get very unhappy. The EIS
displays bad data and the EFIS pitches up and banks heavily. There =
doesn't
appear to be any impact on the Dynon EFIS. I'm using RG-400 cable to =
the
antennas and am using the fuselage as the ground plane. The antenna is
mounted between the spar sections (ie just aft of the instrument panel =
but
on the bottom of the fuselage).
=20
Any suggestions/thoughts would be much appreciated.
=20
Marcus
=20
Do not archive
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: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Since ELTs are required (and not a bad investment either) I see PLBs as an
addition, not an alternative. And my expected mode of use would be after
extracting myself (if possible) from the plane. Certainly as a general plan
those of us flying planes with bubble canopies should plan ahead for ways to
get ourselves out of an inverted plane on the ground. Or have a tool at hand
that can at least cut or break a hand-sized (and PLB-sized?) opening in the
canopy.
www.ch601.org/stories.htm
-- Craig
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: Whining Radio |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hey Brian,
Seems like you could use the AC setting on a DVM to see how much ripple
there is (if you don't have easy access to an Oscope)..
Also, I think diode packs are usually pretty easy to replace. And for
MUCH less money than a completely new alternator will run you.
And finally, does anyone have any temperature data on this kind of
installation? Does this airplane have a blast tube directed at the
alternator. It might be as simple as adding one to the cooling baffle to
keep the temperature in check when you've got it running flat out. If the
alternator IS overloaded, and not dieing from some other cause, keeping it
cooler will be to its benefit. When plumbing a blast tube into the
baffling, it might be worth considering adding it to the side (above one
of the valve covers) instead of at the back. Pulling air from the side
may allow for a bit of 'inertial seperation' which may help keep the
alternator drier when flying through rain..
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On May 29, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Greg Grigson wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Grigson
>> <iflyhawaii2@yahoo.com>
>>
>> Wow. I replaced the first Van's alternator at 10 hours due to amps
>> jumping from + 32 amps to - 32 amps. I would hate to just replace
>> the second alternator. Is there a way to test it on the plane?
>
> Yes. Put it under some kind of load and look at the output with an
> oscilloscope. Just connect the o-scope to the main distribution bus
> where the alternator B-lead connects. Do you have a 12VDC power jack
> for your GPS? That will work too and it is very easy to get to.
>
> An alternator with all three phases working will have almost ripple-
> free output. An alternator that has lost a diode will lose the phase
> associated with that diode. The result will be greatly increased
> ripple in the bus voltage. (That ripple is what you are hearing in
> your comm radio.) Some automotive test meters have an "alternator
> test" scale that just measures the amount of ripple and gives you a
> "good/bad" reading which accomplishes essentially the same thing.
>
> And if you have lost one diode it means that the load is being
> carried on only two of the three phases. This means that the
> remaining phases are now carrying 50% more load (each) for the same
> output from the alternator. That is why I said that losing a diode is
> a precursor to losing the whole alternator since most people don't
> think to reduce the load on the alternator by 1/3.
>
> I wish I could give you better news. This is why it is probably
> cheaper to buy a really good alternator that is "hot rated" to run at
> its full rated output. Not having to fix it several times is worth a
> fair amount of money.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Grounding Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
Bob,
I appreciate your sentiments to the effect that our
focus needs to be to "get light under the wheels" .....
boy do I agree !!
But you went over my head. Is the short version that
one big Ground wire the same size as the main Positive
lead (2awg) should run forward to a combo
thru-the-firewall-lug / Gound "forest" ?? In other
words; one ground wire to one ground block and
continuing to the starter?? I'm after just the simple
answer :-)
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Up Time Technology, and is
believed to be clean.
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: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> Mickey, I think the PLBs are a better option as well but have not seen any
> data on them in actual use. Do you have any info that would suggest that a
> PLB signal is more likely to be received than a ELT if the PLB is inside an
> upside down metal aircraft ?? (typical Vans) Would the burst signal that a
> PLB generates, be more likely to radiate out or be contained by the
> structure? I assume the PLB to be a line of sight signal.
Hi Bill,
No, I don't have any data on how effective the PLB will
be in the real world. Hopefully some of the gurus can
chime in and give us an idea if they think it will be
better.
As I understand the PLB, they talk to one or more
satellites, so that would need to be line of sight.
Their frequency is higher, which should allow a
shorter antenna. Hopefully they will get small
and cheap enough that we could afford to put in a
few of them in the aircraft, so no matter what part
survives, there is an PLB/ELT in there.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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 |
|
Subject: | Two New Email Lists at Matronics and Wiki Reminder! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
I have added two new email Lists to the Matronics Line up today. These include
a Continental engine List and a Lightning aircraft List:
===========
continental-list@matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Continental-List
Everything related to the Continental aircraft engine. Sky's the limit on discussions
here.
===========
===========
lightning-list@matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
This is an exciting new design from Arion Aircraft LLC in Shelbyville Tennessee. Pete Krotje has a very nice web site on the aircraft that can be found here: http://www.arionaircraft.com/
===========
Also, if you haven't checked out the new Matronics Aircraft Wiki, swing by and
have a look. Remember, a Wiki is only as good as the content that the members
put into it. Have a look over some of the sections, and if you've got some interesting
or useful, please add it to the Wiki! Its all about YOU! :-) The
URL for the Matronics Wiki is:
http://wiki.matronics.com
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: GRT / Radio interference |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I'm no expert here, but have you checked out your GRT system to make
sure it's got great grounding, free of ground loops, and nice wire
runs? It seems like this could really be a not so much related to your
antenna choice, but to something on the GRT wirirng not being up to par.
I'd check the entire wire run, and make sure you have shielded wire on
any of your signal wires, and make sure that one end, and only one end
of the wire shield is grounded. I'd think that if this were all true,
your chance of radiated problems like this would be reduced. Keep us
posted when you find the solution...it could be interesting.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Marcus Cooper wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
> I have a Garmin 480 and SL-30 in my RV-10 running to a bent whip antenna =
> on
> the bottom and a copper foil antenna on the roof. Anytime I transmit on =
> the
> bent whip antenna (regardless of radio, I tried swapping things around), =
> the
> Grand Rapids EFIS displays and Engine monitor get very unhappy. The EIS
> displays bad data and the EFIS pitches up and banks heavily. There =
> doesn't
> appear to be any impact on the Dynon EFIS. I'm using RG-400 cable to =
> the
> antennas and am using the fuselage as the ground plane. The antenna is
> mounted between the spar sections (ie just aft of the instrument panel =
> but
> on the bottom of the fuselage).
>
> =20
>
> Any suggestions/thoughts would be much appreciated.
>
> =20
>
> Marcus
>
> =20
>
> Do not archive
>
>
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: | Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all
I guess its starting to get a bit off topic, but in recent times I never
have been turned down for VFR flight following. I was wondering if this was
a legacy of 9/11... ATC seem to take the opportunity to know where all
aircraft are given the opportunity. Just speculating....
Paul
do not archive
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
<craig@craigandjean.com>
>> VFR flight following
>Isn't all this subject to how busy they are with IFR aircraft? My vague
>memory is that they can turn down your request for tracking if their IFR
>workload is too high.
-- Craig
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: | Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Yeah, right after 911 they started encouraging the use of flight
following in SoCal and, (I guess) instructed controllers to push it.
They were asking for destinations rather than merely direction of flight
and offering flight following before takeoff. They're not still doing it
that way, though.
It used to be more difficult to get and they were quicker to terminate.
I've only been denied lately when I was too low for radar coverage.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
McAllister
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Strategies for survival
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
<paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all
I guess its starting to get a bit off topic, but in recent times I never
have been turned down for VFR flight following. I was wondering if this
was
a legacy of 9/11... ATC seem to take the opportunity to know where all
aircraft are given the opportunity. Just speculating....
Paul
do not archive
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
<craig@craigandjean.com>
>> VFR flight following
>Isn't all this subject to how busy they are with IFR aircraft? My vague
>memory is that they can turn down your request for tracking if their
IFR
>workload is too high.
-- Craig
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: GRT / Radio interference |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "N777TY" <microsmurfer@yahoo.com>
Something similar in a friend's -7.. EIS would reboot when hitting PTT. It turned
out to be wire routing... play with it a bit... separate coax from other stuff...
move it away etc..
--------
RV-7A
N777TY (res)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37305#37305
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: Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On May 29, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Craig Payne wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>>> VFR flight following
>
> Isn't all this subject to how busy they are with IFR aircraft?
Yes.
> My vague
> memory is that they can turn down your request for tracking if
> their IFR
> workload is too high.
They can and they do. There have been a couple of flights recently
where I have been told they couldn't provide service but those time
are few and far between. Most of the time you can can get advisories.
It is worth the effort.
It is also a good thing to use as you start working toward your IFR
rating. Getting used to ATC communications now will make things
easier later. I introduce my students to ATC advisories when I
introduce cross-country flying and then encourage them to use it for
all flights when they leave the home airport traffic pattern.
>
> Also does coverage exist outside the mode C veil and IFR flyways?
Yes, wherever there is RADAR coverage. Mostly that is limited by
altitude in the western US. I find that I usually enjoy continuous
coverage if I am above 12,000' (and I am almost always above 12,000'
if I am on a long cross-country flight).
I do find that I have switched back to flying on the victor airways
for the most part. It isn't that much farther and that is where the
airports are anyway.
> Here in the western US there is lots of terrain outside of that.
True but it is still worthwhile to use radar advisories where possible.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
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: | Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
There is an uprising lately about ATC setting rules to limit their workl=
oad. Whenever I fuel up with 100LL there are federal taxes charged for "=
using the system". If the FAA wants to deny flight following because of =
their perceived workload they need to give us an option. Provide two fue=
l pumps, one that deletes the taxes to fund the"system" and we can fly V=
FR and one that charges taxes so we can fly IFR. Kinda like some governm=
ent agency setting up a toll road, collecting the toll and then saying y=
ou can't drive on it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net> wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.=
net>
Yeah, right after 911 they started encouraging the use of flight
following in SoCal and, (I guess) instructed controllers to push it.
They were asking for destinations rather than merely direction of flight=
and offering flight following before takeoff. They're not still doing it=
that way, though. =
It used to be more difficult to get and they were quicker to terminate.
I've only been denied lately when I was too low for radar coverage. =
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
McAllister
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Strategies for survival =
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
<paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all
I guess its starting to get a bit off topic, but in recent times I never=
have been turned down for VFR flight following. I was wondering if this=
was
a legacy of 9/11... ATC seem to take the opportunity to know where all
aircraft are given the opportunity. Just speculating....
Paul
do not archive
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
<craig@craigandjean.com>
>> VFR flight following
>Isn't all this subject to how busy they are with IFR aircraft? My vague=
>memory is that they can turn down your request for tracking if their
IFR
>workload is too high.
-- Craig
=
=
=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=
=
=
<html><P>There is an uprising lately about ATC setting rules to limit th=
eir workload. Whenever I fuel up with 100LL there are federal taxes char=
ged for "using the system". If the FAA wants to deny flight following be=
cause of their perceived workload they need to give us an option. Provid=
e two fuel pumps, one that deletes the taxes to fund the"system" an=
d we can fly VFR and one that charges taxes so we can fly IFR. Kind=
a like some government agency setting up a toll road, collecting the tol=
l and then saying you can't drive on it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</P>
<P> </P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair=
.com<BR><BR>-- "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>&=
nbsp;wrote:<BR>--> AeroElectric-List message posted&nb=
sp;by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net><BR><BR>Y=
eah, right after 911 they started encourag=
ing the use of flight<BR>following in SoCa=
l and, (I guess) instructed controllers to=
push it.<BR>They were asking for destinat=
ions rather than merely direction of fligh=
t<BR>and offering flight following before takeo=
ff. They're not still doing it<BR>that way=
, though. <BR><BR>It used to be more =
difficult to get and they were quicker&nbs=
p;to terminate.<BR>I've only been denied lately=
when I was too low for radar co=
verage. <BR><BR>Pax,<BR><BR>Ed Holyoke<BR><BR>-----Original&nb=
sp;Message-----<BR>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.c=
om<BR>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On =
;Behalf Of Paul<BR>McAllister<BR>Sent: Monday, May&n=
bsp;29, 2006 3:57 PM<BR>To: aeroelectric-list@matron=
ics.com<BR>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Strategies&nbs=
p;for survival <BR><BR>--> AeroElectric-List mess=
age posted by: "Paul McAllister"<BR><paul.mcallis=
ter@qia.net><BR><BR>Hi all<BR><BR>I guess its sta=
rting to get a bit off topic, but&nbs=
p;in recent times I never<BR>have been tur=
ned down for VFR flight following. I=
was wondering if this<BR>was<BR>a legacy =
of 9/11... ATC seem to take the oppor=
tunity to know where all<BR>aircraft are g=
iven the opportunity. Just speculating....<BR>=
<BR>Paul<BR><BR>do not archive<BR><BR><BR><BR>--> Aero=
Electric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"<=
BR><craig@craigandjean.com><BR><BR>>> VFR flight&n=
bsp;following<BR><BR>>Isn't all this subject to&n=
bsp;how busy they are with IFR aircraft?&n=
bsp;My vague<BR>>memory is that they can&nbs=
p;turn down your request for tracking if&n=
bsp;their<BR>IFR<BR>>workload is too high.<BR><BR><BR>=
-- Craig<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR> <BR>&nb=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR=
se the Matronics List Features Navigator t=
e Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Cha=
sp; &nb=
sp; &nb=
sp; &nb=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=
out the All New Matronics Email List=
p; &nbs=
p; &nbs=
p; &nbs=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
sp; - List Contributi=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; &=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR><BR><BR>=
<BR></P></html>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: GRT / Radio interference |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On May 29, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper"
> <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
> I have a Garmin 480 and SL-30 in my RV-10 running to a bent whip
> antenna =
> on
> the bottom and a copper foil antenna on the roof. Anytime I
> transmit on =
> the
> bent whip antenna (regardless of radio, I tried swapping things
> around), =
> the
> Grand Rapids EFIS displays and Engine monitor get very unhappy.
> The EIS
> displays bad data and the EFIS pitches up and banks heavily. There =
> doesn't
> appear to be any impact on the Dynon EFIS.
Troubleshooting EMI (electromagnetic interference) to non-radio
devices is always a crap shoot. The first thing I would check is to
verify that the shield for the comm antenna cable is intact. Next
check to make sure that the base of your comm antenna is well bonded
to the aircraft skin. Those are likely to be the two biggest problems.
If those don't work you might try putting bypass capacitors right at
the power input of the GR boxes.
See what happens with that.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Whining Radio |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On May 29, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Matt Prather wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> <mprather@spro.net>
>
> Hey Brian,
>
> Seems like you could use the AC setting on a DVM to see how much
> ripple
> there is (if you don't have easy access to an Oscope)..
That is possible but it must be an AC-only mode (cap coupled) and not
measuring AC+DC.
>
> Also, I think diode packs are usually pretty easy to replace. And for
> MUCH less money than a completely new alternator will run you.
You can do that. The alternator shop can do that pretty quickly. Of
course, the question is now why he has had TWO alternator failures.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
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 |
|
Subject: | Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Thanks for the information. I hold a Sport Pilot license and (for medical
reasons) will probably never move up to a Private Pilot rating. So I won't
be practicing for IFR (except for emergency IFR). And a Sport Pilot can't
fly above 10,000 feet (which kind'a crimps my style as I am surrounded by
peaks from 9,000 to 13,000 feet).
-- Craig
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: | noise filter alternative? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
Hi Bob,
Since Radio Shack has discontinued their noise filter, I was
wondering if you know of an alternative, or parts/schematic to build an
equivalent?
Could a noise filter be installed on a "certified" spam can by
a mechanic and a log book entry, or would this require something more
substantial like a form 337 and blessings of the FAA?
Thanks! :-)
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On May 29, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Craig Payne wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Thanks for the information. I hold a Sport Pilot license and (for
> medical
> reasons) will probably never move up to a Private Pilot rating. So
> I won't
> be practicing for IFR (except for emergency IFR). And a Sport Pilot
> can't
> fly above 10,000 feet (which kind'a crimps my style as I am
> surrounded by
> peaks from 9,000 to 13,000 feet).
What do you do when the rules conflict with safety ...
ATC: "Europa 1234X, we aren't receiving your mode-C reply. Please
recycle your transponder and say altitude."
You: "Roger center. It looks normal from here. I have a normal reply
light. Altitude niner-thousand five hundred."
And I bet you never do go over 10,000'.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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! --
|