Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:38 AM - Re: Strategies for survival (Chuck Jensen)
2. 06:19 AM - Re: L-40 Alternator Output (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:58 AM - ATC (was: strategies for survival) (Brian Lloyd)
4. 10:37 AM - EIS 4000 tone (Pete Howell)
5. 12:35 PM - Re: EIS 4000 tone (Noel Loveys)
6. 02:52 PM - Re: EIS 4000 tone (Craig Payne)
7. 09:11 PM - Re: ATC (was: strategies for survival) (Robert Sultzbach)
8. 09:57 PM - Re: ATC (was: strategies for survival) (Brian Lloyd)
9. 09:58 PM - Re: ATC (was: strategies for survival) (Jim Baker)
10. 10:52 PM - Re: ATC (was: strategies for survival) (Jim Baker)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Strategies for survival |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
There are several fallacies with the Airline's position that each plane
or pilot that accesses the system should pay the same fee. First, among
many, is derived benefit. An airline accessing the system is benefiting
from being supported by dozens or hundreds of paying passengers. Expect
the Airlines to pay accordingly is similar to how income is taxed...the
more you make the more you pay (although less so recently).
The biggest divergence from reality is where the money in the ATC and
Aviation System is spent. When was the last time a C172 or RV-6 flew
into ATL. ATL has a maassive ATC system, which GA uses only on the
margin and billions and billions of dollars of humongous runways and
taxi ways and ramp areas the size of some small states. These
outrageously expensive facilities are of near-zero utility to GA, yet
with our taxes, including fuel taxes, we are helping pick up the tab for
the Airlines--airlines that incidentally haven't figured out how to run
their own companies, let alone figuring out how the ATC and Airport
system should be run and funded.
When the Airlines pay for DEN, ATL et al, then they can come back and
giz GA about paying more.
Chuck Jensen
> > the part about unequal and unfair redistribution of resources.
<sigh>
>
> People that grew up and live in NYC can't figure out why the
government
> builds highways that people can drive on for "free". Just because
they
> don't choose to drive a car on the interstate highway system doesn't
> mean they don't derive any benefit from it. Same deal with the ATC
> system. Besides, GA is like a fly riding on an elephant's back. If
> there were no airlines, there would be no need for an ATC system,
> and it would not exist.
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | L-40 Alternator Output |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:44 PM 5/30/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Carey" <markacarey@msn.com>
>
> >From what I understand there is a considerable variation with RPM. For
>instance the 20 AMP B&C only puts out 12 amps at 2000 but it generates 18 at
>2500. My approach is to install the 40 as a primary and use the 20 in place
>of the vacuum pump for night approaches if needed (or rely on the battery
>for a short time). The pitot is a big draw that is likely a rare need at
>night.
The stated RPM vs. OUTPUT values are for alternator RPM, not
engine RPM. If you're mounted on a Lycoming with about 4:1
pulley ratio, you should be able to get full output from
any alternator at anything higher than taxi RPM on engine.
You need to conduct some data measurements per Note 8 of:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11G.pdf
And get back to us. In particular, we need to know the field
voltage and bus voltage when you're experiencing the "insufficient
output" condition noted in your first posting. The need for
knowing field voltage as a diagnostic tool was the reason
for crafting Z-23 in the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | ATC (was: strategies for survival) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
The surprising thing is that ATC is not really of great utility. We
have better ways to provide traffic separation now (TIS, TCAS, ADS-B)
so the only real service they perform is long-distance flow control
into the major hubs and that does not require controllers sitting at
scopes. That is just a function of when you release the airliners so
they don't all arrive at ORD, ATL, or DEN at the same time. It just
requires a computer on the ground noting the arrival time at the
gates (entry points to a sector where the approaches will begin) and
then providing feedback to the aircraft as to whether they need to
slow down or not. This is just a data link problem and we have that
with Mode-S and ADS-B.
The only service that only ground radar can perform, that of
providing ground-controlled approaches, i.e. ASR or PAR, is almost
never used anymore. Even that is being moved into the cockpit through
the use of WAAS precision GPS approaches.
I would be fine with ATC wanting user fees so long as I could opt
out. Let the market decide. Widespread deployment of ADS-B would let
me see and avoid the other airplanes around me. (Heck, I do that with
my Mk-I eyeball just fine now.) Maybe ATC would find that there isn't
a market for their "service".
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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
I have the audio output of my EIS 4000 hooked up thru my Flightcom
403 intercom. As soon as the EIS powers up, I have a tone that is
constant. It is maybe 1/4 (very subjective)as loud as the actual
warning tone(I thought it WAS the warning tone before I set the
limits on the EIS and heard the actual tone). Any thoughts how to
get rid of it? I have isolated various audio inputs with a 510K
resistor before feeding them into the aux audio. I know it is the
EIS b/c if I power the EIS down, the tone goes away.
Thanks,
Pete
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Sounds like you are getting a tone from the microprocessor in the EIS. Make
sure the CPU of the EIS is in a properly installed grounded case. Also the
power supply for your intercom should be off it's own circuit breaker. One
last thing is the wire connections to your intercom should all be shielded
and the shield should be grounded at one end only. Yes not at both ends but
only one end.
If you still get the tone you may have to put a choke on your B+ to the
intercom.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Pete Howell
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:00 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: EIS 4000 tone
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pete Howell"
> <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>
> I have the audio output of my EIS 4000 hooked up thru my Flightcom
> 403 intercom. As soon as the EIS powers up, I have a tone that is
> constant. It is maybe 1/4 (very subjective)as loud as the actual
> warning tone(I thought it WAS the warning tone before I set the
> limits on the EIS and heard the actual tone). Any thoughts how to
> get rid of it? I have isolated various audio inputs with a 510K
> resistor before feeding them into the aux audio. I know it is the
> EIS b/c if I power the EIS down, the tone goes away.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Can you describe the frequency of the tone? Low hum, musical note,
high-pitched whine?
-- Craig
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: ATC (was: strategies for survival) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
Brian, Being a pilot and therefore a lover of
technology, I would love to subscribe to the new
theory of ATC. Unfortunately, how do you handle
dynamic responses to unforeseen situations with a
computer program? I still like talking to someone
with gray matter calling the shots when things get
irregular. Bob
--- Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> The surprising thing is that ATC is not really of
> great utility. We
> have better ways to provide traffic separation now
> (TIS, TCAS, ADS-B)
> so the only real service they perform is
> long-distance flow control
> into the major hubs and that does not require
> controllers sitting at
> scopes. That is just a function of when you release
> the airliners so
> they don't all arrive at ORD, ATL, or DEN at the
> same time. It just
> requires a computer on the ground noting the arrival
> time at the
> gates (entry points to a sector where the approaches
> will begin) and
> then providing feedback to the aircraft as to
> whether they need to
> slow down or not. This is just a data link problem
> and we have that
> with Mode-S and ADS-B.
>
> The only service that only ground radar can perform,
> that of
> providing ground-controlled approaches, i.e. ASR or
> PAR, is almost
> never used anymore. Even that is being moved into
> the cockpit through
> the use of WAAS precision GPS approaches.
>
> I would be fine with ATC wanting user fees so long
> as I could opt
> out. Let the market decide. Widespread deployment of
> ADS-B would let
> me see and avoid the other airplanes around me.
> (Heck, I do that with
> my Mk-I eyeball just fine now.) Maybe ATC would find
> that there isn't
> a market for their "service".
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ATC (was: strategies for survival) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On May 31, 2006, at 9:05 PM, Robert Sultzbach wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach
> <endspeed@yahoo.com>
>
> Brian, Being a pilot and therefore a lover of
> technology, I would love to subscribe to the new
> theory of ATC. Unfortunately, how do you handle
> dynamic responses to unforeseen situations with a
> computer program? I still like talking to someone
> with gray matter calling the shots when things get
> irregular. Bob
Of course, you still are. You are communicating with the grey matter
in your own head.
Regardless, the flow control that takes place now in ATC is not done
by people anyway. When the automation breaks down flow control
becomes virtually nonexistent regardless of the number of "brains"
running the system.
The problem is, solving the flow-control problem for all the aircraft
in "the system" for the whole of the US on any given day is beyond
the capacity of any particular human brain. It requires computers to
ensure that not all the airplanes arrive at the same airport at the
same time. GA is sufficiently distributed that random statistical
distribution is sufficient for GA. The airlines with their hub-and-
spoke architecture and the need to coordinate huge numbers of
arrivals and departures at relatively few airports is just a big,
messy queueing problem, one that is ideally solved by automation.
And when the automation breaks down and you have to solve the problem
on the fly, the pilots will be able to make it work out. Now with
things like TIS and ADS-B, the pilot will have the necessary
information.
When we fly mass formations we get a lot of airplanes up in the air
and back on the ground with very minimal separation. It is done by
the pilots, not by ATC.
So the real future of ATC is distributed processing, not centralized
processing. And the processing elements belong in the aircraft, not
on the ground. Time for a change.
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 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: ATC (was: strategies for survival) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
> I still like talking to someone
> with gray matter calling the shots when things get
> irregular.
As an ex-UASF ATC type, I'll second that. Had several situations that could
only be human controlled...but also had a couple that were human induced
as well.
; )
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
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: ATC (was: strategies for survival) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
> When we fly mass formations we get a lot of airplanes up in the air
> and back on the ground with very minimal separation. It is done by
> the pilots, not by ATC.
Yeah, but there is no CARSA (Civilians Assume Responsibility for Seperation
of Aircraft) in a regulated, individual flight environment where the participants
aren't all from the same company..and even if they were from the same
company the OpSpec wouldn't allow it given the way things are now. Thus
the need for lateral, lateration, and vertical seperation standards, human
supervised.
I know what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree. I've often thought
that just at the point where NASA's SATS program *might* work, and the
technologies to make flying, both commercial and private, a whole lot more
accessible/easier for the common man/woman (dogs need not apply...), that
the beauracracy and the cost of compliance/participation will be so great that
not many will be able to participate. There are lots of wealthy folks out
there...at least as evidenced by the sell rate of, say, Cirrus aircraft, but I'm
not one of them and I don't know too many who are. That's not sour grapes,
just an observation. Navigation used to be more difficult and flying relatively
less expensive. Now it's fairly easy to navigate but look at the cost to get a
nice Gee-Whiz-Glass Panel set up (not really needed but makes it easier)
and then add the cost of fuel, maintenance, insurance, etc.....
Sorry to ramble....kinda off the forum's topic....
Do Not Archive
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
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! --
|