---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 05/31/06: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:38:40 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Strategies for survival From: "Chuck Jensen" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" 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. > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:19:53 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: L-40 Alternator Output --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:44 PM 5/30/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Carey" > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:58:44 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: AeroElectric-List: ATC (was: strategies for survival) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:37:23 AM PST US From: "Pete Howell" Subject: AeroElectric-List: EIS 4000 tone --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pete Howell" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:35:26 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EIS 4000 tone --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" 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" > > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:52:22 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EIS 4000 tone --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" Can you describe the frequency of the tone? Low hum, musical note, high-pitched whine? -- Craig ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:11:41 PM PST US From: Robert Sultzbach Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ATC (was: strategies for survival) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach 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 wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:57:08 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ATC (was: strategies for survival) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On May 31, 2006, at 9:05 PM, Robert Sultzbach wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:58:48 PM PST US From: "Jim Baker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ATC (was: strategies for survival) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:52:51 PM PST US From: "Jim Baker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ATC (was: strategies for survival) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" > 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