Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:37 AM - Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C (Kevin Horton)
2. 04:48 AM - Re: Power and audio input jacks (bob noffs)
3. 05:39 AM - Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C (Vern W.)
4. 05:39 AM - Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking for a... (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 06:41 AM - Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel (Glen Matejcek)
6. 07:13 AM - Re: one Main switch or 2 spst switches? Alt. field circuit breaker (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:17 AM - Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C (Tim Olson)
8. 07:36 AM - Re: Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel (Mickey Coggins)
9. 08:15 AM - Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) ()
10. 08:25 AM - Re: one Main switch or 2 spst switches? Alt. field circuit breaker (sarg314)
11. 08:31 AM - Resistors for Un-switched Audio Input (Mark Chamberlain)
12. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) (Kelly McMullen)
13. 09:30 AM - Re: Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
14. 10:10 AM - Re: Resistors for Un-switched Audio Input (Charlie England)
15. 11:53 AM - Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C (Deems Davis)
16. 01:51 PM - Re: Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) (richard titsworth)
17. 03:33 PM - Re: RS232 Aviation Data Output (G McNutt)
18. 04:08 PM - Re: Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) (Kelly McMullen)
19. 06:53 PM - Re: Dissimilar metal corrosion chart? (Charlie Kuss)
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: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking |
for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 11 Jun 2006, at 02:22, Deems Davis wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis
> <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website http://
> www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a Phd
> CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
> necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS
> receiver to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/
> mfg can evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of
> the necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
> This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this
> opinion with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146
> the Standard document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing
> in the document regarding functional requirements other than a
> reference to:
> RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/ RTCA/
> DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
> available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
> Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be
> 'rented' or checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price
> for someone just investigating an idea/thought.
1. For anyone else interested in reading the referenced article, the
link is missing the letter "f" at the end. It should be <http://
www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pdf>.
2. The referenced article uses some fuzzy wording. They say the GPS
receiver must provide all "necessary pilot input". What does that
mean? Later on they say that the receiver must provide the required
integrity monitoring. The gist of the article seems to be that the
receiver must meet the requirements of the TSO, which is different
than saying it must be TSO'd. I.e., in theory, you could solder
together your own design GPS receiver, and legally use it, as long as
it had all the functionality and performance required by the TSO.
3. They suggest that you can purchase a non-TSO'd GPS receiver that
meets all the requirements of the TSO, and legally use it. Sounds OK
in theory, but how do you determine whether or not this receiver
meets the TSO requirements? If it really does meet the TSO
requirements, why wouldn't the manufacturer put a TSO data plate on it?
4. I've read TSO C-129 (but not the later TSOs for WAAS receivers).
There is no way you can know whether the system meets the TSO unless
you can dig into the software to look for the required functionality,
and then perform some very difficult tests to see if the
functionality actually works. You would need to provide simulated
GPS signals, with one satellite that had an error, and see if the
system was able to detect it. You would need to measure the
navigation accuracy to very tight tolerances. Etc. The required
testing would probably cost several hundred thousand dollars or more
(cost of required equipment, engineering time, flight test time,
etc). It simply isn't practical for anyone at our level to determine
whether a GPS receiver meets the TSO requirements or not.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: | Re: Power and audio input jacks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
hi all, here is another twist to the plug thread. i have a program that
slaves my palm pilot to a cheap handheld gps. it turns the palm into a hsi
and has a 15000 point database. the program was $30. amyway, although there
are a lot of wiring harnesses out there that connect the gps to the palm and
to external power [cig lighter] i have only found one harness that supplies
power to both the palm and the gps. the others supply only the gps. the
''good one'' i found is $90!!. the others are $20. has anyone found a
harness that powers both the gps and the palm and is not made of GOLD?
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power and audio input jacks
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>> They are smaller than the traditional cigarette socket/plug (which is a
>> good thing for our aircraft, no?), but they also have adapters so you can
>> plug your cigarette lighter plug accessories into their power plugs and
>> not have to wire one of their plugs onto the accessory and then not be
>> able to use it elsewhere!
>>
>> They also have these that are all aluminum for $30:
>
> I originally bought the "military style" (PSO-003) connectors,
> but I ended up sending them back. I think they would be fine
> on something like a dune buggy or snowmobile or sand rail,
> but are severe overkill for the inside of a cockpit. The
> screws tops are hard to get off and on, and the chain
> tends to bunch up when you spin the cap.
>
> I sent them back to Powerlet, and they gave me full credit,
> and shipped the other model with the flip caps (PSO-001) to
> me in Switzerland at their expense. That's what I meant when
> I said they were good people to deal with!
>
> These connectors are small, and there are *tons* of accessories
> that use this type of connector in the motorcycle world. They
> have a lot of the same types of requirements we do. As you
> mentioned, there are adapters to the cigar lighter connector,
> and a lot of other connectors.
>
> http://www.powerletproducts.com/products/cables.php
>
> I bought a cigar lighter adapter, and one for the SAE type
> cable, which works perfectly with the battery tender.
>
> BTW, I think I learned about these on either this list or
> one of the other fine lists I try to read regularly.
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking |
for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C
WAAS is not the important part of the TSO. Some TSO's GPS units are not WAAS
capable.
What IS the deal breaker for a GPS meeting TSO standards is RAIM. Sure, you
have to look at all the requirements, but if a GPS is not RAIM capable, then
you're never going to meet the TSO. If your GPS is RAIM enabled, you at
least have a shot at it if you want to test the rest of it's capabilities
yourself and compare it to the rest of the TSO standards.
Note that Grand Rapids just came out with an option for a RAIM enabled GPS
for their EFIS system which is pretty exciting in that you "might" be able
to put it through all the TSO paces and perhaps be able to self-certify it
for legal IFR GPS by documenting if it meets all the specs.
But being RAIM enabled, at least it's worth the effort of giving it a try
for IFR legality.
Vern W.
On 6/11/06, Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
> http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
> Phd CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
> necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS receiver
> to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg can
> evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
> necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
> This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
> with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the Standard
> document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the document
> regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
> RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
> RTCA/DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
> available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
> Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be 'rented' or
> checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price for someone just
> investigating an idea/thought.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
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: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking |
for a...
Good Morning Kevin,
I do not feel at all qualified to evaluate all of the legalities involved,
but I tend to agree with your conclusions based on my general knowledge of what
the FAA has approved.
One major flaw that I see in the authors interpretation is in his ninth
paragraph where he discusses the need for an alternative method of navigation
when using TSO C-129 based GPS. He states that there is a requirement that any
VOR based checkpoint be operative and viable if that point is used on the
flight plan.
That is absolutely NOT true. Any such interpretation he has received is not
what the FAA intended the interpretation to be when the 129 set was approved.
He also has wording which could be construed as meaning that the receivers
he lists are the only ones approved under that TSO. There are several others
that are approved.
With such gross errors in the portions of document with which I am familiar,
I find it difficult to place much credence in the rest.
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 6/11/2006 5:40:04 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
1. For anyone else interested in reading the referenced article, the
link is missing the letter "f" at the end. It should be <http://
www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pdf>.
2. The referenced article uses some fuzzy wording. They say the GPS
receiver must provide all "necessary pilot input". What does that
mean? Later on they say that the receiver must provide the required
integrity monitoring. The gist of the article seems to be that the
receiver must meet the requirements of the TSO, which is different
than saying it must be TSO'd. I.e., in theory, you could solder
together your own design GPS receiver, and legally use it, as long as
it had all the functionality and performance required by the TSO.
3. They suggest that you can purchase a non-TSO'd GPS receiver that
meets all the requirements of the TSO, and legally use it. Sounds OK
in theory, but how do you determine whether or not this receiver
meets the TSO requirements? If it really does meet the TSO
requirements, why wouldn't the manufacturer put a TSO data plate on it?
4. I've read TSO C-129 (but not the later TSOs for WAAS receivers).
There is no way you can know whether the system meets the TSO unless
you can dig into the software to look for the required functionality,
and then perform some very difficult tests to see if the
functionality actually works. You would need to provide simulated
GPS signals, with one satellite that had an error, and see if the
system was able to detect it. You would need to measure the
navigation accuracy to very tight tolerances. Etc. The required
testing would probably cost several hundred thousand dollars or more
(cost of required equipment, engineering time, flight test time,
etc). It simply isn't practical for anyone at our level to determine
whether a GPS receiver meets the TSO requirements or not.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: | Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for hand-held |
transceiver on panel
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Howdy Carlos and Dale-
RE:
> I think I didn't quite understand your setup. Let me ask.
> > I've got a permanently mounted socket / switch unit from iCom.
> You mean a power socket, right?
Nope.
>
> > The panel
> > mount radio and antenna coax are permanently mounted to it, and I have
> a
> > length of feedline for the handheld that terminates in a plug. If I
> should
> > need the handheld, all I do is plug it's feedline into the socket.
> The
> > panel mount is disconnected from the antenna, and the handheld is now
> on
> > line. Very neat and simple. No making or breaking of BNC connex
> while
> > flying the plane.
> >
>
> You say "no making or breaking of BNC connex while flying the plane",
> but you said " the panel mount (radio) is disconnected from the
> antenna". Is it something like Bob has in the Aeroelectric connection, a
> panel mounted antenna plug, or am I missing something?
>
The antenna switchbox is approximately 1" x 2" x 4". It is mounted to the
back side of any convenient sheet metal. It has a socket on it's mounting
face as well as 2 BNC connectors on it's rear side. One BNC is for the
external fixed com antenna and one for the com radio. There is a separate
feedline that attaches to the handheld radio. The free end of the feedline
is fitted with a plug. When you insert this plug into the antenna
switchbox socket, the antenna is disconnected from the panel mount com and
connected to the handheld com.
> Is there a Icom part number for this socket/switch/feedline? Checked their
> web site and found nothing like your description.
It is curious that it doesn't show up there, but you can see it on the
Pacific Coast web site at:
http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4024
The part # is ANT-SB.
Hope this helps-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: one Main switch or 2 spst switches? Alt. field |
circuit breaker
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:39 PM 6/10/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
>Bob:
> Your diagrams all show a 2-10 Main switch which is apparently hooked
> up to give us OFF, Battery Only, and Battery+Alt field. I can see the
> merits of this. But I happen to have a number of high quality, sealed,
> mil spec. Cutler-Hammer SPST switches that I'm itching to use. Is there
> any reason not to use one for the battery and one for the alt. field coil
> instead of the 2-10?
>This combination would allow having the alt. field ON while the battery is
>OFF, which is likely to make the alternator unhappy, but is it
>dangerous? I'm thinking that would come under the "don't do that"
>heading, like so many other things about flying.
You may use any switches you wish. It's your airplane. The rationale
for two poles in the DC power master switch of alternator-fitted aircraft
was to PREVENT alternator-only operations where the system's operating
characteristics under these conditions were not fully explored.
The Bonanza's and Barons have separate switches . . . in fact, those
alternators will come on line self-excited without a battery
(but that's another story). I was not privy to any testing Beech may
have done at the time this system was certified to demonstrate
performance. I do know that a regulator I designed for that system
was required not to degrade the alternator's ability to self-excite.
Special cases aside, the vast majority of aircraft have been produced
with variations on the infamous split-rocker switch. A device
designed to provide control of the battery-alternator combination
while specifically preventing alternator-only operations. Hence
the use of a 2-3 or 2-10 switch in my drawings.
>Also, you mention in chapter 10 of your book that you like to have a
>circuit breaker on the alt. field rather than a fuse because of over
>voltage situations, but you don't explain why it's actually handy to be
>able to reset this one circuit.
If you choose to incorporate crow-bar ov protection there
is an operational desire to be able to reset it one time.
There is also a chance of nuisance triping where being able
to reset is useful. Hence a breaker is used in lieu of fuses
and also located on the switch panel. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Switch_Panels/Switches.pdf
Other forms of ov protection may not benefit from this
configuration and could drive the field circuit directly
from the bus through a fuse.
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: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking |
for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Great explanation, Kevin. To me, the one that really throws out most
GPS's that we'd consider is the integrity monitoring, which just
isn't there on many (most) units that aren't certified. And the
update rates for WAAS approach units. There's a reason that only
2 models of GPS (Freeflight and GNS480) are currently certified for
WAAS approaches, and that's because they're the only ones currently
meeting the requirement. If others really met the requirement, but
weren't tested, I'm sure the companies would be testing them because
they'd be big sellers. It's why I have a GNS480 in my panel, but
personally, I'd have been better off with a freeflight in my
situation. I may add one someday.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Kevin Horton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> On 11 Jun 2006, at 02:22, Deems Davis wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>>
>> I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
>> http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
>> Phd CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
>> necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS
>> receiver to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg
>> can evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
>> necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>>
>> This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
>> with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the
>> Standard document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the
>> document regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
>> RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
>> RTCA/DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
>> available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
>> Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be 'rented'
>> or checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price for someone
>> just investigating an idea/thought.
>
> 1. For anyone else interested in reading the referenced article, the
> link is missing the letter "f" at the end. It should be
> <http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pdf>.
>
> 2. The referenced article uses some fuzzy wording. They say the GPS
> receiver must provide all "necessary pilot input". What does that
> mean? Later on they say that the receiver must provide the required
> integrity monitoring. The gist of the article seems to be that the
> receiver must meet the requirements of the TSO, which is different than
> saying it must be TSO'd. I.e., in theory, you could solder together
> your own design GPS receiver, and legally use it, as long as it had all
> the functionality and performance required by the TSO.
>
> 3. They suggest that you can purchase a non-TSO'd GPS receiver that
> meets all the requirements of the TSO, and legally use it. Sounds OK in
> theory, but how do you determine whether or not this receiver meets the
> TSO requirements? If it really does meet the TSO requirements, why
> wouldn't the manufacturer put a TSO data plate on it?
>
> 4. I've read TSO C-129 (but not the later TSOs for WAAS receivers).
> There is no way you can know whether the system meets the TSO unless you
> can dig into the software to look for the required functionality, and
> then perform some very difficult tests to see if the functionality
> actually works. You would need to provide simulated GPS signals, with
> one satellite that had an error, and see if the system was able to
> detect it. You would need to measure the navigation accuracy to very
> tight tolerances. Etc. The required testing would probably cost
> several hundred thousand dollars or more (cost of required equipment,
> engineering time, flight test time, etc). It simply isn't practical for
> anyone at our level to determine whether a GPS receiver meets the TSO
> requirements or not.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for |
hand-held transceiver on panel
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> It is curious that it doesn't show up there, but you can see it on the
> Pacific Coast web site at:
>
> http://www.pacific-coast-avionics.com/detail.asp?id=4024
>
> The part # is ANT-SB.
>
> Hope this helps-
>
> Glen Matejcek
That is one cool little box. Thanks for the link.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
Well the author of the article did not bother to check with the FAA.
You can NOT navigate IFR with sole ref to GPS without an IFR GPS,
period end of story.
Phd CFI? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That is funny.
I suppose if you can go thru the process that proves to the FAA that
the unit meets the TSO than yes you can use it. Ask the rocket
scientist if he has done this. Fact is YOU can't meet the TSO spec
with any handheld GPS. Now if you are talking about panel mount
GPS, why not buy a used IFR GPS which are CHEAP.
Here is a short list of IFR GPS, most with both enroute and approach
capability I came up with. These are rebuilt/overhauled/reconditioned
prices from an avionics dealer. You will find these half the price used
from individuals.
I find these on eBay for less than $1000, some well under this price.
Now you going to deal with the FAA to TSO your non TSO'ed GPS?
Right.
UPS "AT" GX-50 $2,500
UPS GX-55R $2000; no approach/enroute-term only
UPS GX-60/COM $3,000
UPS GX-65/COM $2,000; no approach/enroute-term only
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-89B $2,200
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-90B $2,500
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-94 $4,700
GARMIN GPS-155 TSO $2,000
GARMIN GPS-155XL TSO $2,400
GNC-300XLTSO$2,900 (IFR GPS Enroute/Appch/COM)
GNC-300 TSO $2,300 (same as above but XL has better LCD display)
II MORROW 2001GPS IFR $1,900 (lowest priced Enroute/Appch IFR GPS)
TRIMBLE TNL-2000 APPROACH "Plus"
NORTHSTAR M-3 APPROACH $1,900
This whole subject of short cuts and pinching pennies in IFR flight
makes no sense to me as an approach to flying, much less IFR. If
a few dollars is a big deal, are you going to pop for current nav
data bases? Personally if I was outfitting my RV-7 IFR, I would
have traditional gnd base nav, VOR/LOC/ILS and use a hand
held GPS for situational awareness. It's cheaper to buy approach
plates and enroute charts as needed than electronic nav data
renew subscriptions.
Deems: Don't waste your time; get an early generation IFR GPS and
CDI. You can certainly back it up with a handheld GPS with a color
display. You don't need to buy a $8,000 IFR GPS with a map and com.
They are nice but a early Gen IFR GPS with indicator can be had on
eBay for well under $2,000. FORGET FORGET EVER EVER
using a handheld GPS device for IFR, ever.
George M.
ATP-B737/B757/B767/RV-4/RV-7
CFI/CFII/MEI with a Masters, Mechanical Engineering
>posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
>I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
>http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
>PhD CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
>necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS receiver
>to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg can
>evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
>necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
>This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
>with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the
>Standard
>document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the document
>regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
>RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
>RTCA/DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
>available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
>Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be 'rented'
>or
>checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price for someone just
>investigating an idea/thought.
>
>Deems Davis # 406
>Fuse
>http://deemsrv10.com/
__________________________________________________
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: one Main switch or 2 spst switches? Alt. field |
circuit breaker
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 01:39 PM 6/10/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>>
>> Bob:
>> I happen to have a number of high quality, sealed, mil spec.
>> Cutler-Hammer SPST switches that I'm itching to use. Is there any
>> reason not to use one for the battery and one for the alt. field coil
>> instead of the 2-10?
>
> The rationale
> for two poles in the DC power master switch of alternator-fitted
> aircraft
> was to PREVENT alternator-only operations where the system's operating
> characteristics under these conditions were not fully explored.
>
> Special cases aside, the vast majority of aircraft have been produced
> with variations on the infamous split-rocker switch. A device
> designed to provide control of the battery-alternator combination
> while specifically preventing alternator-only operations. Hence
> the use of a 2-3 or 2-10 switch in my drawings.
>
> Bob . . .
Hmmm... Sounds safer to travel the well-worn path rather than use the
alternator in a configuration "not fully explored". I'll get a 2-10.
--
Tom. S.
RV-6A - electrical system.
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: | Resistors for Un-switched Audio Input |
Hi all,
I've read in the archives about using resistors to allow multiple
un-switched audio sources to be piped in to an intercom. It seems that
using resistors (220 1/2 watt seems to be one of the recommended
solutions) will do the trick so I took a trip to Radio Shack and bought
some. The question is; is there a certain orientation they should be
soldered in line? I'm not an electrical engineer so I'm not sure exactly
how they should be put in line, not dealt with them before. Does it
matter?
Thanks in advance for any help,
Mark
RV-7 234C (res)
Finishing up wiring
Engine being delivered TODAY!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Not only that, you can't fly IFR with a TSO 129 unit without
conventional nav equipment onboard and working. TSO129 units whether
enroute or approach certified, are NOT approved for sole means or even
primary means of navigation. They are secondary only.
Perhaps you could argue that you don't have to go through the STC/337
process that is required for TC aircraft, but that is about the extent
of it.
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> Well the author of the article did not bother to check with the FAA.
> You can NOT navigate IFR with sole ref to GPS without an IFR GPS,
> period end of story.
>
> Phd CFI? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That is funny.
>
> I suppose if you can go thru the process that proves to the FAA that
> the unit meets the TSO than yes you can use it. Ask the rocket
> scientist if he has done this. Fact is YOU can't meet the TSO spec
> with any handheld GPS. Now if you are talking about panel mount
> GPS, why not buy a used IFR GPS which are CHEAP.
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: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
Good Morning Kelly,
I believe what you say is true, but the language used could be misleading.
There does have to be another source of navigation available.
It doesn't have to be VOR.
If you were in the far north of Canada back when TSO C-129 was first
approved, it could have been ADF.
I agree that in any part of the lower forty-eight that I am familiar with,
the VOR would be the system used. I am not sure how things are up in Canada
these days!
The GPS is supplementary, but it is only the aircraft component of the back
up navigation device that has to be operative. The ground stations can be
inoperative and the locations of those stations can be used for all GPS
functions.
You do not have to fly a route delineated by VOR stations. You can go direct
to any point and along any path that the FAA controller is willing to issue
a clearance to or for.
If the GPS fails, you must have the capability of switching over to another
source of navigation within a reasonable distance. You do not have to be using
it all the time.
Obviously, if all the VHF stations are inoperative, the system is not
available as a back up. But a VOR or two being inoperative along the route of
flight is no problem at all.
Any IFR GPS approved for at least enroute and terminal use can be used in
lieu of ADF or DME for any IFR purpose except to shoot an NDB approach.
To execute any approach via the GPS, the approach must be in the database,
retrievable by the set being used and the data verified as being current.
The waypoints in the database are the only ones that can be used for
navigation. You cannot navigate via GPS using a self loaded waypoint other than
in
the enroute phase and with the concurrence of the responsible controller.
Even that is a little fuzzy, but has been accepted by most regulators as being
legal via the controllers authority, not yours.
The old TSO C-129 sets do provide a LOT of capability for the money.
They can eliminate the need for a DME entirely and the ADF for almost all
purposes. Any of those approaches that have a note saying "ADF required" or "DME
required" or any approach that has DME in the title can be executed without
ADF or DME by using the IFR GPS in lieu of those boxes.
Don't sell those 129 units short!
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 6/11/2006 10:46:39 A.M. Central Standard Time,
kellym@aviating.com writes:
Not only that, you can't fly IFR with a TSO 129 unit without
conventional nav equipment onboard and working. TSO129 units whether
enroute or approach certified, are NOT approved for sole means or even
primary means of navigation. They are secondary only.
Perhaps you could argue that you don't have to go through the STC/337
process that is required for TC aircraft, but that is about the extent
of it.
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: | Re: Resistors for Un-switched Audio Input |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Mark Chamberlain wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've read in the archives about using resistors to allow multiple
> un-switched audio sources to be piped in to an intercom. It seems that
> using resistors (220 1/2 watt seems to be one of the recommended
> solutions) will do the trick so I took a trip to Radio Shack and
> bought some. The question is; is there a certain orientation they
> should be soldered in line? I'm not an electrical engineer so I'm not
> sure exactly how they should be put in line, not dealt with them
> before. Does it matter?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
>
> Mark
>
> RV-7 234C (res)
> Finishing up wiring
> Engine being delivered TODAY!
Resistors don't care about orientation.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking |
for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
I am certainly No expert, but I'm inquizitive and like to learn, and
while the article may have some issues, the folks @ Direct2 thought
enough of it to put it on their website. The gist of Experimental
aircraft is that we CAN investigate LEGAL alternatives, The EFIS that
I'm buying is not Certified, But I'm certain that it can/will provide
all of the pilot information that is required, and for less $'s than a
certified unit. There is indeed a very large and growing market of
avionics based upon this notion for which the EAA has already weighed in on.
I was under the impression that WAAS has it's own fault detection
capabilities and therefore RAIM is not an issue (Set me straight if I'm
off base) . If WAAS GPS receivers can receive this fault info, (I'm sure
there are differences in the GPS receivers) then in theory it should be
a straight forward thing for it to be passed/picked up by an EFIS and
the appropriate indication provided to the pilot, perhaps this is what
Grand Rapids is pursing?
TSO-C146 - while it IS the standard document, does NOT specify the
functional requirements, That's why I was looking for a copy of
RTCA/DO-229C to better understand the Functional requirements, so I
could make a personal individual builder/pilot assessment of whether
this is worth pursuing. (Certification, goes WAY beyond functional
requirements, and involves, environmenl, packaging, labeling, and
numerous other documents and requirements). It may turn out that,
individual pilot/builder 'certification' is indeed an onerous task, but
let's not short circuit the discovery and learning.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse
http://deemsrv10.com/
Vern W. wrote:
> WAAS is not the important part of the TSO. Some TSO's GPS units are
> not WAAS capable.
> What IS the deal breaker for a GPS meeting TSO standards is RAIM.
> Sure, you have to look at all the requirements, but if a GPS is not
> RAIM capable, then you're never going to meet the TSO. If your GPS is
> RAIM enabled, you at least have a shot at it if you want to test the
> rest of it's capabilities yourself and compare it to the rest of the
> TSO standards.
>
> Note that Grand Rapids just came out with an option for a RAIM enabled
> GPS for their EFIS system which is pretty exciting in that you "might"
> be able to put it through all the TSO paces and perhaps be able to
> self-certify it for legal IFR GPS by documenting if it meets all the
> specs.
> But being RAIM enabled, at least it's worth the effort of giving it a
> try for IFR legality.
>
> Vern W.
>
>
> On 6/11/06, *Deems Davis* <deemsdavis@cox.net
> <mailto:deemsdavis@cox.net>> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis
> <deemsdavis@cox.net <mailto:deemsdavis@cox.net>>
>
> I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
> http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
> Phd CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
> necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS
> receiver
> to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg can
> evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
> necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
> This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
> with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the
> Standard
> document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the document
> regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
> RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
> RTCA/DO-229C). Another Google search reveals that this document is
> available but with a cost which ranged from $108-370 per copy.
> Does anyone know of a 'library' where this document could be
> 'rented' or
> checked-out. a couple hundred bucks is a steep price for someone just
> investigating an idea/thought.
>
>
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: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
George,
I do not have a horse in this race, but I believe you've missed the point of
the original article.
1- The article does not refer to handhelds (but you mention those
multiple times).
2- I do not believe the point is about being cheep. (the article was
from the Direct-2 / Chelton folks - their equipment is at (and/or near) the
very top of the line (cost and function).
3- I do not believe just having a "$1000 ebay" TSO'd GPS unit on board
is enough. The installation itself is also of concern - especially for
approaches. For example, coupling to a CDI mounted within the pilots normal
scan vision.
Suppose you had a dual screen direct-2-avionics system (with a coupled
Freeflight WASS GPS). Most of these I've seen result in pretty impressive
panels (appearance and function). Suppose you had a panel full of other
similar high-end / high-quality avionics equipment (engine monitor, backup
gyro, aoa sensor, multi-function annunciator, etc).
Now to the point. Where would you put your old, used, monochrome, $1000
ebay TSO'd GPS unit? Do you really want it in the center of your panel?
What would you move off to the side/bottom to make room for it? Given that
the Direct2/Freeflight has the same features/functions (including RAIM,
WAAS, etc, do you even want the ebay unit in your plane at all? Are you
going to spend the $ to keep your "ebay GPS" database current - in addition
to the database in your Chelton/Direct-2 system? During flight, are you
going to "double program" your flight path into the ebay unit (assuming your
focus is on the Direct-2/Chelton PFD).
Outside of the advantage of having an independent backup, I might be able to
argue that the ebay unit is a workload distraction and thus perhaps not a
wise/safe decision (in this situation).
Thus, if your ebay unit's only/primary/true purpose was to satisfy FAA legal
requirements, it would be prudent to determine if those legal requirements
could be satisfied with the Direct-2 (and Free Flight) setup (in an
experimental aircraft).
Rick
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!)
Well the author of the article did not bother to check with the FAA.
You can NOT navigate IFR with sole ref to GPS without an IFR GPS,
period end of story.
Phd CFI? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That is funny.
I suppose if you can go thru the process that proves to the FAA that
the unit meets the TSO than yes you can use it. Ask the rocket
scientist if he has done this. Fact is YOU can't meet the TSO spec
with any handheld GPS. Now if you are talking about panel mount
GPS, why not buy a used IFR GPS which are CHEAP.
Here is a short list of IFR GPS, most with both enroute and approach
capability I came up with. These are rebuilt/overhauled/reconditioned
prices from an avionics dealer. You will find these half the price used
from individuals.
I find these on eBay for less than $1000, some well under this price.
Now you going to deal with the FAA to TSO your non TSO'ed GPS?
Right.
UPS "AT" GX-50 $2,500
UPS GX-55R $2000; no approach/enroute-term only
UPS GX-60/COM $3,000
UPS GX-65/COM $2,000; no approach/enroute-term only
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-89B $2,200
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-90B $2,500
Honeywell Bendix/King KLN-94 $4,700
GARMIN GPS-155 TSO $2,000
GARMIN GPS-155XL TSO $2,400
GNC-300XLTSO$2,900 (IFR GPS Enroute/Appch/COM)
GNC-300 TSO $2,300 (same as above but XL has better LCD display)
II MORROW 2001GPS IFR $1,900 (lowest priced Enroute/Appch IFR GPS)
TRIMBLE TNL-2000 APPROACH "Plus"
NORTHSTAR M-3 APPROACH $1,900
This whole subject of short cuts and pinching pennies in IFR flight
makes no sense to me as an approach to flying, much less IFR. If
a few dollars is a big deal, are you going to pop for current nav
data bases? Personally if I was outfitting my RV-7 IFR, I would
have traditional gnd base nav, VOR/LOC/ILS and use a hand
held GPS for situational awareness. It's cheaper to buy approach
plates and enroute charts as needed than electronic nav data
renew subscriptions.
Deems: Don't waste your time; get an early generation IFR GPS and
CDI. You can certainly back it up with a handheld GPS with a color
display. You don't need to buy a $8,000 IFR GPS with a map and com.
They are nice but a early Gen IFR GPS with indicator can be had on
eBay for well under $2,000. FORGET FORGET EVER EVER
using a handheld GPS device for IFR, ever.
George M.
ATP-B737/B757/B767/RV-4/RV-7
CFI/CFII/MEI with a Masters, Mechanical Engineering
>posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
>I recently read an article posted on Direct2. website
>http://www.direct2avionics.com/pdfs/Using_GPS_for_IFR_flight.pd by a
>PhD CFII that concludes that for EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, it was not
>necessary for the aircraft to be equipped with a CERTIFIED GPS receiver
>to legally file and fly IFR, PROVIDED that you, the pilot/mfg can
>evaluate the GPS functionality, and find it provides all of the
>necessary pilot input (as defined in the TSO) for IFR flight.
>
>This sounded like it was worth looking into. I verified this opinion
>with a competitor of Direct2. So off I go to study TSO-C146 the
>Standard
>document for WAAS GPS, unfortunately there is nothing in the document
>regarding functional requirements other than a reference to:
>RTCA/DO-229B (which I learned has since been superceeded w/
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RS232 Aviation Data Output |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: G McNutt <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
My Garmin GNC300XL GPS/COM has one RS232 output port. Can the RS232
Aviation Data output be split to feed more than one receiving unit, I
want to send data to a (1) Trutrak autopilot (2) Grand Rapids Sport EFIS
(3) Garmin GTX 327 transponder.
Is this a simple split the output or is there more to it.
Thanks,
George in Langley BC
6A flying, 7A wiring
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: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
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: | Re: Dissimilar metal corrosion chart? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Ron
EAA Chapter 1000 has a nice one on their web site at
http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/corrosion/galvanic.htm
Charlie Kuss
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
>I had a chart a while back (can't find) that showed in detail what could
>be put together and what not to put together if you wanted to have a good
>chance at not creating dissimilar metal corrosion.
>
>Anyone have one or know where to get one?
>
>Ron Parigoris
>
>
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! --
|