---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 06/11/06: 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:37:34 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 11 Jun 2006, at 02:22, Deems Davis wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis > > > 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 . 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:48:22 AM PST US From: "bob noffs" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power and audio input jacks --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" 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" Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:06 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power and audio input jacks > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > > >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:34 AM PST US From: "Vern W." Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:46 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 . 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:57 AM PST US From: "Glen Matejcek" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:13:42 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: one Main switch or 2 spst switches? Alt. field circuit breaker --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 01:39 PM 6/10/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:17:44 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson 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 > > > On 11 Jun 2006, at 02:22, Deems Davis wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis >> >> 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 > . > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:36:07 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:15:20 AM PST US From: 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:25:17 AM PST US From: sarg314 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: one Main switch or 2 spst switches? Alt. field circuit breaker --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 01:39 PM 6/10/2006 -0700, you wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:31:21 AM PST US From: "Mark Chamberlain" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:44:28 AM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS (NO!) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:30:10 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:57 AM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Resistors for Un-switched Audio Input --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:53:05 AM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Experimental IFR w/o a certified GPS or looking for a copy of RTCA/DO-229C --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis 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* > wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:51:56 PM PST US From: "richard titsworth" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:33:11 PM PST US From: G McNutt Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RS232 Aviation Data Output --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: G McNutt 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:08:38 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:49 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dissimilar metal corrosion chart? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss 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: > >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 > >