AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Mon 06/12/06


Total Messages Posted: 41



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:56 AM - Re: CB's (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     2. 07:52 AM - IFR Requirements (Dan Beadle)
     3. 07:52 AM - GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect (Ron Patterson)
     4. 08:14 AM - Re: Dissimilar metal corrosion chart? ()
     5. 08:18 AM - Re: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect (Ralph E. Capen)
     6. 08:19 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Bruce Gray)
     7. 08:30 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
     8. 09:01 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Bruce Gray)
     9. 09:21 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (John Erickson)
    10. 09:21 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
    11. 09:39 AM - Re: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect (Mark Carey)
    12. 09:42 AM - Re: Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel (Craig Payne)
    13. 09:42 AM - Re: Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for hand-held transceiver on panel (Craig Payne)
    14. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: RS232 Aviation Data Output (Craig Payne)
    15. 09:52 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Bruce Gray)
    16. 09:59 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Kelly McMullen)
    17. 10:56 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Brett Ferrell)
    18. 10:56 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
    19. 11:04 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Brinker)
    20. 11:33 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Brinker)
    21. 11:42 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Bruce Gray)
    22. 12:24 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/11/06 (Paul Quarberg)
    23. 12:24 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (Brinker)
    24. 12:27 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (Mickey Coggins)
    25. 12:38 PM - WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B  (Brinker)
    26. 01:09 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (Dan Beadle)
    27. 01:24 PM - Organization of power bus (Dustin Paulson)
    28. 02:11 PM - Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B (Werner Schneider)
    29. 02:14 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (Bruce Gray)
    30. 02:28 PM - Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B (Brinker)
    31. 04:34 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
    32. 05:44 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
    33. 06:07 PM - Re: Organization of power bus (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    34. 06:07 PM - Re: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    35. 07:09 PM - connecting coax to metal strip antenna (Jekyll)
    36. 07:47 PM - Re: IFR Requirements ()
    37. 08:03 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (Robert Sultzbach)
    38. 08:22 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (Robert Sultzbach)
    39. 08:29 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (Robert Sultzbach)
    40. 08:35 PM - E-BUS (Robert Sultzbach)
    41. 10:32 PM - Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B (Werner Schneider)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 04:56:08 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: CB's
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:59 PM 6/10/2006 -0500, you wrote: >I know about circuit breaker/switches that have the amperage stamped in >the ball on the end of the switch. I heard today about switches that have >a push-pull CB mounted below the switch in the same housing. Anyone have >a reference for these so I can research? For the few CB s that Bob >recommends, why would I want a separate CB and switch (whether in the same >housing or not) when I can get the switch/CB in one smaller package? I >know there s a price difference. > > What economy do you perceive for the use of switch-breakers? The total number of protected branches from the busses generally outnumber the total branches with switches by 2:1 or more. This means that for every switch-breaker, you have at least one circuit that needs only protection and no switch. This has the effect of "doubling" the busses. You'll have a main bus with no switches on it, and second one in front of the pilot with switch-breakers. You'll perhaps have two e-busses. You can't use switch-breakers on a battery bus . . . unless perhaps your battery is right under your seat and the battery-bus switch-breakers are on the front side of the seat under your knees. A switch breaker is always more expensive than a local switch, remote breaker combination . . . which in turn is more expensive than a local switch, remote fuse combination. Since you'll need busses with both switched and non-switched protection, $time$ to install land cost of ownership is highest for the system utilizing switch-breakers. I'll suggest that switch-breakers in light aircraft are not part of an elegant solution. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ---------------------------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 07:52:20 AM PST US
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
    There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    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
    Time: 07:52:20 AM PST US
    From: Ron Patterson <scc_ron@yahoo.com>
    Subject: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect
    Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for my GPS antenna? I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling. What I don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a proper firewall quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the cowl without fishing the antenna wire through the firewall every time. Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use? Appreciate your ideas. Ron


    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
    Time: 08:14:45 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Dissimilar metal corrosion chart?
    From: <rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us> Thx. to all who replied to my question. Sincerely Ron Parigoris Do Not Archive


    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
    Time: 08:18:51 AM PST US
    From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect
    --- 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 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
    Time: 08:19:58 AM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    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
    Time: 08:30:34 AM PST US
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com>
    "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what kind of backups you have. TDT ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    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
    Time: 09:01:33 AM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't want another one. Do whatever floats your boat. Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI. I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why? Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what kind of backups you have. TDT _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    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
    Time: 09:21:53 AM PST US
    From: "John Erickson" <john.erickson@cox.net>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    Dan, A lot of people will respond with what they think or what they heard. Here's what I have in writing. Note that while most Experimental Operations Limits are fairly standardized, they may differ, so check the Ops Limits issued for the aircraft you're putting the EFIS in for specifics. Here's what my Ops Limits say under the Phase II section. "4. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipeed for night and/or instrument flist as listed in FAR 91.205 (b through e), this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR." OK, pretty straightforward. On to what FAR 91.205 b through e says... FAR 91.205 (b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Airspeed indicator. (2) Altimeter. (3) Magnetic direction indicator. (4) Tachometer for each engine. (5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system. (6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine. (7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine. (8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine. (9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank. (10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable landing gear. (11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made. (12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily available to each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under part 121 of this subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. As used in this section, =93shore=94 means that area of the land adjacent to the water which is above the high water mark and excludes land areas which are intermittently under water. (13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching device for each occupant 2 years of age or older. (14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an approved shoulder harness for each front seat. The shoulder harness must be designed to protect the occupant from serious head injury when the occupant experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in =A723.561(b)(2) of this chapter. Each shoulder harness installed at a flight crewmember station must permit the crewmember, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operations. For purposes of this paragraph=97 (i) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the FAA-approved type design data; and (ii) A front seat is a seat located at a flight crewmember station or any seat located alongside such a seat. (15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by =A791.207. (16) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 9 or less, manufactured after December 12, 1986, a shoulder harness for=97 (i) Each front seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785 (g) and (h) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985; (ii) Each additional seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785(g) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985. (17) For rotorcraft manufactured after September 16, 1992, a shoulder harness for each seat that meets the requirements of =A727.2 or =A729.2 of this chapter in effect on September 16, 1991. (c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (2) Approved position lights. (3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made. (4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light. (5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and radio equipment. (6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight. (d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used. (3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft: (i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in =A7121.305(j) of this chapter; and (ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of =B180 degrees of pitch and =B1120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with =A729.1303(g) of this chapter. (4) Slip-skid indicator. (5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure. (6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation. (7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity. (8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon). (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). (e) Flight at and above 24,000 ft. MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigational equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and the District of Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is equipped with approved distance measuring equipment (DME). When DME required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in command of the aircraft shall notify ATC immediately, and then may continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next airport of intended landing at which repairs or replacement of the equipment can be made. Reading this again makes things pretty clear. Basic Day/VFR equipment is listed first. Night VFR requires all the Day VFR equipment with some additions. IFR requires Night/VFR with some more equipment. Here's where another question typically arises when discussing EFIS use in IFR flight. FAR 91.205 (d) specifies Gyroscopic rate of turn, pitch and bank, and direction indicator. What is gyroscopic (especially since most (if not all) AHRS's do not have any moving parts at all. Here's what I copied off EAA's Homebuilt page (link is http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/1Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%2 0fo r%20IFR%20operations.html and does require membership) "What is a gyro? The often-asked question is, what constitutes a =93gyroscopic=94 instrument. Is an instrument containing an actual rotating mass gyro required, or are alternatives such as ring laser gyros or accelerometer-based instruments acceptable? Unfortunately, there is no specific definition of a gyroscopic instrument to be found in any FAA regulation or guidance document. In order to try to answer this question, the EAA contacted the FAA Small Airplane Directorate in Kansas City, MO. The Small Airplane Directorate confirmed that there is no published guidance on this subject, but indicated that the function of the instrument is the main consideration. Any instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic instrument and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and display." Bottomline, it seems pretty obvious from all this that all of the popular EFIS systems out there meet the definition of gyroscopic instruments given above, satisfy the equipment required by the FAR's, and the requirements for instrument flight specified in the Ops Limits. Note that nowhere in any of this is there any requirement for any backup of any sort (other than the requirement in the Night/VFR section for spare fuses). I like your statement of "If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me." Remember the regs are a minimum. Lots of stuff to consider including electrical system design, quality of EFIS hardware AND software, installation, etc. However, once the regs are met, everything else is really personal preference. What one person feels is perfectly safe may seem to someone else incredibly unsafe. To each his own. I'm going to have backups in my RV-10. John Erickson RV-10 #40208 Wings (I think this is my longest post ever... :-) ) _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:47 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    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
    Time: 09:21:53 AM PST US
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com>
    You won't find a vacuum ADI on anything rolling off the Boeing or Airbus lines today. As they say, "The only vacuum on this plane runs the toilet" . . . TDT ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't want another one. Do whatever floats your boat. Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI. I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why? Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what kind of backups you have. TDT ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    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
    Time: 09:39:25 AM PST US
    From: "Mark Carey" <markacarey@msn.com>
    Subject: Re: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Carey" <markacarey@msn.com> I placed my antenna in the baggage compartment with the thought that the signal could transmit through the cabin since it is non-metallic. I bought an extra length of cable in lieu of trying to make one up due to the intricacy of the connections. >From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect >Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:17:21 -0400 (GMT-04:00) > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" > > >I did this with mine....got a bulkhead connector from Digi-key and a >standard BNC end and built it up. > >Works fine - I'll look for pictures and part numbers....... > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ron Patterson >Sent: Jun 12, 2006 10:45 AM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect > > >Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for >my GPS antenna? > >I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling. What >I don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a proper >firewall quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the cowl >without fishing the antenna wire through the firewall every time. > >Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use? > >Appreciate your ideas. > >Ron > >


    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
    Time: 09:42:47 AM PST US
    From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
    Subject: Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for
    hand-held transceiver on panel --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> Robert shows how to build one of your own at: -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Glen Matejcek Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:36 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 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
    Time: 09:42:47 AM PST US
    From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
    Subject: Antenna switchbox for handheld, was Antenna for
    hand-held transceiver on panel --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> >> 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. Robert shows how to build one of your own at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html -- Craig


    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
    Time: 09:42:47 AM PST US
    From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
    Subject: Re: RS232 Aviation Data Output
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> I expect it will work electrically (RS-232 is fairly forgiving) - just tie the output wire to the three input wires. But are all three devices expecting the same data format? -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of G McNutt Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 4:28 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 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
    Time: 09:52:21 AM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    Yes, they have that cute little battery operated Jet 2.25 ADI that costs 15k. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:19 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements You won't find a vacuum ADI on anything rolling off the Boeing or Airbus lines today. As they say, "The only vacuum on this plane runs the toilet" . . . TDT _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't want another one. Do whatever floats your boat. Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI. I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why? Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what kind of backups you have. TDT _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    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
    Time: 09:59:03 AM PST US
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000, Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC. I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source to operate. Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend <Tdawson@avidyne.com>: > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with > only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And > they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an > individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what > kind of backups you have. > > > TDT > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce > Gray > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. > You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, > and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam > gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan > Beadle > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. > > > What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We > are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all > eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough > for me. > > > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for > redundancy. > > > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent > AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? > >


    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
    Time: 10:56:07 AM PST US
    From: Brett Ferrell <bferrell@123mail.net>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brett Ferrell <bferrell@123mail.net> Dan - And to add another datapoint, my FAA (Cincinnati) regional inspector who will do my op limits stated that he had no concerns with my self-certifying that my dual BMA EFIS system met these requirements (no vacuum system at all, no round gauges). Folks need to do what they're comfortable with, and do so from a position of knowledge, but I agree that it's pretty clearly established what is "required". Brett Quoting John Erickson <john.erickson@cox.net>: > Dan, > > Bottomline, it seems pretty obvious from all this that all of the popular > EFIS systems out there meet the definition of gyroscopic instruments given > above, satisfy the equipment required by the FAR's, and the requirements for > instrument flight specified in the Ops Limits. Note that nowhere in any of > this is there any requirement for any backup of any sort (other than the > requirement in the Night/VFR section for spare fuses). I like your > statement of "If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me." > Remember the regs are a minimum. Lots of stuff to consider including > electrical system design, quality of EFIS hardware AND software, > installation, etc. However, once the regs are met, everything else is really > personal preference. What one person feels is perfectly safe may seem to > someone else incredibly unsafe. To each his own. I'm going to have backups > in my RV-10. > > > John Erickson > > RV-10 #40208 Wings > > (I think this is my longest post ever... :-) )


    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
    Time: 10:56:07 AM PST US
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com> Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam gauges." Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . . TDT -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000, Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC. I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source to operate. Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend <Tdawson@avidyne.com>: > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with > only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And > they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an > individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what > kind of backups you have. > > > TDT > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce > Gray > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. > You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, > and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam > gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan > Beadle > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. > > > What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We > are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all > eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough > for me. > > > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for > redundancy. > > > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent > AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? > >


    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
    Time: 11:04:41 AM PST US
    From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
    Subject: Re: IFR Requirements
    Message I would like to read the reports. Not trying to be a smart alex just out of curiosity. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Gray To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't want another one. Do whatever floats your boat. Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI. I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why? Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what kind of backups you have. TDT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    Message 20


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:33:00 AM PST US
    From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
    Subject: Re: IFR Requirements
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com> Accually GRT is now offering a dual ahrs system for $1500 extra. From my understaning both ahrs's are in the same enclosure, but funtion indipendently. for experimental use only of course. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" > <Tdawson@Avidyne.com> > > > Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if > they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as > long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note > Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam > gauges." > > Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . . > > TDT > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly > McMullen > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > <kellym@aviating.com> > > Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000, > Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC. > I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure > than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source > to operate. > > Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend <Tdawson@avidyne.com>: > >> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with >> only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And >> they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. >> >> >> >> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an >> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since >> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what >> kind of backups you have. >> >> >> >> TDT >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Bruce >> Gray >> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements >> >> >> >> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me > off. >> You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), > Altimeter, >> and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam >> gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bruce >> www.glasair.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan >> Beadle >> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements >> >> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. >> >> >> >> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We >> are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all >> eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough >> for me. >> >> >> >> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for >> redundancy. >> >> >> >> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent >> AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? >> >> > > >


    Message 21


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:42:45 AM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    Here's one. http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Mar tin Air/martinair-summary.html Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements I would like to read the reports. Not trying to be a smart alex just out of curiosity. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Gray <mailto:Bruce@glasair.org> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't want another one. Do whatever floats your boat. Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI. I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why? Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what kind of backups you have. TDT _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    Message 22


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:24:52 PM PST US
    From: "Paul Quarberg" <quarberg@chipvalley.com>
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/11/06
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Quarberg" <quarberg@chipvalley.com> Rob, Eau Claire Noon Lions Club P.O. Box 42 Eau Claire, Wi. 54702 eclionsfoundation@yahoo.com Also, I can't open your spreadsheet file - I probably need to purchase Microsoft office or something like it. Could you possibly send the budget in Word format or PDF file? Thanks, Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "AeroElectric-List Digest Server" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:55 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/11/06 > * > > ================================================= > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ================================================= > > Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of > the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text > editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2006-06-11.html > > Text Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2006-06-11.txt > > > =============================================== > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > =============================================== > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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 <khorton01@rogers.com> > 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 > <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 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 04:48:22 AM PST US > From: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 05:39:34 AM PST US > From: "Vern W." <highflight1@gmail.com> > 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 <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 > _____________________________________ > > > 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 <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 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:41:57 AM PST US > From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:13:42 AM PST US > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:17:44 AM PST US > From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> > 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 <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 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:36:07 AM PST US > From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 08:15:20 AM PST US > From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> > 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/ >>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 <sarg314@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 08:31:21 AM PST US > From: "Mark Chamberlain" <mchamberlain@runbox.com> > 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 <kellym@aviating.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > ____________________________________ > > > 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 <ceengland@bellsouth.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 11:53:05 AM PST US > From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> > 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 <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 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 01:51:56 PM PST US > From: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com> > 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 <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 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 03:33:11 PM PST US > From: G McNutt <gmcnutt@shaw.ca> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 04:08:38 PM PST US > From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> > 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 <chaztuna@adelphia.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 >> >> > > >


    Message 23


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:24:52 PM PST US
    From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
    Subject: Re: IFR Requirements
    Message I found this PROBABLE CAUSE: "Numerous electrical anomalies as a result of a loose main battery shunt connection and undetermined electrical system causes." at http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19960528-0 It would seem they had no control over their dc bus. I would say this is a good reason for anyone building an airplane to go with a pilot operated e-bus. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Gray To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Here's one. http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Mar tinAir/martinair-summary.html Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements I would like to read the reports. Not trying to be a smart alex just out of curiosity. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Gray To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't want another one. Do whatever floats your boat. Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR where the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI. I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why? Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what kind of backups you have. TDT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    Message 24


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:27:16 PM PST US
    From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
    Subject: Re: IFR Requirements
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> > > http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/MartinAir/martinair-summary.html > > Although they didn't lose radios in the above incident, if I were flying transatlantic today, I'd bring a handheld. You sure don't want to try to come into the US NORDO. Divert to Canada. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive


    Message 25


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:38:12 PM PST US
    From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
    Subject: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B
    This has probably been answered before, so excuse me if so. Just thought it may save me from digging thru miles of archives. I was under the impression it to be no problem to put an Icom handheld on com 2 of a PMA8000B audio panel. But I was informed by my avionics wiring tech that it was unheard of to do so. Why is that ? Is there a way ? Thanks Randy


    Message 26


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:09:16 PM PST US
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
    John, Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I had read the regs several times and had visited the EAA site. I just didn't quite put it together as you have. I am comfortable with dual, independent systems on separate battery busses. In the unlikely event of a lightning strike, I might lose both, but I can live with that. I probably will go with the dual battery, dual EFIS, dual AHRS system and no gyros. I may have to educate the DAR for sign-off, but it should be doable. Thanks. Dan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Erickson Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:19 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Dan, A lot of people will respond with what they think or what they heard. Here's what I have in writing. Note that while most Experimental Operations Limits are fairly standardized, they may differ, so check the Ops Limits issued for the aircraft you're putting the EFIS in for specifics. Here's what my Ops Limits say under the Phase II section. "4. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipeed for night and/or instrument flist as listed in FAR 91.205 (b through e), this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR." OK, pretty straightforward. On to what FAR 91.205 b through e says... FAR 91.205 (b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Airspeed indicator. (2) Altimeter. (3) Magnetic direction indicator. (4) Tachometer for each engine. (5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system. (6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine. (7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine. (8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine. (9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank. (10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable landing gear. (11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made. (12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily available to each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under part 121 of this subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. As used in this section, "shore" means that area of the land adjacent to the water which is above the high water mark and excludes land areas which are intermittently under water. (13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching device for each occupant 2 years of age or older. (14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an approved shoulder harness for each front seat. The shoulder harness must be designed to protect the occupant from serious head injury when the occupant experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in =A723.561(b)(2) of this chapter. Each shoulder harness installed at a flight crewmember station must permit the crewmember, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operations. For purposes of this paragraph- (i) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the FAA-approved type design data; and (ii) A front seat is a seat located at a flight crewmember station or any seat located alongside such a seat. (15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by =A791.207. (16) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 9 or less, manufactured after December 12, 1986, a shoulder harness for- (i) Each front seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785 (g) and (h) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985; (ii) Each additional seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785(g) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985. (17) For rotorcraft manufactured after September 16, 1992, a shoulder harness for each seat that meets the requirements of =A727.2 or =A729.2 of this chapter in effect on September 16, 1991. (c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (2) Approved position lights. (3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made. (4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light. (5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and radio equipment. (6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight. (d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used. (3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft: (i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in =A7121.305(j) of this chapter; and (ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of =B180 degrees of pitch and =B1120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with =A729.1303(g) of this chapter. (4) Slip-skid indicator. (5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure. (6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation. (7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity. (8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon). (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). (e) Flight at and above 24,000 ft. MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigational equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and the District of Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is equipped with approved distance measuring equipment (DME). When DME required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in command of the aircraft shall notify ATC immediately, and then may continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next airport of intended landing at which repairs or replacement of the equipment can be made. Reading this again makes things pretty clear. Basic Day/VFR equipment is listed first. Night VFR requires all the Day VFR equipment with some additions. IFR requires Night/VFR with some more equipment. Here's where another question typically arises when discussing EFIS use in IFR flight. FAR 91.205 (d) specifies Gyroscopic rate of turn, pitch and bank, and direction indicator. What is gyroscopic (especially since most (if not all) AHRS's do not have any moving parts at all. Here's what I copied off EAA's Homebuilt page (link is http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/1Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%2 0for%20IFR%20operations.html and does require membership) "What is a gyro? The often-asked question is, what constitutes a "gyroscopic" instrument. Is an instrument containing an actual rotating mass gyro required, or are alternatives such as ring laser gyros or accelerometer-based instruments acceptable? Unfortunately, there is no specific definition of a gyroscopic instrument to be found in any FAA regulation or guidance document. In order to try to answer this question, the EAA contacted the FAA Small Airplane Directorate in Kansas City, MO. The Small Airplane Directorate confirmed that there is no published guidance on this subject, but indicated that the function of the instrument is the main consideration. Any instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic instrument and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and display." Bottomline, it seems pretty obvious from all this that all of the popular EFIS systems out there meet the definition of gyroscopic instruments given above, satisfy the equipment required by the FAR's, and the requirements for instrument flight specified in the Ops Limits. Note that nowhere in any of this is there any requirement for any backup of any sort (other than the requirement in the Night/VFR section for spare fuses). I like your statement of "If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me." Remember the regs are a minimum. Lots of stuff to consider including electrical system design, quality of EFIS hardware AND software, installation, etc. However, once the regs are met, everything else is really personal preference. What one person feels is perfectly safe may seem to someone else incredibly unsafe. To each his own. I'm going to have backups in my RV-10. John Erickson RV-10 #40208 Wings (I think this is my longest post ever... :-) ) _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:47 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages?


    Message 27


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:24:16 PM PST US
    From: "Dustin Paulson" <dustinp@hughes.net>
    Subject: Organization of power bus
    I seem to recall reading a recommendation on this list of a particular order in which various electrical loads should be placed on the power bus in order to minimize interference / noise propagated to other equipment whose power came from the same bus. For instance locating the power lead for the strobes, with its pulsating power requirement at one end of the bus or the other to lessen the effect on other equipment with power leads located before or after it on the bus. I can't seem to find this info searching the archives, and wonder if anyone could refresh this info if in fact it actually is true. Thanks Dustin Paulson GlaStar builder


    Message 28


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:11:52 PM PST US
    From: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
    Subject: Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net> My Icom A-20 is wired to my Garmin 320 trough a little box for emulating the MIC key. So yes it can be done! Werner Brinker wrote: > This has probably been answered before, so excuse me if so. > Just thought it may save me from digging thru miles of archives. > I was under the impression it to be no problem to put an > Icom handheld on com 2 of a PMA8000B audio panel. But I was informed > by my avionics wiring tech that it was unheard of to do so. Why is > that ? Is there a way ? > > Thanks Randy


    Message 29


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:14:14 PM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> Tim, Just to throw another data point on the fire, it's my understanding that the G1000 and Avidyne systems in certified aircraft are certified as secondary flight instruments. The round steam gauges are considered the primary flight instruments by the FAA. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com> Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam gauges." Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . . TDT -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000, Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC. I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source to operate. Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend <Tdawson@avidyne.com>: > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with > only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And > they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an > individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what > kind of backups you have. > > > TDT > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce > Gray > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. > You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, > and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam > gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan > Beadle > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. > > > What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We > are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all > eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough > for me. > > > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for > redundancy. > > > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent > AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? > >


    Message 30


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:28:15 PM PST US
    From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
    Subject: Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com> Thanks Werner, any idea what kind of box or where it came from ? Thanks Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:07 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider > <glastar@gmx.net> > > My Icom A-20 is wired to my Garmin 320 trough a little box for emulating > the MIC key. > > So yes it can be done! > > Werner > > Brinker wrote: > >> This has probably been answered before, so excuse me if so. >> Just thought it may save me from digging thru miles of archives. >> I was under the impression it to be no problem to put an Icom >> handheld on com 2 of a PMA8000B audio panel. But I was informed by my >> avionics wiring tech that it was unheard of to do so. Why is that ? Is >> there a way ? >> Thanks Randy > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > >


    Message 31


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:34:02 PM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: IFR Requirements
    In a message dated 6/12/2006 12:57:56 P.M. Central Standard Time, bferrell@123mail.net writes: Dan - And to add another datapoint, my FAA (Cincinnati) regional inspector who will do my op limits stated that he had no concerns with my self-certifying that my dual BMA EFIS system met these requirements (no vacuum system at all, no round gauges). Folks need to do what they're comfortable with, and do so from a position of knowledge, but I agree that it's pretty clearly established what is "required". Brett Good Evening All, May I add another small comment? The FAA has only recently started to interject a need for redundancy in IFR aircraft. Anything approved before the FAA got on this kick is not required to have ANY redundancy. Personally, I don't think they should be able to make such a requirement. It is my opinion that it is up to the operator to decide what level he/she is comfortable with. If you talked to ALPA they would tell you that no airplane should be allowed in the sky unless it had a minimum of two engines and two pilots. I think one engine, one pilot, one generator, one battery, one radio and one gyro instrument is all the regulations should require. If I want more, I will add it. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503


    Message 32


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:44:14 PM PST US
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com>
    Not true. TDT RV-10 40025 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Bruce Gray Sent: Mon 6/12/2006 5:10 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> Tim, Just to throw another data point on the fire, it's my understanding that the G1000 and Avidyne systems in certified aircraft are certified as secondary flight instruments. The round steam gauges are considered the primary flight instruments by the FAA. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com> Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam gauges." Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . . TDT -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000, Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC. I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source to operate. Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend <Tdawson@avidyne.com>: > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with > only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And > they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an > individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what > kind of backups you have. > > > TDT > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce > Gray > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me off. > You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, > and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam > gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan > Beadle > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. > > > What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We > are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all > eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough > for me. > > > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for > redundancy. > > > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent > AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? > > ========================= ========== ========================= ========== ========================= ========== ========================= ==========


    Message 33


  • 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
    Time: 06:07:08 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Organization of power bus
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 03:20 PM 6/12/2006 -0500, you wrote: >I seem to recall reading a recommendation on this list of a particular >order in which various electrical loads should be placed on the power bus >in order to minimize interference / noise propagated to other equipment >whose power came from the same bus. >For instance locating the power lead for the strobes, with its pulsating >power requirement at one end of the bus or the other to lessen the effect >on other equipment with power leads located before or after it on the bus. >I can't seem to find this info searching the archives, and wonder if >anyone could refresh this info if in fact it actually is true. Not true. Order your systems in any way that pleases you. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ---------------------------------------------------------


    Message 34


  • 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
    Time: 06:07:48 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:36 AM 6/12/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Carey" <markacarey@msn.com> > >I placed my antenna in the baggage compartment with the thought that the >signal could transmit through the cabin since it is non-metallic. I >bought an extra length of cable in lieu of trying to make one up due to >the intricacy of the connections. > > >>From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> >>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS antenna firewall quick disconnect >>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:17:21 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" >> >> >> >> >>I did this with mine....got a bulkhead connector from Digi-key and a >>standard BNC end and built it up. >> >>Works fine - I'll look for pictures and part numbers....... B&C also stocks the needed parts at: http://bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?23X358218#s605bf Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ---------------------------------------------------------


    Message 35


  • 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
    Time: 07:09:16 PM PST US
    Subject: connecting coax to metal strip antenna
    From: "Jekyll" <rcitjh@aol.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jekyll" <rcitjh@aol.com> I have a wing tip nav antenna kit from Vans. This has a strip of copper foil and a short coax to connect to the antenna. One end comes terminated with a BNC connector but the other end must be connected to the foil but there is no guidance. My thoughts are that I must strip back the covering and shielding and solder the center wire to the end of the foil. Is this the correct method? If so, how much of the shield should I trim back? Jekyll Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40279#40279


    Message 36


  • 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
    Time: 07:47:45 PM PST US
    From: <kcorr@charter.net>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <kcorr@charter.net> To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator? Kent ---- Tim Dawson-Townsend <Tdawson@avidyne.com> wrote: > > Not true. > > TDT > RV-10 40025 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Bruce Gray > Sent: Mon 6/12/2006 5:10 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> > > Tim, > > Just to throw another data point on the fire, it's my understanding that the > G1000 and Avidyne systems in certified aircraft are certified as secondary > flight instruments. The round steam gauges are considered the primary flight > instruments by the FAA. > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim > Dawson-Townsend > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:55 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" > <Tdawson@Avidyne.com> > > > Note that Garmin or Avidyne probably could have satisfied the FAA if > they installed two EFIS systems (with 2 ADAHRS) on separate buses, as > long as the aircraft had an appropriate electrical architecture. (note > Cirrus' backup ADI is electric) Then one could eliminate the "steam > gauges." > > Of course, two EFISs starts to add up to $$ . . . > > TDT > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly > McMullen > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:57 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > <kellym@aviating.com> > > Note however, that every TC aircraft with glass panel, whether G-1000, > Avidyne or other, all had to put in the basic steam gages for their TC. > I suspect that the FAA is more concerned with electrical/panel failure > than they are with a mechanical gage that needs no power or vac source > to operate. > > Quoting Tim Dawson-Townsend <Tdawson@avidyne.com>: > > > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds of IFR Cessnas with > > only one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And > > they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > > > > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an > > individual aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. Since > > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you how many or what > > kind of backups you have. > > > > > > > > TDT > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Bruce > > Gray > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > > > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before they kicked me > off. > > You need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), > Altimeter, > > and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need the steam > > gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruce > > www.glasair.org > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan > > Beadle > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. > > > > > > > > What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We > > are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all > > eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough > > for me. > > > > > > > > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for > > redundancy. > > > > > > > > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent > > AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =================================== > =================================== > =================================== > =================================== > > > > > > > > > >


    Message 37


  • 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
    Time: 08:03:38 PM PST US
    From: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com> Bruce, I know of no airliner that has a vacuum artificial horizon. If there is one you can point out to me I am all ears. Bob Sultzbach --- Bruce Gray <Bruce@glasair.org> wrote: > OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this > subject that I don't want > another one. Do whatever floats your boat. > > Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this > issue for years and > mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS > airliners going dark in IFR > where the only thing left was a flashlight and a > vacuum ADI. > > I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I > wonder why? > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Tim > Dawson-Townsend > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds > of IFR Cessnas with only > one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for > backup. And they've got > zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of > any sort are on an > individual aircraft model installation basis for TC > or STC. Since > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you > how many or what kind > of backups you have. > > > > TDT > > > > > > > _____ > > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Bruce > Gray > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before > they kicked me off. You > need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably > vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. > Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need > the steam gauges. If the > EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. > > > > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Dan > Beadle > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. > > > > What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS > age? We are planning a > Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, > all eggs in one basket. > If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for > me. > > > > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP > steam gage for redundancy. > > > > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an > independent AHRS on a > separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? > > > __________________________________________________


    Message 38


  • 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
    Time: 08:22:24 PM PST US
    From: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
    Subject: IFR Requirements
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com> Hi Bruce, This was not an EFIS failure but an electrical failure that you have quoted. Furthermore, having over 6000 odd hours in this aircraft I can tell you where to start looking for this kind of failure in the DC buses. It is a "Fate IS the Hunter" scenario but the DC buses have a row of circuit breakers just to the aft and right side of the copilot's seat...right where he slides his flight kit into position next to his seat. I have seen this row of breakers blown out by an errant flight kit and guess what, all hell breaks loose in the DC buses when this row of breakers is damaged. So to sum it up, if you interrupt power to an efis it will cease to operate but it did not fail. It was an electrical failure and I'll bet a beer a copilot's flight kit caused it. Cheers, Bob Sultzbach --- Bruce Gray <Bruce@glasair.org> wrote: > Here's one. > > http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Martin > Air/martinair-summary.html > > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Brinker > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > I would like to read the reports. Not trying > to be a smart alex just > out of curiosity. > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruce Gray <mailto:Bruce@glasair.org> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this > subject that I don't want > another one. Do whatever floats your boat. > > Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this > issue for years and > mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS > airliners going dark in IFR > where the only thing left was a flashlight and a > vacuum ADI. > > I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I > wonder why? > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Tim > Dawson-Townsend > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds > of IFR Cessnas with only > one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for > backup. And they've got > zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of > any sort are on an > individual aircraft model installation basis for TC > or STC. Since > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you > how many or what kind > of backups you have. > > > > TDT > > > > > > > _____ > > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Bruce > Gray > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before > they kicked me off. You > need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably > vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. > Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need > the steam gauges. If the > EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. > > > > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Dan > Beadle > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. > > > > What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS > age? We are planning a > Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, > all eggs in one basket. > If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for > me. > > > > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP > steam gage for redundancy. > > > > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an > independent AHRS on a > separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? > > > __________________________________________________


    Message 39


  • 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
    Time: 08:29:14 PM PST US
    From: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: IFR Requirements
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com> Randy, There are many DC buses in a 767. There is very little in common here with what we are flying in RV's. I will agree though, it is nice to have access to your DC power when you need it. An E-bus is a nice feature for truly essential items but if one gets carried away, why have a master switch at all? The more items you put on the E-bus, the less of an E-bus it becomes. Fly safely, Bob Sultzbach --- Brinker <brinker@cox-internet.com> wrote: > Message I found this PROBABLE CAUSE: > "Numerous electrical anomalies as a result of a > loose main battery shunt connection and undetermined > electrical system causes." at > http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19960528-0 > It would seem they had no control over > their dc bus. I would say this is a good reason for > anyone building an airplane to go with a pilot > operated e-bus. > > Randy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruce Gray > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:37 PM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > Here's one. > > > http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/MartinAir/martinair-summary.html > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Brinker > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > I would like to read the reports. Not > trying to be a smart alex just out of curiosity. > > Randy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruce Gray > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR > Requirements > > > OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on > this subject that I don't want another one. Do > whatever floats your boat. > > Just remember, the big iron guys have studied > this issue for years and mega-bucks. I've seen > reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in IFR > where the only thing left was a flashlight and a > vacuum ADI. > > I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no > EFIS. I wonder why? > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR > Requirements > > > "Need" is an interesting word. There are > hundreds of IFR Cessnas with only one Attitude > Indicator, with a turn coordinator for backup. And > they've got zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or > "tiebreakers" of any sort are on an individual > aircraft model installation basis for TC or STC. > Since experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up > to you how many or what kind of backups you have. > > > > TDT > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Bruce Gray > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR > Requirements > > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum > before they kicked me off. You need at least an > Artificial Horizon (preferably vacuum), Altimeter, > and ASI. Even with another separate EFIS you'll > still need the steam gauges. If the EFIS's disagree, > you'll need a tie breaker. > > > > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Dan Beadle > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR > Requirements > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get > that. > > > > What are the requirements for IFR flight > in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids > EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in > one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not > safe enough for me. > > > > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, > Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. > > > > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS > with an independent AHRS on a separate essential > buss and delete the steam gages? > __________________________________________________


    Message 40


  • 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
    Time: 08:35:45 PM PST US
    From: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
    Subject: E-BUS
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com> Hi Randy, I just reread your message about the importance of the E-Bus. I agree 100%. It is important. I went on to editorialize about the evils of overdoing the E-Bus and I realize it was not a valid response to the message you posted. Sorry about that. I stand by the importance of keeping the E-Bus limited to only items essential for endurance. But that was a thought of my own separate from your post. Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach __________________________________________________


    Message 41


  • 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
    Time: 10:32:19 PM PST US
    From: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
    Subject: Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net> Hello Randy, just checked my mail history, I bought it from flighttech (www.flighttech.com) Joe Fisher made it for me for a reasonable price, he's a very nice guy and it is a small box, I might have some pictures which I can send to you if you're interested. Be aware, not each Icom needs this box, just the older model once. But I was quite happy last week when my main com had some overheating problems and my Icom kept me on air! Werner Brinker wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" > <brinker@cox-internet.com> > > Thanks Werner, any idea what kind of box or where it came from ? > > Thanks Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net> > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:07 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider >> <glastar@gmx.net> >> >> My Icom A-20 is wired to my Garmin 320 trough a little box for >> emulating the MIC key. >> >> So yes it can be done! >> >> Werner >> >> Brinker wrote: >> >>> This has probably been answered before, so excuse me if >>> so. Just thought it may save me from digging thru miles of archives. >>> I was under the impression it to be no problem to put an >>> Icom handheld on com 2 of a PMA8000B audio panel. But I was informed >>> by my avionics wiring tech that it was unheard of to do so. Why is >>> that ? Is there a way ? >>> Thanks Randy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> http://wiki.matronics.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > >




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --