Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:44 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Kevin Horton)
2. 05:21 AM - BB Battery Company model BP17-12. (Bill Bradburry)
3. 05:45 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/11/06 (Larry Mac Donald)
4. 07:57 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 07:57 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 07:57 AM - IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
7. 07:57 AM - Re: BB Battery Company model BP17-12. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:57 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 07:57 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Robert Sultzbach)
10. 07:57 AM - IFR Requirements (OldBob Siegfried)
11. 09:36 AM - Re: E-BUS (Brinker)
12. 10:06 AM - IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 10:06 AM - IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
14. 10:46 AM - Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B (N601RT)
15. 10:46 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
16. 11:32 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Terry Watson)
17. 11:48 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Dan Beadle)
18. 11:50 AM - Re: Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
19. 11:55 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
20. 12:23 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) ()
21. 12:44 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
22. 01:16 PM - Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified ()
23. 01:19 PM - Re: E-BUS (Robert Sultzbach)
24. 01:22 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Bruce Gray)
25. 01:57 PM - Re: E-BUS (Kevin Horton)
26. 03:25 PM - IFR Requirements ()
27. 05:41 PM - Re: IFR Requirements ()
28. 06:27 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Brinker)
29. 06:36 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
30. 08:46 PM - Antenna on old aircraft . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 09:08 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (richard titsworth)
32. 09:37 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
It doesn't matter why the EFIS fails - it could be EFIS failure, it
could be electrical failure. It could be a lightening strike, etc.
You have to assume it could fail someday, and you should have
sufficient other equipment to get back on the ground.
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
On 12 Jun 2006, at 23:10, Robert Sultzbach wrote:
> --> 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 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | BB Battery Company model BP17-12. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@allvantage.com>
The battery I'm looking at is the BB Battery Company model BP17-12.
Through Digikey www.digikey.com they are $24.69 each and weigh 13.56
lbs
Does anyone have any knowledge of this battery and battery company?
This seems really cheap, which always worries me. The battery is almost
a direct replacement of the Odyssey 680 that goes for about $100????
Bill Bradburry
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/11/06 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com>
Paul,
You can go to "cnet" or direct to "openoffice.org"
and download open office for free. It's just like office for windows.
Why is it free ? Knowing that it's made by Sun micro systems helps answer
that.
Larry Mac Donald
lm4@juno.com
Rochester N.Y.
Do not achcive
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:22:22 -0500 "Paul Quarberg"
<quarberg@chipvalley.com> writes:
> --> 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
>
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Good Morning Kent,
It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if
it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine
since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!)
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 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kcorr@charter.net writes:
To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's
thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator?
Kent
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
Good Morning Kent,
It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if
it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine
since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!)
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 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kcorr@charter.net writes:
To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's
thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator?
Kent
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I
have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: BB Battery Company model BP17-12. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:10 AM 6/13/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Bradburry"
><bbradburry@allvantage.com>
>
>The battery I'm looking at is the BB Battery Company model BP17-12.
>Through Digikey www.digikey.com they are $24.69 each and weigh 13.56
>lbs
>
>Does anyone have any knowledge of this battery and battery company?
>This seems really cheap, which always worries me. The battery is almost
>a direct replacement of the Odyssey 680 that goes for about $100????
>
>Bill Bradburry
Assuming anything about a battery based on brand and
marketing is not good science. As I noted in an article
several years ago . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
. . . there didn't seem to be much one can do to
the recipe for a battery without severely altering
the capability of the product. In the article, I
found that no matter what price/brand AA-alkaline
you purchased, there was very little difference in
capabilities.
Digikey is a pretty upstanding supplier of stuff
to industry. They're not going to stock a battery
that's causing a lot of grief for their customers.
BB battery has a website and publishes a data
sheet for this product at:
http://www.bb-battery.com/bp17-12.pdf
The batteries appear to be made in China, hence
the lower than average cost. Cut corners? Yes,
many manufacturer's have tried to compete by
recipe/process adjustment on many products over
the years and they're all gone now.
Call the Hawker folks up and they'll give you
an extensive data dump on why you should favor their
product over the BB battery. But they're not prepared
to give you data on tests that show the return on
investment for purchasing the Odyssey over a BB
is there.
A battery can become unavailable for a number of
reasons other than absolutely quality of the battery.
I've suggested many times that one should be
both outfitted and skilled to fly any airplane
in the "J-3 mode". When I walk up to a rental airplane,
I have no knowledge of that airplane's electrical
system history and I'm not particularly inclined to go
research it before every rental. That's why the
flight bag has enough hardware in it to let me
continue flight to intended destination with
the panel completely black should the need arise.
Now, if for some reason you do have problems with
this battery, YOU can become the source of information
that will in answering future questions about
BB's product.
Bottom line is that the risks for trying the BB
product are low from square one. If you also sign
up to the philosophy of maintaining the battery so
that you KNOW what its capacity is -AND- you're
equally prepared to fly in the J-3 mode then
risks for trying this product are exceedingly
small.
Bob . . .
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I
have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
Hi Kevin, I agree. I would go even further to say we
should plan for redundant back up of ANY system that
is vital for flight safety. I.E. electric fuel pump
as a backup to the engine driven. The gist of my
prior post was to point out this was not an EFIS
failure since the incident was being used to vilify
EFIS systems. If you read the incident report, the
efis did not even stop working on the Captain's side.
Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach
P.S. As an aside, I have experienced two pitot static
system failures in my many years of flying so yes,
anything can fail, even steam gauges.
---
__________________________________________________
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | ic-List:IFR Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central
Standard Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and
VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same
installed except that I have two T&Bs, one electric
and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Bob there will be no flaming from me. I am sure you are much more
knowledgable than I on these matters. I only commented since it seems odd
there was no way for the pilot to go to a secondary dc power system and put
the essentials back on line. Also causing braking problems, which accually
looks like it was a bigger problem than loosing the efis. I would almost
wager that since this incidence there has been a change in the electrical
architechure. Also since this was back in 1996 I am almost certain that the
technology has advanced since then and also figure most airline pilots keep
a 396 or equivilent in their flight bag just in case these days. I am low
time pilot and have already had a vacuum pump go out on my 1968 cherokee
which put a sour taste in my mouth for steam gauges. It is interesting to
see the ideas and responses to redundancy. Opinions are like noses everybody
has one. My motto is "redundancy redundancy redundancy ohhhh my and more
redundancy" LOL. If ones loses the engine on a SEL all the gauges in the
world won't help. I am not making light of the situation but there has to be
a maximum point somewhere. Sorry for the rant.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Sultzbach" <endspeed@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Good Morning Kent,
It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if
it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine
since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!)
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 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kcorr@charter.net writes:
To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's
thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator?
Kent
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I
have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "N601RT" <N601RT@comcast.net>
Randy,
The avionics shop that built my panel did not want to wire my iCom A23 to the Garmin
audio panel. I've since moved my panel mounted nav/com to com2 and wired
the A23 to com1. The A23 has a seperate antenna and works fine.
Why com1? If I have complete electrical failure (or if for some reasons I lose
power to the audio panel) com1 will default connect to the pilot headset with
the PTT working.
Additional, possibly useful information:
The connector for the A23 (and A5) is a 30-701 which I got from http://www.svideodotcom.com/. $2.55 each in 2003. Pictures of this at http://www.calrad.com/calrad/cat-59page2.html near the bottom of the page.
Using an ohm meter with the headset adapter cable I found:
- The tip end of the connector goes to the headset speaker
- The contact closest to the tip goes to the "Ring", mike audio. See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html.
- The contact two away from the tip goes to the "Tip" PTT. Again see http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html.
- The contact closest to the black housing and wires (farthest from the end) is
ground (or common, or audio low)
Regards,
Roy
N601RT: CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, Arplast PV-50, All electric, IFR equipped,
535hrs, 640 landings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40740#40740
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Bob:
Does Kevin have precisely what you want? This is the fourth or fifth
message from you . . .
TDT
do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a
turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except
that I have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | IFR Requirements |
Something is re-sending Bob Sigfried's emails. Bob is one of the true
gentlemen on this list and deserves to be treated as such.
Terry
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Bob:
Does Kevin have precisely what you want? This is the fourth or fifth
message from you . . .
TDT
do not archive
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and
bank and a wing leveler.
Kevin Horton
Good Morning Kevin,
You have precisely what I would want.
While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I
have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven.
Just in case!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | IFR Requirements |
After a lot of thought, we seem close to deciding on this system:
Buss A
* GNS430 (Approach Certified)
* Transponder
* Autopilot (TruTrak DigiFlight with independent gyros)
* Grand Rapids Engine Monitor with altitude...
* Angle of Attack
Buss B
* Grand Rapids EFIS-1 with separate GPS
* Misc. Avionics
The thought is we can survive failure of either buss or any component on
it:
Buss B Fails:
* Switch to autopilot for wings level, attitude control
* Altimeter from GRT Engine Monitor Option & Garmin
* Course from Garmin
* AOA gives us backup A/S surrogate.
Buss A Fails:
* Fly EFIS - have all air and attitude data we need, spare GPS.
* Engine Monitor by ear.
Seems like a reasonable risk level without any steam gages.
Comments?
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Great minds think alike Roy...On the RV7 I had my Icom A200 wired as
com1 because the standby alternator will not run the GNS430, fuel pump
and transponder (EFIS is battery backed up).
That way I can also switch off the audio panel to save power and hand
fly through the soup and bang everything back on for the approach.
Cheers
Frank
601 HDS soon to be sold this time I think
Do not archive
Randy,
The avionics shop that built my panel did not want to wire my iCom A23
to the Garmin audio panel. I've since moved my panel mounted nav/com to
com2 and wired the A23 to com1. The A23 has a seperate antenna and works
fine.
Why com1? If I have complete electrical failure (or if for some reasons
I lose power to the audio panel) com1 will default connect to the pilot
headset with the PTT working.
Additional, possibly useful information:
The connector for the A23 (and A5) is a 30-701 which I got from
http://www.svideodotcom.com/. $2.55 each in 2003. Pictures of this at
http://www.calrad.com/calrad/cat-59page2.html near the bottom of the
page.
Using an ohm meter with the headset adapter cable I found:
- The tip end of the connector goes to the headset speaker
- The contact closest to the tip goes to the "Ring", mike audio. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html.
- The contact two away from the tip goes to the "Tip" PTT. Again see
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html.
- The contact closest to the black housing and wires (farthest from the
end) is ground (or common, or audio low)
Regards,
Roy
N601RT: CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, Arplast PV-50, All electric,
IFR equipped, 535hrs, 640 landings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40740#40740
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | IFR Requirements |
We were thinking of adding a diode-protected feed from a second bus to
our GRT EIS, so one would have engine data regardless of a single bus
failure . . .
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
After a lot of thought, we seem close to deciding on this system:
Buss A
* GNS430 (Approach Certified)
* Transponder
* Autopilot (TruTrak DigiFlight with independent gyros)
* Grand Rapids Engine Monitor with altitude...
* Angle of Attack
Buss B
* Grand Rapids EFIS-1 with separate GPS
* Misc. Avionics
The thought is we can survive failure of either buss or any component on
it:
Buss B Fails:
* Switch to autopilot for wings level, attitude control
* Altimeter from GRT Engine Monitor Option & Garmin
* Course from Garmin
* AOA gives us backup A/S surrogate.
Buss A Fails:
* Fly EFIS - have all air and attitude data we need, spare GPS.
* Engine Monitor by ear.
Seems like a reasonable risk level without any steam gages.
Comments?
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
>wantanother 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
>IFRwhere 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
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
Nice one george... iagree vacuum systems do suck (but not all the
time)....:)
For me I went with an Dynon EFIS (with a couple of steam guage backups)
for primary flight and a truetrack Pictorial Pilot as the backup when
everything goes mental.
the EFIS is battery backed up and my reduced power mode (SD-8
alternator) wll run a fuel pump, radio (to scream "HELP" on) and the
transponder.
As you say if the prop falls off your dead anyway in IFR.
Frank
Zenair Zodiac 400 hours soon to be sold
RV7a paining.
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to
have)
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The
backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
>wantanother
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified |
>From: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
>
>George,
>I do not have a horse in this race, but I believe you've missed the
>point of the original article.
Thanks Rick for the correction. I don't have a horse is this race and
apparently if I did it would be lame. (ha ha)
I agree I was not dead on point. Call it a Non sequitur, neither right or
wrong but not on point. However I think I do make some relevant points.
As far as Direct2/Freeflight and Chelton, I did not get we where talking
about this brand spacifically. I am sure they're awesome units. However
if it can meet the FAR's/TSO it should be sold as such. If they make
two models that are physically and functionally the same and you
want or NEED IFR equip, buy the TSO'ed equip. Done deal.
For the doctor to say you/we can evaluate that a NON TSO model is
the same as the TSO'ed model is debatable.
I would call the FAA. As the article states there is even confusion with
the FAA, but if you really want the answer you have to ask the right
people. Of course if you only want to hear and believe the non-TSO'ed
unit is OK, don't bother asking. Just do it and take the PhD CFII word
on it. I would not. I am sure there are pilots shooting GPS approaches
with GPS handheld's because some rocket scientist told them it was
OK. We are talking about the legal nuance and not what you can get
away with.
The good Doctor may be right, but in my experience the FAA is the
only one that counts. I suggest anyone contact EAA legal and ask this
question first than go to the FSDO. Often you need to contact the
FSDO that's in the region that does avionics. You have to talk to right
person. In the end it comes down to what is written down and how it is
interpreted. I could be wrong, but I am conservative and would opt
to CYA and use the TSO'ed equip. Of course if you can afford this
many 10's of thousand dollar equipment why pinch pennies.
There is a TSO'ed designation for reason, even for Com radios. The
ICOM A-200 com has a TSO'ed version and a non-TSO'ed version for
about $100 less. Of course there no need for a TSO'ed Com in an
experimental. So one might say that applies to IFR GPS navigation.
Well some things need to be TSO'ed even in an experimental, like
the Transponder and ELT. I am going add IFR GPS.
If you want IFR GPS navigation get a TSO'ed device, either a:
$2000 early Gen IFR GPS w/ CDI **
-OR-
$6,000-$12,000 later Gen IFR GPS (e.g., Garmin GNS/GNC)
-OR-
$40,000(?) TSO'ed IFR EFIS.
** As far as small monochrome small GPS displays vs. large color
displays, when I fly an approach all I want is what I have used for over
20 years, two needles, the azimuth and glide path. All the color stuff
is great situational awareness, but when it comes to an approach the
thing that counts are those two needles. For me, give me a good
VOR/LOV/GS receiver (which can typ get you 200 and 1/2) for IFR and
a good handheld GPS for refrence only. I prefer using cheaper paper
charts and plates that I update when I need it and for the region I
want to fly verses expensive electronic updates. Of course with the
newer WAAS / RAIM receivers you will be able to get lower GPS
mins, but the VOR ILS back bone will be around for decades to come.
Bottom line for me I think you need the pedigree, paper work,
TSO good housekeeping seal of approval to make it you GPS legal
for IFR flight, regardless of make/model and similarity to other
models. Clearly the future is EFIS/IFR GPS WAAS but we are
a ways off.
Cheers Geroge ATP/CFII
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
Hi Randy,
I know about the circuit breaker situation on the
757/767 because of an experience I had luckily with
accepting an inbound aircraft. Everything was going
haywire and I looked for the circuit breakers on the
DC battery bus panel. Lo and behold, c/b's were
popped and some were bent. We replaced the c/b's and
all the problems went away. When you mess with a
767/757 by popping cb's and try to operate that way
God only knows what logic is going to get fouled up.
It is impressive to have all the bells, lights, and
whistles going off at once and not being able to make
them stop. I can't fault the crew of that 767 but
I'll bet the copilot snagged the cb's on the way in or
out of that seat and when they got on the ground the
popped breakers were reset. Problem solved and no one
the wiser at that.
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
OK, yea those standby 2.5 ADI's are nice but I'd have to sell my Lexus
to
buy one.
What I don't understand is the willingness of some to go out and fly
hard
IFR with only a BMI/Dynon/whatever and a plumb bob as a backup. You
might
think that vacuum sucks but a properly maintained vacuum system is very
reliable and it works when everything else goes dark.
Though I've never flown part 121 aircraft, I've paid my dues flying lots
of
other part 135 junk including a 2 year stint as a freight dog flying
checks
in D18's at night in Kansas. If it could fail, I've had it fail. It's
all
taught me several important lessons. Never, NEVER trust your life to one
piece of equipment. Always leave yourself a way out. And there is no
shame
in canceling a flight.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to
have)
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The
backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
>wantanother
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
The NTSB report says that the ground cable for the main battery was
not positively secured to the main battery shunt. This may have been
a failure mode that was not considered by Boeing. But, the ground
testing could not duplicate the original failure, so there was
another variable that they couldn't track down.
I suspect many electrical systems would be put in a very bad state if
the main battery ground cable became disconnected. With my aircraft,
the whole electrical system would become unusable, and I'd be down to
the internal battery on my EFIS (advertised as 3 hr duration), plus
handheld COM and GPS. This should allow me to get on the ground
somewhere.
Kevin Horton
On 13 Jun 2006, at 12:30, Brinker wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-
> internet.com>
>
> Bob there will be no flaming from me. I am sure you are
> much more knowledgable than I on these matters. I only commented
> since it seems odd there was no way for the pilot to go to a
> secondary dc power system and put the essentials back on line. Also
> causing braking problems, which accually looks like it was a bigger
> problem than loosing the efis. I would almost wager that since this
> incidence there has been a change in the electrical architechure.
> Also since this was back in 1996 I am almost certain that the
> technology has advanced since then and also figure most airline
> pilots keep a 396 or equivilent in their flight bag just in case
> these days. I am low time pilot and have already had a vacuum pump
> go out on my 1968 cherokee which put a sour taste in my mouth for
> steam gauges. It is interesting to see the ideas and responses to
> redundancy. Opinions are like noses everybody has one. My motto is
> "redundancy redundancy redundancy ohhhh my and more redundancy"
> LOL. If ones loses the engine on a SEL all the gauges in the world
> won't help. I am not making light of the situation but there has to
> be a maximum point somewhere. Sorry for the rant.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sultzbach"
> <endspeed@yahoo.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:26 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 |
|
Subject: | IFR Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
6/13/2006
Responding to a previous posting (partially copied below) by John Erickson
on this subject.
Hello John, Thank you for the labor that you invested to create your posting
for the benefit of other pilots and builders.
I'd like to note that this information is also available in a condensed
tabular form from me upon direct e mail request.
Also see pages 49 and 50 of the June 2006 issue of Kitplanes magazine for a
published version of this table and the introduction.
OC
<<Time: 09:21:53 AM PST US
From: "John Erickson" <john.erickson@cox.net>
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......skip...>>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <kcorr@charter.net>
Hi Bob,
This is something I am considering down the road for my airplane. Please keep
us posted how things work out for you.
best regards,
Kent Orr
do not archive
---- BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Good Morning Kent,
>
> It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if
> it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine
> since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!)
>
> 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 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> kcorr@charter.net writes:
>
> To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's
> thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator?
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
Message Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be
talking out my wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental builders
including myself are installing an angle of attack mine the AFS can
operate off of a 9v battery, so it will not be affected by loss of the
planes bus power. The AOA takes the place of the ASI and VSI so two
steam gauges gone out of precouis panel space, not to mention that my
backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi, altitude, and of course heading so
I don't get lost. And I think most pilots these days carry something
similar. I also think most put their auto pilot as I will on the e-bus
which should keep us out of a nose dive long enough to regroup. Insofar
as a 2 1/4" T&B check Trutraks, around $450,which is the only round
gauge I plan on, or spend a little more and get an electric ADI from
them. A few years ago these items we're unheard of or at least too
expensive for most light aircraft. We now have redundancy in a flight
bag along with some neat comparatively inexpensive items in dash. I'm
not sure what hard IFR is, I'm not yet rated but am working on it, but I
for one will cancel any flight I don't feel comfortable with and will
hopefully not be flying into any wing breaking weather with the help of
xm and an old outdated wx8.
Randy
opinions ARE like noses and I hope mine is'nt sticking out so far as to
get knocked off
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Gray
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs.
good to have)
OK, yea those standby 2.5 ADI's are nice but I'd have to sell my Lexus
to buy one.
What I don't understand is the willingness of some to go out and fly
hard IFR with only a BMI/Dynon/whatever and a plumb bob as a backup. You
might think that vacuum sucks but a properly maintained vacuum system is
very reliable and it works when everything else goes dark.
Though I've never flown part 121 aircraft, I've paid my dues flying
lots of other part 135 junk including a 2 year stint as a freight dog
flying checks in D18's at night in Kansas. If it could fail, I've had it
fail. It's all taught me several important lessons. Never, NEVER trust
your life to one piece of equipment. Always leave yourself a way out.
And there is no shame in canceling a flight.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:19 PM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good
to have)
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA
plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The
backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even
the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function
of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals
that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power
supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air
transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve
any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe
architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when
the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls
off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I
don't
>wantanother
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/13/2006 7:36:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kcorr@charter.net writes:
Hi Bob,
This is something I am considering down the road for my airplane. Please
keep us posted how things work out for you.
best regards,
Kent Orr
do not archive
Good Evening Kent,
I will certainly do so!
Sorry for the multiple posts earlier today. Things seem to have settled down
for the evening. (At least, I hope so!)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
Subject: | Antenna on old aircraft . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>Comments/Questions: Seeking best way to put an external antenna for a
>handheld comm radio on an old non electric Champ
>thanks
Have you tried the hand-held with just the rubber-duck
antenna? How bad is the ignition noise? Many of these
older, non-electric aircraft have terrible magneto noise
making ANY radio installation useless irrespective of how
good your antenna is.
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 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 |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
One small pet peeve of mine - the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A
simple point - but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the
differences can be disastrous - especially in an emergency when mental
workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don't
forget. It shows ground speed not IAS.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to
have)
Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be talking out my
wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental builders including myself
are installing an angle of attack mine the AFS can operate off of a 9v
battery, so it will not be affected by loss of the planes bus power. The AOA
takes the place of the ASI and VSI so two steam gauges gone out of precouis
panel space, not to mention that my backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi,
altitude, and of course heading .
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
--- 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 ---
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|