Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:44 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 07:01 AM - Re: Re: Transponder replacement..... (Brian Lloyd)
3. 07:02 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (Dave N6030X)
4. 07:32 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:45 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:57 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (Brian Lloyd)
7. 01:15 PM - magnetic screwdrivers (CardinalNSB@aol.com)
8. 02:29 PM - altitude encoders ()
9. 03:30 PM - encoder approval ()
10. 03:39 PM - Re: encoder approval (Charlie Kuss)
11. 05:05 PM - Re: encoder approval (Kevin Horton)
12. 05:05 PM - Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd)
13. 05:20 PM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (Ken)
14. 05:35 PM - Re: Transponder replacement..... (europa flugzeug fabrik)
15. 06:14 PM - Re: encoder approval (Dave N6030X)
16. 06:31 PM - encoder approval ()
17. 06:55 PM - Re: encoder approval (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 09:03 PM - Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software (David Lloyd)
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: "Major" vs. "minor" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>The problem is, there is no competition for the government. It
>operates outside the laws of economics. I cannot switch my taxes to a
>competitive government agency that does better work for me as I can
>with businesses producing products.
Correct. No consumer/supplier relationship . . . and no warranty
either. We are not permitted to seek and accept or reject
the 'service' nor are we blessed with the conditions that
permit us to get our money back when the service is not as
advertised.
Bob . . .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder replacement..... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 11, 2006, at 7:33 PM, europa flugzeug fabrik wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "europa flugzeug fabrik"
> <n3eu@comcast.net>
>
>
> Jim Baker wrote:
>> Just wondering if anyone had any comments concerning the
>> following issue with Narco transponder units..
>>
>> http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/NarcoProblems.htm
>
> Ive had no problems with my AT-165. If Narco says their
> transponders work, as they must, and they pass the biennial check,
> we can use them. Keith Peshak doesnt make the rules, and hes
> been raging about the P4 problem for years to no apparent avail.
> FAA ignores.
>
> I had an AT-150 covered by the AD (apparent P4 problem), but never
> did it. ATC never said anything. Perhaps a problem in isolated
> instances (re TCAS, I think).
I have had problems with transponder/RADAR compatibility with a
couple of different transponders, all of which checked out OK on the
bench (with one exception). The problems do exist and it is possible
that a transponder that checks good on the bench will not work
properly with some ATC RADARs. I even received a pink-slip from the
FAA grounding my aircraft until the transponder was repaired. The
funny thing was, it worked fine with Sacramento, "failed" with
Stockton, and then worked fine again when I crossed into Bay
Approach's airspace. (One flight, all within the space of 15
minutes.) Still, I had to pay a shop to recertify my transponder and
then send the paperwork to the FAA before I could fly again. Funny
thing, the shop found the transponder to be working perfectly.
FWIW, I have had problems with the Terra transponder (no longer made)
and the Garmin GTX-320. The 320 was especially troublesome with
obvious engineering deficiencies in that it was almost impossible to
tune it accurately and get it to stay on frequency. The most reliable
transponder I have ever used is the King KT-76A. Right now I have
Apollo SL-70 transponders in my aircraft and they seem to be quite
reliable although I don't have the same number of years of experience
I have had with the KT-76A.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 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: "Major" vs. "minor" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
OK, but this is a government "of, by, and for the people". We are
the people. Do we have to let this happen around us with no resistance?
That's why I think (as distasteful as it is to me), we need to do
something like Ralph Nader did, when he turned SAFETY into an issue
that forced the government to make all sorts of changes. It turned
out his "safety" issue was a complete lie and fabrication, and the
Corvair was completely innocent of all charges, but he was able
nonetheless to use that technique to do in a matter of a year or two
what nobody had been able to do before: fight city hall.
How could that be translated into the aviation world? How many
members do AOPA and EAA have combined?
Dave Morris
At 08:41 AM 8/12/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
>>
>>The problem is, there is no competition for the government. It
>>operates outside the laws of economics. I cannot switch my taxes to a
>>competitive government agency that does better work for me as I can
>>with businesses producing products.
>
> Correct. No consumer/supplier relationship . . . and no warranty
> either. We are not permitted to seek and accept or reject
> the 'service' nor are we blessed with the conditions that
> permit us to get our money back when the service is not as
> advertised.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: "Major" vs. "minor" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:08 AM 8/11/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
>December 17, 2006 - Kitty Hawk
>
>Today over 6,000 aircraft owners collectively defied the Federal Aviation
>Administration by installing a jumper across their avionics master
>switches. Sven Von Berg, leader of the revolt, stated "The Avionics
>Master switch is an antiquated concept that provides a single point of
>failure for the entire radio system. We cannot continue to abide by rules
>that make our aircraft unsafe, and the FAA won't do anything about it."
>
<snip>
>In an unrelated story, a pilot was prevented from flying his wooden
>airplane today during celebrations at Kitty Hawk, because his 3rd Class
>Medical had expired a few days prior. "It's not safe for him to fly
>today. Last week it would have been safe", said Whiplash.
An interesting thing to contemplate but consider that
bureaucracies are like big marsh mellows. You can walk
up and deliver a decidedly satisfying punch . . . perhaps
penetrating all the way up to the elbow. But walk away
and the 'wound' slowly recovers to repair the damage
you thought you delivered.
Take the boat-LORAN phenomenon of some years ago. FAA
was real excited in a regulatory sort of way when they
discovered that owners were hanging marine LORAN receivers
in their airplanes and getting useful performance that
left their esteemed VOR/DME in the dust. Did they do a mass
roundup and wholesale prosecution of those who demonstrated
displeasure by a public defiance of the rules?
No problemo . . . they threw up a few inexpensive
transmitters in the mountains and formalized the
requirements for aircraft LORAN and did an end run
on the folks who thought they'd delivered a real
blow to the FAA marsh mellow. At the same time, they
expanded their domain of "good and necessary
services for the public welfare". The $600 boat
LORAN was bureaucratically 'obsoleted' by a $2000
'certified' product.
If 6,000 owner's bypassed their avionics master
switch, the FAA could easily issue an advisory
circular that formalized the activity and then required
that 337's be executed and filed for each mod.
The aviation community might even be fooled into
believing they pulled off a victory. Instead, a
whole army of bureaucrats would have put yet
another hand into the public wallet.
The only way to end a no-value added activity
is to cut off its source of energy. I.e, it needs
to be eliminated in its entirety. Like forest
fires and crab grass (prune a little here,
poison a little there) you cannot allow remnants
from which the antagonist returns. Further, just like
organisms that are becoming increasingly resistant
to antibiotics, bureaucracies that are badly
injured but not dispatched come back in more
virulent forms. The parasitic human is much more
adaptive than plants and bacteria . . .
Civil disobedience and widely publicized "revolts"
have a certain allure but like all forms of
conflict . . . peace comes only after victory and
defeat and never by reconciliation and compromise.
Successful bureaucrats are masters of the techniques
of survival . . . either by total domination (YOUR defeat)
or finesse (compromise, mostly in their favor . . . a
slight wound but quickly healed).
I recall a scene in "Gandi" where Mahatma Gandhi was
sitting at a table of British bureaucrats and the
head cheese was inquiring of Gandi as to how they might
reach some kind of agreement (i.e. compromise). Gandi
replied that compromise was not possible and the only
recourse for the British was to simply leave.
Our brothers in the TC aircraft world are fully engulfed
by the tendrils and roots of the prevailing "public
welfare". Short of a good dose of Roundup to eliminate
the problem in it's entirety, the best we can hope for
in the OBAM aviation world is to whack off those
"runners" any time we catch one crossing the
edge of the garden. But protection from intrusion
on our craft is not enough. We're obliged to operate
in an environment that is beyond our ability to
influence. We may find ourselves in complete command
of the best aircraft ever built but allowed only to
operate in "uncontrolled airspace" at or below 700'
AGL. Seems silly to contemplate . . . but there's
absolutely nothing in the honorable citizen's bag of
tricks (beyond the election of intelligent and honorable
legislators) to keep such a thing from coming to pass . . .
Bob . . .
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: "Major" vs. "minor" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:00 AM 8/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
>OK, but this is a government "of, by, and for the people". We are the
>people. Do we have to let this happen around us with no resistance?
>
>That's why I think (as distasteful as it is to me), we need to do
>something like Ralph Nader did, when he turned SAFETY into an issue that
>forced the government to make all sorts of changes. It turned out his
>"safety" issue was a complete lie and fabrication, and the Corvair was
>completely innocent of all charges, but he was able nonetheless to use
>that technique to do in a matter of a year or two what nobody had been
>able to do before: fight city hall.
>
>How could that be translated into the aviation world? How many members do
>AOPA and EAA have combined?
>
>Dave Morris
There is no magnitude of public pressure that
will produced the results you seek. Yes, uncle
Ralph had an influence . . . but was it positive?
It's public outcry like Ralph's that prompted the
formation of yet more bureaucracy that ultimately
costs us money but still guarantees nothing.
If Ralph had instead concentrated on remedies in
the marketplace to illuminate and explain the
design deficiencies in a product, the educated consumer
would avoid the product and it would have died for
lack of customers. Remedies for the injured were already
in place within the legal system. But the easy route
is to persuade a majority of legislators and a president
that some new law is a solution to a problem.
I'm sure Mr. Nader believes (as do many of his
devotees) that his efforts produced a good and valuable
activity. But if one studies the economics of the
results of his actions, we're almost certain to find
that return on investment (dollars spent for lives
"saved") cannot be calculated . . . yet EVERY politician
is ready to expand a publicly financed activity in
the interest of "safety" but without a single tool
to know if the expenditure has real benefits to
the consumer. Suppler/consumer relationships are self
regulating as long as there is no force or fraud.
It's much easier and less expensive to investigate
and expose fraud than to legislate, enforce, adjudicate
and punish fraud. But the former creates no bureaucracies
and the later births and feeds many.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 12, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Dave N6030X wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> OK, but this is a government "of, by, and for the people". We are
> the people. Do we have to let this happen around us with no
> resistance?
I guess that depends on you.
> That's why I think (as distasteful as it is to me), we need to do
> something like Ralph Nader did, when he turned SAFETY into an issue
> that forced the government to make all sorts of changes. It turned
> out his "safety" issue was a complete lie and fabrication, and the
> Corvair was completely innocent of all charges, but he was able
> nonetheless to use that technique to do in a matter of a year or
> two what nobody had been able to do before: fight city hall.
So the ends justifies the means?
> How could that be translated into the aviation world? How many
> members do AOPA and EAA have combined?
The government is a nasty opponent. How many people are prepared for
the hell all the government agencies could make of their life? I
would expect the "hoovering" to cross agency boundaries. You would
*start* with losing your ticket with the FAA using the justification
of "dangerous and reckless". You can then expect someone to tip off
BATF that you have illegal firearms. Someone would tip off the FBI
that you are a terrorist. Throw in an IRS audit. EPA would discover
that your business is alleged to have dumped toxic waste and is now
liable for the clean-up. Child protective services will hear rumors
that you are sexually abusing your children so they will have to
investigate. DEA will confiscate your aircraft because they have a
tip from a reliable source that you have been running drugs. Need I
go on?
None of this stuff has to actually be true; only the initial
accusation is needed to start the investigatory process. The concept
of "innocent until proven guilty" applies in criminal law but seems
to have been forgotten in administrative law. Sure you can go to
court and fight all of these things. You will probably be exonerated.
You will probably get your property and children back. But since your
adversary will have been the government, don't expect to get any
awards for your costs. Are you prepared to bear the brunt of the
costs yourself?
And the funny thing is, the people involved in these agencies will
actually believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of
the people they are protecting. Almost none of them will harbor any
ill feelings toward you. They are just doing their jobs. These are
the jobs and rules that were created by the agencies that were
created by the laws passed by the representatives that you elected.
So you are are getting government "of, by, and for the people".
So how are you going to fight it?
Sure if you could get *all* the pilots to participate it would
probably work but most people are just going to go along to get
along. There are even those who think that the government is good and
right. So you will never get 100% buy-in. And there are those who
will look at the potential and say, "not me, it just isn't that bad."
Who's left?
I agree with your sentiments. I just think we may be too late to do
anything about it. We fight our little skirmishes and hope we will be
allowed to continue to fly and live the lives we seek to live, more
or less in peace. I don't want to think about the alternatives right
now.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 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: | magnetic screwdrivers |
Thanks for the thoughts on magnetic screwdrivers, perhaps that is why my
mechanic keeps hiding the magnetic glovebox latch that Cessna so thoughtfully
designed. btw, my reference was to the "hard drive" magnets, I have a few
from generations past "neobydium" or something, they are supposed to be among
the strongest. Thanks, Skip Simpson
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: | altitude encoders |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/12/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton
Hello Kevin, Thanks for your input.
You wrote: "....skip......But, once Washington finds out the FSDO has
approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring testing over the full
range of conditions, they will probably release
a policy letter that stops you in your tracks.....skip........"
For the most part neither FAA headquarters nor FSDO's are aware of the
situation. For years hundreds of non TSO'd altitude encoders with technology
and performance superior to that called for in the TSO have been built,
sold, installed, flying, tested satisfactorily every two years in accordance
with FAR Part 43, and flying some more.
I am not at risk of being stopped, I have a TSO'd altitude encoder in my
flying amateur built experimental airplane, but I may want to build another
plane with an EFIS and I want the EFIS developers and builders and the FAA
to have reached a rational arrangement by that time.
And I don't want that rational arrangement to include the FAA stifling the
tremendous progress that has been made by EFIS developers by throwing a
prohibitive bureaucratic blanket on the developers. Nor do I want all the
airplanes presently flying with non TSO'd altitude encoders to be grounded.
I think the solution lies in a more rational interpretation of the intent of
FAR 91.217 (b).
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<<AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
Good luck. I think you are wasting your time, albeit for a good
cause. Granted, you might manage to find some FSDO that doesn't
understand that 95% probability does in fact mean over the full range
of expected conditions (speaking from experience working with the
aircraft cert FARs for many years). But, once Washington finds out
the FSDO has approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring
testing over the full range of conditions, they will probably release
a policy letter that stops you in your tracks.
I'm not saying that things should be like this, but this is the way
they are, like it or not. The only way out, in my opinion, is a
change to 91.217, but reg changes typically take 10 years or more.
Kevin Horton>>
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: | encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/12/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton
Hello Again Kevin, Continuing our dialogue on our current favorite subject:
1) You wrote: "Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons
to
require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over
the full range of conditions under which it will operate?
Yes.
2) You wrote: " How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will operate
correctly at
temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc?
I would base my confidence in a proven non TSO'd altitude encoder on two
things:
A) The superior newer technology used in manufacturing the encoder.
B) The actual past performance of that encoder over years of use in the
field.
3) You wrote: "If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the full
range of
conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there."
I worked for years in the airborne weapons testing field and I assure you
that there is no such thing as ground or laboratory testing "under the full
range of conditions". Actual satisfactory performance in the field after a
significant period time in use is the best indication of the suitability of
a piece of equipment for its intended use.
4) You wrote: "If he has done the testing, and it does operate properly over
the full
range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO for
it?
Two words -- time and money. When a small business sets out to create,
manufacture, and sell a better mouse trap that it has developed it can only
operate for so long on the capital available before some income has to
arrive in order to sustain the business. If that capital is totally
dissipated in un needed tests and bureaucratic paper generation before
sufficient income arrives the company dies and the better mouse trap with
it.
5) You wrote: "The fact that air traffic control has not detected a problem
with
someone's encoder says very little."
You are right. But we are not talking about just someone's encoder. We are
talking about hundreds of encoders that have been performing satisfactorily
in flight for years and have satisfactorily passed the FAR Part 43
Appendices E and F tests many times every two years.
6) You wrote: "If there is a problem, it might not show up until another
aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries to avoid your aircraft, yet hits
it because the encode was in error.
Is this acceptable?"
No. But I say again, the technology used and the performance of the proven
non TSO'd encoders is superior to that called for in the TSO. No piece of
equipment can guarantee perfect peformance throughout its entire service
life, but the better technology encoder is less likely to have a problem
show up.
7) You wrote: "If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would you
word it
to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective?"
My preferred first step in the process to resolve the present situation is
an interpretation from FAA headquarters that automatic pressure altitude
reporting equipment that is installed in amateur built experimental aircraft
and tested in accordance with the appropriate provisions of FAR 91.411,
91.413, and appropriate Appendices to FAR Part 43 are considered to be in
compliance with FAR 91.217 (b).
I'll let the experts and lawyers work on a permanent rational solution.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<<AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
Hi Owen,
Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to
require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over
the full range of conditions under which it will operate? How can
you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will operate correctly at
temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc? If the
manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the full range of
conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there. If he
has done the testing, and it does operate properly over the full
range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO
for it?
The fact that air traffic control has not detected a problem with
someone's encoder says very little. If there is a problem, it might
not show up until another aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries
to avoid your aircraft, yet hits it because the encode was in error.
Is this acceptable? Note: recent regulatory changes will require
more and more aircraft to get TCAS-like systems, so it will become
even more important that all encoders be telling the truth.
If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would you word it
to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective?
Kevin Horton>>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
snipped
>Given that more people are going for all-in-one PFDs like Dynon, et
>al, one is going to want to have a cross-reference for altitude. This
>means a display for your encoder. By having a second air-data device
>with a display you can cross check with your PFD. Something to think
>about.
>
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
Brian,
The RMI uEncoder is a great addition for the need stated above. I
gives you redundancy for all 3 primary instruments as well as an
encoder which is tied to the altimeter function. It only takes up one
3.125" hole in the panel. It's also handy for simplifying your scan
during "partial panel" practice.
Charlie Kuss
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 12 Aug 2006, at 18:27, <bakerocb@cox.net> <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by
> Kevin Horton
>
> 2) You wrote: " How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder
> will operate correctly at
> temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
> voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc?
>
> I would base my confidence in a proven non TSO'd altitude encoder
> on two things:
>
> A) The superior newer technology used in manufacturing the encoder.
>
> B) The actual past performance of that encoder over years of use in
> the field.
>
> 3) You wrote: "If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under
> the full range of
> conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there."
>
> I worked for years in the airborne weapons testing field and I
> assure you that there is no such thing as ground or laboratory
> testing "under the full range of conditions". Actual satisfactory
> performance in the field after a significant period time in use is
> the best indication of the suitability of a piece of equipment for
> its intended use.
So, once an encoder had a significant period of satisfactory in-
service use, it would be legal to use that encoder in service. This
might work for currently existing encoders, if we accept that there
is a reasonable probability that an in-service problem would be
detected. But how would this approach help for a new encoder?
>
> 4) You wrote: "If he has done the testing, and it does operate
> properly over the full
> range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a
> TSO for it?
>
> Two words -- time and money. When a small business sets out to
> create, manufacture, and sell a better mouse trap that it has
> developed it can only operate for so long on the capital available
> before some income has to arrive in order to sustain the business.
> If that capital is totally dissipated in un needed tests and
> bureaucratic paper generation before sufficient income arrives the
> company dies and the better mouse trap with it.
Surely the manufacturer must do a reasonable amount of testing before
they determine that the encoder actually works correctly. I wonder
why they can't document that testing and use it as part of a TSO
submission. Maybe the answer is to improve the TSO process. Review
the TSO, pull out any unneeded tests, reduce the bureaucratic
paperwork, and streamline the review process. As it is, my
recollection is that the FAA has 30 days from the time a TSO package
is submitted to accept it. That isn't bad (if my memory hasn't
failed me).
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 12, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
> Brian,
> The RMI uEncoder is a great addition for the need stated above. I
> gives you redundancy for all 3 primary instruments as well as an
> encoder which is tied to the altimeter function. It only takes up
> one 3.125" hole in the panel. It's also handy for simplifying your
> scan during "partial panel" practice.
It looks like a good instrument. The only problem with a digital
display is that it makes it hard to see trends. With steam gauges or
tapes, I get information from how fast they are moving, something
hard to see with changing numbers.
Regardless, it does give you a lot of information in one hole. I
think that if I had AoA to give me airspeed trends I wouldn't care.
Something like the uEncoder combined with an electric AI and I would
have good backup for a glass PFD.
> Charlie Kuss
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Major" vs. "minor" |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Just to cheer you guys up a bit, there are at least some intelligent
folks in the FAA that do understand the bigger picture.
Consider the policy on flying Canadian homebuilts in US airspace.
The FAA website says:
"From the FAA's standpoint, manpower and budgetary resources required
for the process of completing the appropriate forms, issuing
authorizations and keeping and maintaining records exceeds the safety
benefits, if any, realized....."
therefore (my words now) download this letter, put it in your logbook,
and fly in the USA subject to the listed conditions until further notice
is issued..
A most impressive and enlightened position IMO. Hopefully the person
responsible is rising through the ranks quickly ;)
Ken
snip
> The only way to end a no-value added activity
> is to cut off its source of energy. I.e, it needs
> to be eliminated in its entirety. Like forest
> fires and crab grass (prune a little here,
> poison a little there) you cannot allow remnants
> from which the antagonist returns.
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: Transponder replacement..... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu@comcast.net>
brian wrote:
> I have had problems with transponder/RADAR compatibility with a couple of different
transponders, all of which checked out OK on the bench (with one exception).
The problems do exist and it is possible that a transponder that checks
good on the bench will not work
> properly with some ATC RADARs....FWIW, I have had problems with the Terra transponder
(no longer made).
Going from memory here, as Mr. Peshaks writings are too hard to follow to read
again and to avoid accusation of slander, but he makes interesting allegations.
One is that hardly any transponder meets the TSO, because if they did, ATC
systems wouldnt work, post-TCAS apparently. How FAA issues a very detailed TSO
and then privately and contrarily tells King, Collins, RCA, Narco, etc., he
doesnt say, but apparently re the "P4 pulse" potentially indistinguishable from
noise to suppress a reply. Perhaps guidance inserted as planned with each mfr
inside a Wash Post and left on a park bench near FAA @ 800 Independence Ave.
SW?
Now he says only the Terra does actually comply with the TSO, but consequently
breaks ATC interrogator/software systems. So FAA couldnt legally insist on an
AD for Terra to fix, so FAA then installed a software Terra patch. Allegedly
also an occasional interrogator sweep to detect any Terras squawking out there.
Okey dokey...I guess.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54465#54465
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
It also has an RS-232 output that you can feed
into a laptop if you want to record it, graph it,
or use it to create your own flight instrument
displays. Combine it with a $100 GPS from
Wal-Mart, and you can do this: http://www.myglasscockpit.com/FMSSample1.jpg
Dave Morris
At 07:02 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>On Aug 12, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>>Brian,
>> The RMI uEncoder is a great addition for the need stated above. I
>>gives you redundancy for all 3 primary instruments as well as an
>>encoder which is tied to the altimeter function. It only takes up
>>one 3.125" hole in the panel. It's also handy for simplifying your
>>scan during "partial panel" practice.
>
>It looks like a good instrument. The only problem with a digital
>display is that it makes it hard to see trends. With steam gauges or
>tapes, I get information from how fast they are moving, something
>hard to see with changing numbers.
>
>Regardless, it does give you a lot of information in one hole. I
>think that if I had AoA to give me airspeed trends I wouldn't care.
>Something like the uEncoder combined with an electric AI and I would
>have good backup for a glass PFD.
>
>>Charlie Kuss
>
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
>I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
Message 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: | encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/12/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by "Brian
Meyette"
Hello Brian,
1) You wrote: "What was the input you were responding to?'
I assume that you were addressing this question to me. The input that I was
responding to was a posting by Brett Ferrell.
2) You wrote: "What position is EAA referring to?"
Brett included the EAA position on TSO'd encoders in his posting. He copied
it off EAA's web site. I objected to the EAA position (as I described) and
when they brushed me off I wrote to the FAA.
I'll extract a bit of the EAA's position and copy it below:
"The requirements for altitude reporting equipment associated with the
transponder are called out in 91.217(c), which states that, the altimeters
and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88,
respectively. TSO-C10b applies to the sensitive altimeter itself, and
TSO-C88 applies to the automatic altitude reporting equipment. Again the
equipment is required to meet the standards of the applicable TSO's, but not
necessarily be produced under a TSO authorization. But as with the
transponder, the easiest way for a builder to meet this requirement is to
install equipment manufactured under a TSO authorization.
Remember that, in order to legally operate this equipment under IFR, you
must also comply with the maintenance and testing requirements of parts
91.411 (for altimeter and altitude reporting equipment), and 91.413 (for the
transponder). Note that the requirements of 91.413 apply even if the
aircraft is operated only under VFR."
My objections were:
A) The EAA position completely ignored the existence of FAR 91.217 (b).
B) The EAA position completely ignored the existence of hundreds of amateur
built experimental aircraft currently flying satisfactorily with non TSO'd
transponders.
C) The EAA position completely ignored the existence of EFIS incorporating
non TSO'd transponders.
D) I did not feel that the EAA position was proactive enough in support of
their members interests.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
PS: I greatly enjoyed looking at your web site. I shall return.
<<AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette"
<brianpublic2@starband.net>
What was the input you were responding to? What position is EAA referring
to?
I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA was
saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in
encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or
calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for
months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder.
Details beginning here:
http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31>>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:27 PM 8/12/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>8/12/2006
>
>Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton
>
>Hello Again Kevin, Continuing our dialogue on our current favorite subject:
>
>1) You wrote: "Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to
>require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over
>the full range of conditions under which it will operate?
>
>Yes.
>
>2) You wrote: " How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will
>operate correctly at
>temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity,
>voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc?
>
>I would base my confidence in a proven non TSO'd altitude encoder on two
>things:
>
>A) The superior newer technology used in manufacturing the encoder.
>
>B) The actual past performance of that encoder over years of use in the field.
>
>3) You wrote: "If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the
>full range of
>conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there."
>
>I worked for years in the airborne weapons testing field and I assure you
>that there is no such thing as ground or laboratory testing "under the
>full range of conditions". Actual satisfactory performance in the field
>after a significant period time in use is the best indication of the
>suitability of a piece of equipment for its intended use.
>
>4) You wrote: "If he has done the testing, and it does operate properly
>over the full
>range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO for it?
>
>Two words -- time and money. When a small business sets out to create,
>manufacture, and sell a better mouse trap that it has developed it can
>only operate for so long on the capital available before some income has
>to arrive in order to sustain the business. If that capital is totally
>dissipated in un needed tests and bureaucratic paper generation before
>sufficient income arrives the company dies and the better mouse trap with it.
>
>5) You wrote: "The fact that air traffic control has not detected a
>problem with
>someone's encoder says very little."
>
>You are right. But we are not talking about just someone's encoder. We are
>talking about hundreds of encoders that have been performing
>satisfactorily in flight for years and have satisfactorily passed the FAR
>Part 43 Appendices E and F tests many times every two years.
>
>6) You wrote: "If there is a problem, it might not show up until another
>aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries to avoid your aircraft, yet
>hits it because the encode was in error.
>Is this acceptable?"
>
>No. But I say again, the technology used and the performance of the proven
>non TSO'd encoders is superior to that called for in the TSO. No piece of
>equipment can guarantee perfect peformance throughout its entire service
>life, but the better technology encoder is less likely to have a problem
>show up.
>
>7) You wrote: "If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would
>you word it
>to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective?"
>
>My preferred first step in the process to resolve the present situation is
>an interpretation from FAA headquarters that automatic pressure altitude
>reporting equipment that is installed in amateur built experimental
>aircraft and tested in accordance with the appropriate provisions of FAR
>91.411, 91.413, and appropriate Appendices to FAR Part 43 are considered
>to be in compliance with FAR 91.217 (b).
>
>I'll let the experts and lawyers work on a permanent rational solution.
I've been watching this thread for several days. Permit me
to offer some observations:
A large portion of my career has been used in efforts to track
down, identify and resolve system malfunctions in broad range
of aircraft. ALL of the mis-behaving systems were tested, blessed,
beat, bashed, certified, etc., etc. Most had LONG histories of
reasonably satisfactory service. Nonetheless, none of the above prevented
expensive failures in these systems. If gizmos in airplanes
didn't break, FBOs would go out of business.
Irrespective of an encoder's pedigree, the ultimate system reliability
is achieved not by filling out one's pre-installation dance-card.
Due diligence the third, forth, and fifth questions
in a Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) as described in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//FMEA.pdf
. . . is a more useful activity.
In the case of encoders, the person at the ATC 'scope
could not care less whether your encoder is a 30 year old
electro-mechanical marvel/nightmare or last year's latest
and greatest, all solid state design. He/she doesn't care
if it's TSO'd and fabricated from space-grade parts
or whether you built the thing on your workbench from
recycled TV set parts.
What he expects is for you to report level when arriving at
various assigned altitudes and/or reporting present altitude
on initial contact. As you speak the words, he checks for
reasonably accurate representation of your words
displayed on his screen. This operating procedure is a
due diligence to question 3.
Periodic ramp checks are important for both checking
agreement between separate encoder/altimeter combinations
-AND- finding leaks in the system that might cause
significant errors in BOTH systems. While not a pre-flight
test, your hand-off from tower to departure control is
an early-on test of encoder function when you report present
indicated altitude. This has been a reasonable due diligence
to question 4.
Going to question 5 . . . let's consider the probability
of failure while en route combined with the gross numbers
of hours you spend in congested airspace. Here again,
no amount of bureaucratic hat-dancing will guarantee that
the encoder installed on your aircraft will be forever
orderly.
If you perceive a value in reducing risk of en route
failures going un-noticed, then it's up to you and not your
friendly flying-fuzz to mitigate your concerns. If you're
not adverse to having every manner of useful accessory
installed in your airplane, you might consider something
like this:
http://www.airsport-corp.com/
A friend of mine designed these electro-whizzies and
made a living from their manufacture and sale for a number
of years. This is a line of totally independent monitors
of transponder output that offers not only a real-time test
of PRESENT encoder and transponder behavior, additional
features provide pilots with potentially useful aids to
navigation an aviation.
One may argue the FARs 'til the cows come home but I think
everyone will agree that the ultimate goal is to achieve
the lowest practical level of risk for having a bad day
due to encoder malfunction. We're told that the spirit
and intent of the FARs is to insure this golden condition.
I'll simply suggest as both pilot and system designer that
your lowest practical level of risk will be more closely
achieved by YOUR knowledge and understanding. Then combine
understanding with a reasonable implementation of operating,
monitoring and maintenance of the altitude reporting system.
This philosophy goes directly to risk mitigation and is
TOTALLY independent of who made your encoder, who blessed it
or how well/badly it is made.
Once you're airplane is signed off, what's the likelihood
than ANYONE will ask or care what the pedigree of your
encoder is as long as it accurately performs the regulatory
hat-dances? Once your airplane is signed of, what are YOU
going to do to achieve YOUR goals for system reliability?
I'll suggest that an answer to the later question has a
greater influence on your future flying comfort than answers
to the first.
Bob . . .
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 Diagrams Design Software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
David Lloyd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Morris "BigD"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Diagrams Design Software
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
> <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
>
> After installing and trying many different ones and throwing them
> all out,
> I finally found DesignWorks Lite from Capilano Computing for $39.95.
> I
> bought it a few years ago and have never looked back. It works
> intuitively
> the way a CAD program should. You can design your own components if
> the
> switch or relay or gadget you need doesn't exist in one of their
> libraries.
>
> Here's a schematic I did with it:
> http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/N75UP-Schematic-June2005.pdf
> Here's their web site: http://www.capilano.com/
>
> I highly recommend it for ease of use in drawing schematics. They
> have a
> free trial. I think it's better than any of the other options I've
> heard
> people mention so far.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
> At 10:04 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre"
>><jerry@mc.net>
>>
>>Hi all ...
>>How many OBAM electricians have used the PC based software to draw
>>their
>>wiring diagrams?
>>I'm interested in finding out what you have found and reccomend,
>>don't
>>recomend, like alot or any comments about they are easy to use or
>>not easy.
>>Or is all the PC based stuff a waste of time?
>>I see some on ebay, new ones, outdated programs, cheap and not one
>>bidder
>>... why is that?
>>Any help appreciated ... thanks alot,
>>Jerry Grimmonpre'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|