Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:58 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Darwin N. Barrie)
2. 05:48 AM - Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software (MikeEasley@aol.com)
3. 07:03 AM - Re: Question for Brian Lloyd (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
4. 08:37 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (William Slaughter)
5. 09:30 AM - Re: encoder approval (cfi@conwaycorp.net)
6. 09:35 AM - Re: Re: Transponder replacement..... (Brian Lloyd)
7. 09:59 AM - Thanks to Brian L and Bob W (Dennis Johnson)
8. 10:26 AM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd)
9. 10:26 AM - Re: Thanks to Brian L and Bob W (Brian Lloyd)
10. 11:00 AM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Bill Denton)
11. 11:03 AM - Re: Thanks to Brian L and Bob W (Bob White)
12. 12:10 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (John Schroeder)
13. 12:41 PM - encoder approval ()
14. 12:44 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (John Schroeder)
15. 12:52 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd)
16. 02:06 PM - Re: encoder approval (Rodney Dunham)
17. 02:11 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Bill Denton)
18. 02:21 PM - Best way to join wires (mchamberlain@runbox.com)
19. 02:39 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Bill Denton)
20. 03:00 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd)
21. 03:26 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd)
22. 03:30 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd)
23. 03:38 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Doug Windhorn)
24. 04:06 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd)
25. 06:26 PM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Kevin Horton)
26. 09:08 PM - Re: Best way to join wires (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Hi Charlie,
The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans connector
through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine I think their
concern is running some type of large connector through that requires a
significant hole.
Darwin N. Barrie
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: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
I used DesignWorks Lite from Capilano also. It was cheap, easy to learn and
created nice looking schematics. It's perfect for someone who wants to get
good documentation of their wiring, but doesn't want to spend a week learning
new software.
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
Lancair Super ES
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: Question for Brian Lloyd |
There have been some excellent replies to this thread.
The only thing that I can add is that due to the extremely low output
impedance of some amplifier circuits, the result is OVERHEATING of the output
devices of both sources as they each attempt to drive the output node to their
own
desired voltage -- instant by instant. This is accompanied of course by
increased current drawn by each amplifier. In some cases the output devices
could fail. The 100 ohm resistors limit the current that can flow between the
two amplifiers.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
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: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Hi Darwin,
I just checked the Dean's website and did not find a listing for a five
wire
connector. Can you give me a source for the one you used, or did you use
a
three and a two or ? Thanks.
William Slaughter
RV-8QB Wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Darwin N.
Barrie
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
Hi Charlie,
The enlargement of the hole was very minor to get the Deans connector
through. I did check with Vans and they said it was fine I think their
concern is running some type of large connector through that requires a
significant hole.
Darwin N. Barrie
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: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: cfi@conwaycorp.net
In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not be hasty about
accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but not
necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have unlimited
resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles
carefully. To put this issue in the spotlight would be very BAD TIMING in
light of the user fee threat that has been looming for at 10 years now. This
would give the Airline Pilots Association and other opponents to the AOPA/EAA
ammunition to show that we are not capable of following the rules as published
and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their eyes)
and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards. I believe the EAA
is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since it is the current rule. It would be
foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to publicly support breaking any FAR.
Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under the radar so to
speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it. Im also not aware
of anybody who has had enforcement action taken against them for using a non
TSOd encoder. If you have, please let us hear about the facts of the
case.
Michael H.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Conway Corporation WebMail -- www.conwaycorp.net
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Transponder replacement..... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 12, 2006, at 8:33 PM, europa flugzeug fabrik wrote:
> 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.
The key point is that you have a technical spec for transponders and
then you have manufacturers who build to the spec and their stuff
doesn't work. They fiddle with the design until their transponders
deviate from the spec but actually work and ship them that way. Makes
sense to me.
So, it doesn't matter what the spec is, the equipment has to work.
That is all that matters.
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: | Thanks to Brian L and Bob W |
Thanks to Brian Lloyd and Bob White for explaining the reason for
resistors when combining stereo signals to a mono audio panel. It's
always a great day when I can learn something new!
Thanks again,
Dennis Johnson
Legacy #257, panel now coming back from screenprinting!
do not archive
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: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
[rant-mode]
The thing that I don't understand is why this is such a problem. Just
who do you think is going to crawl under your panel to check to see
if your encoder is TSO'd?
Pick the encoder you want, wire it to your transponder, finish the
panel, and present to finished product (airplane) to the radio shop
for a transponder check (encoder/altimeter correspondence test) or
for an IFR certification check (correspondence and pitot-static leak-
down test). They run the test and if it meets spec, they sign your
airframe logbook. They aren't going to check to see if your encoder
is TSO'd. They aren't responsible for the airworthiness of your
airplane. You are. You just need them to certify that the encoder and
altimeter read the same thing at the same altitude.
If there is a problem then drag your airplane away, fix it, and bring
it back. Alternatively, fix it right there *yourself*. Don't ask your
avionics tech, A&P, or IA for their opinion or their blessing. If ATC
squawks your transponder, fix it, get it checked, send the FAA the
paperwork, and go about your business. If your transponder really
breaks, pull it out of the panel, carry it into the radio shop, have
it fixed, and put it back in your panel. Your repairman's certificate
means you get to do that.
You learned how to pound rivets didn't you? You learned to construct
your control systems, didn't you? You learned to lay up fiberglass,
weld tubing, or rib-stitch fabric, didn't you? You learned to wire an
electrical system, didn't you? Well then learn to run #22AWG wire to
D-sub pins, solder, and heat-shrink. Yes, you can build your avionics
wiring too.
OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*". Maintain your avionics.
If there is a problem, FIX IT. That is one of the reasons why you
built your airplane -- so you could save on the cost of maintenance
too. If you really want to sweat all the certification crap then GO
BUY A TYPE-CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT.
[/rant-mode]
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brianl at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
"Five percent of the people think.
Ten percent of the people think they think.
Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think."
---Thomas A. Edison
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 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: Thanks to Brian L and Bob W |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 13, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Dennis Johnson wrote:
> Thanks to Brian Lloyd and Bob White for explaining the reason for
> resistors when combining stereo signals to a mono audio panel.
> It's always a great day when I can learn something new!
You are most welcome.
do not archive
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 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 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
I think things may have wandered away from the original issue here...
I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd EFIS units
were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some radio
shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a problem...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
[rant-mode]
The thing that I don't understand is why this is such a problem. Just
who do you think is going to crawl under your panel to check to see
if your encoder is TSO'd?
Pick the encoder you want, wire it to your transponder, finish the
panel, and present to finished product (airplane) to the radio shop
for a transponder check (encoder/altimeter correspondence test) or
for an IFR certification check (correspondence and pitot-static leak-
down test). They run the test and if it meets spec, they sign your
airframe logbook. They aren't going to check to see if your encoder
is TSO'd. They aren't responsible for the airworthiness of your
airplane. You are. You just need them to certify that the encoder and
altimeter read the same thing at the same altitude.
If there is a problem then drag your airplane away, fix it, and bring
it back. Alternatively, fix it right there *yourself*. Don't ask your
avionics tech, A&P, or IA for their opinion or their blessing. If ATC
squawks your transponder, fix it, get it checked, send the FAA the
paperwork, and go about your business. If your transponder really
breaks, pull it out of the panel, carry it into the radio shop, have
it fixed, and put it back in your panel. Your repairman's certificate
means you get to do that.
You learned how to pound rivets didn't you? You learned to construct
your control systems, didn't you? You learned to lay up fiberglass,
weld tubing, or rib-stitch fabric, didn't you? You learned to wire an
electrical system, didn't you? Well then learn to run #22AWG wire to
D-sub pins, solder, and heat-shrink. Yes, you can build your avionics
wiring too.
OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*". Maintain your avionics.
If there is a problem, FIX IT. That is one of the reasons why you
built your airplane -- so you could save on the cost of maintenance
too. If you really want to sweat all the certification crap then GO
BUY A TYPE-CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT.
[/rant-mode]
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brianl at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
"Five percent of the people think.
Ten percent of the people think they think.
Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think."
---Thomas A. Edison
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 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: Thanks to Brian L and Bob W |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:24:37 -0400
Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Dennis Johnson wrote:
>
> > Thanks to Brian Lloyd and Bob White for explaining the reason for
> > resistors when combining stereo signals to a mono audio panel.
> > It's always a great day when I can learn something new!
>
> You are most welcome.
Same here but I must say Brian was much more eloquent.
Bob W.
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
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: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Bryan -
Thoroughly enjoyable rant and it was the best advice on this subject yet.
One small nit, and I hesitate to argue. The FAA inspector who gave us our
airworthiness certificate last month said that the only thing the
repairman's certificate allows one to do is sign off the annual condition
inspection. My build partner, Ron, will have this. He looked at me and
said that Ron and I could do anything else to the airplane we so desired.
He did caution however that some additions and subtractions to a certified
engine may put the engine into the experimental category. No problems
there, until we decide to sell. The engine would be experimental and that
may not make it easy to sell.
Cheers,
John
Lancair ES - ready for first flight
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:23:20 -0400, Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
wrote:
> Your repairman's certificate means you get to do that.
--
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: | 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 Kevin,
1) You wrote: "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?"
A) Altitude encoder fundamentals are well understood and the technology is
not that exotic.
B) All encoders, including the newly designed non TSO'd encoder, must
receive the appropriate tests called for in the appropriate provisions of
FAR 91.411, 91.413, and appropriate Appendices to FAR Part 43 before being
used in flight and then every 24 calendar months during use.
C) If the newly designed non TSO'd encoder passed the above listed tests and
was installed in an amateur built experimental aircraft it would be
considered in compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) and legal for in flight use.
D) If the newly designed non TSO'd encoder proved to be deficient in service
after passing the above listed tests pilots, ATC, and the market place would
very quickly have it out of service.
E) Please read FAR 91.217 (b) carefully -- note the use of the words "as
installed". We are not talking shake, bake, rattle, and roll tests in this
paragraph. Then read FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F carefully. Now tell me
that the testing intent of 91.217 (b) is not met by the tests described in
Appendicies E and F.
2) You wrote: "Surely the manufacturer must do a reasonable amount of
testing before
they determine that the encoder actually works correctly."
Agreed. No rational person who expects to remain in business produces a
functioning product and puts it out in the market place for customers to do
all the testing.
3) You wrote: "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)."
I can't answer your question from first hand experience, but I'd like to
make two comments:
A) There have been two companies in our arena that I am aware of that have
been through the TSO process for their products in recent years: Vision
Microsystems (Lance Turk) and JP Instruments (Joe P..). Maybe they can shed
some light on the rationallity of the process.
B) There are some very smart and very experienced people in our arena (I
have in mind the Tru Trak people right now) who have produced some very
successful products for the amateur built experimental aircraft community.
Don't you think that they would like to have their products in every type
certificated Cirrus, Diamond, and Columbia airplane that is produced? But so
far the TruTrak people have not created any TSO'd products. Do you suppose
it is because they don't want to get wrapped around the axle of some no
value added TSO approval process?
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<<AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> 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 >>
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: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Hello Bill,
One data point:
When the tech showed up for the IFR/Altimeter/Encoder/Transponder
certification, he was surprised when he saw the panel and seemed reluctant
to go forward. We have to have this check before the first flight because
we live under the veil of a Class B.
We showed him the pitot tube (looks like any other), the main & aux static
ports (they look like any other) and showed him the BMA EFIS screen and
the Dynon screen. He was happy when he could see the altitudes and
airspeeds. Both altimeters were within tolerance, there were no static or
pitot leaks and the pressure altitude readout on the transponder was right
on.
He even did the airspeed cal for us so we could develop our own AD table.
WE showed him what that meant and how it is done so it meant no additional
work for him. We also told him, that were it necessary, we could do the
same to get an accurate altimeter on the BMA. Incidentally, both airspeed
indications were within a knot or two of each other.
My feeling is that if an OBAMer takes the time to explain how their system
works, and the tests show that it works, it will alleviate a lot of the
angst.
Cheers,
John
> I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd EFIS
> units
> were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some radio
> shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
>
> And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
> Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a
> problem...
>
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: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 13, 2006, at 1:56 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> I think things may have wandered away from the original issue here...
Actually, I think I have hit the real nail on the head.
>
> I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd
> EFIS units
> were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some
> radio
> shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
I understand that was what people were talking about.
>
> And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
> Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a
> problem...
That is just it and it is just what I said. The non-TSO'd EFIS units
are just fine. Wire it to your transponder and be happy. Don't worry
about the radio shop.
The only REAL issue with using your EFIS to provide both your display
altitude and your encoded altitude is that a single pressure sensor
is providing both. This is a single-point-of-failure. Use a separate
pressure sensor somewhere so you have two sources.
Along that line someone talked about the Rocky Mountain uEncoder and
then there was a discussion of whether you could use that as it
wasn't TSO'd. Don't worry. Use it. The key point is now you have
separate pressure sensors, one in your EFIS and one in the uEncoder.
The interesting thing is whether they give the same information when
being tested, i.e. for your IFR cert or xpdr correspondence test, and
in flight.
But you can use any encoder you want to. It doesn't have to be TSO'd.
You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy
yourself.
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: | Re: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
So........
I've wired my Becker TXPDR with altitude encoding from my Dynon EFIS in my
VFR only Sonex.
Am I legal??? Must I have to have an avionics shop "sign off" on it???
WHAT!!!!!!!!
Rodney in Tennessee
Do not archive
>From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
>Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:56:47 -0500
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
><bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>I think things may have wandered away from the original issue here...
>
>I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd EFIS
>units
>were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some radio
>shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
>
>And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
>Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a problem...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
>Lloyd
>Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 12:23 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>[rant-mode]
>
>The thing that I don't understand is why this is such a problem. Just
>who do you think is going to crawl under your panel to check to see
>if your encoder is TSO'd?
>
>Pick the encoder you want, wire it to your transponder, finish the
>panel, and present to finished product (airplane) to the radio shop
>for a transponder check (encoder/altimeter correspondence test) or
>for an IFR certification check (correspondence and pitot-static leak-
>down test). They run the test and if it meets spec, they sign your
>airframe logbook. They aren't going to check to see if your encoder
>is TSO'd. They aren't responsible for the airworthiness of your
>airplane. You are. You just need them to certify that the encoder and
>altimeter read the same thing at the same altitude.
>
>If there is a problem then drag your airplane away, fix it, and bring
>it back. Alternatively, fix it right there *yourself*. Don't ask your
>avionics tech, A&P, or IA for their opinion or their blessing. If ATC
>squawks your transponder, fix it, get it checked, send the FAA the
>paperwork, and go about your business. If your transponder really
>breaks, pull it out of the panel, carry it into the radio shop, have
>it fixed, and put it back in your panel. Your repairman's certificate
>means you get to do that.
>
>You learned how to pound rivets didn't you? You learned to construct
>your control systems, didn't you? You learned to lay up fiberglass,
>weld tubing, or rib-stitch fabric, didn't you? You learned to wire an
>electrical system, didn't you? Well then learn to run #22AWG wire to
>D-sub pins, solder, and heat-shrink. Yes, you can build your avionics
>wiring too.
>
>OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*". Maintain your avionics.
>If there is a problem, FIX IT. That is one of the reasons why you
>built your airplane -- so you could save on the cost of maintenance
>too. If you really want to sweat all the certification crap then GO
>BUY A TYPE-CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT.
>
>[/rant-mode]
>
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>brianl at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
>"Five percent of the people think.
> Ten percent of the people think they think.
> Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think."
> ---Thomas A. Edison
>
>
>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 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: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
"Wire it to your transponder and be happy. Don't worry about the radio
shop."
Since the altimeter/encoder/transponder combination have to be inspected and
checked by the radio shop, how could one do this?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 13, 2006, at 1:56 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> I think things may have wandered away from the original issue here...
Actually, I think I have hit the real nail on the head.
>
> I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd
> EFIS units
> were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some
> radio
> shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
I understand that was what people were talking about.
>
> And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
> Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a
> problem...
That is just it and it is just what I said. The non-TSO'd EFIS units
are just fine. Wire it to your transponder and be happy. Don't worry
about the radio shop.
The only REAL issue with using your EFIS to provide both your display
altitude and your encoded altitude is that a single pressure sensor
is providing both. This is a single-point-of-failure. Use a separate
pressure sensor somewhere so you have two sources.
Along that line someone talked about the Rocky Mountain uEncoder and
then there was a discussion of whether you could use that as it
wasn't TSO'd. Don't worry. Use it. The key point is now you have
separate pressure sensors, one in your EFIS and one in the uEncoder.
The interesting thing is whether they give the same information when
being tested, i.e. for your IFR cert or xpdr correspondence test, and
in flight.
But you can use any encoder you want to. It doesn't have to be TSO'd.
You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy
yourself.
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 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: | Best way to join wires |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com" <mchamberlain@runbox.com>
Hi folks,
I have a bundle of 22 g wires that I need to extend (for the intercom, about 20
of them). What is the preferred method for joining small wires? Is it to solder
and heat shrink over them? Use butt splice joints? These should not need to
be removed ever so I'm thinking a plug of some kind would be overkill.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark - N234C res
RV-7 - finishing up the wiring.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54596#54596
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>From the FAR's, as noted:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections.
(a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a),
121.345(c), or 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the preceding 24
calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found
to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment
installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any
class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude
reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112
(Mode S).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
As I, and many others, read this and the other portions Part 91, it says:
1. In some places, you are required to have a transponder, but in many
others you are not REQUIRED to have one.
2. VFR or IFR is immaterial for the purposes of this particular discussion.
3. If you have a transponder, whether required or not required, it must be
tested and inspected every 24 months.
In short, if you are going to use a transponder in the US Airspace system,
it must MEET TSO SPECIFICATIONS, and it must be inspected every 24 months.
Like it or not, it makes sense...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rodney
Dunham
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
<rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
So........
I've wired my Becker TXPDR with altitude encoding from my Dynon EFIS in my
VFR only Sonex.
Am I legal??? Must I have to have an avionics shop "sign off" on it???
WHAT!!!!!!!!
Rodney in Tennessee
Do not archive
>From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
>Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:56:47 -0500
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
><bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>I think things may have wandered away from the original issue here...
>
>I believe we started out discussing the situation where non-TSO'd EFIS
>units
>were being used to provide encoded altitude output, and that some radio
>shops are reluctant to sign off on these types of installations.
>
>And from what I have read, with the increasing use of the GRT, Blue
>Mountain, and Dynon EFIS units, this is increasingly becoming a problem...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
>Lloyd
>Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 12:23 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>[rant-mode]
>
>The thing that I don't understand is why this is such a problem. Just
>who do you think is going to crawl under your panel to check to see
>if your encoder is TSO'd?
>
>Pick the encoder you want, wire it to your transponder, finish the
>panel, and present to finished product (airplane) to the radio shop
>for a transponder check (encoder/altimeter correspondence test) or
>for an IFR certification check (correspondence and pitot-static leak-
>down test). They run the test and if it meets spec, they sign your
>airframe logbook. They aren't going to check to see if your encoder
>is TSO'd. They aren't responsible for the airworthiness of your
>airplane. You are. You just need them to certify that the encoder and
>altimeter read the same thing at the same altitude.
>
>If there is a problem then drag your airplane away, fix it, and bring
>it back. Alternatively, fix it right there *yourself*. Don't ask your
>avionics tech, A&P, or IA for their opinion or their blessing. If ATC
>squawks your transponder, fix it, get it checked, send the FAA the
>paperwork, and go about your business. If your transponder really
>breaks, pull it out of the panel, carry it into the radio shop, have
>it fixed, and put it back in your panel. Your repairman's certificate
>means you get to do that.
>
>You learned how to pound rivets didn't you? You learned to construct
>your control systems, didn't you? You learned to lay up fiberglass,
>weld tubing, or rib-stitch fabric, didn't you? You learned to wire an
>electrical system, didn't you? Well then learn to run #22AWG wire to
>D-sub pins, solder, and heat-shrink. Yes, you can build your avionics
>wiring too.
>
>OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*". Maintain your avionics.
>If there is a problem, FIX IT. That is one of the reasons why you
>built your airplane -- so you could save on the cost of maintenance
>too. If you really want to sweat all the certification crap then GO
>BUY A TYPE-CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT.
>
>[/rant-mode]
>
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>brianl at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
>"Five percent of the people think.
> Ten percent of the people think they think.
> Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think."
> ---Thomas A. Edison
>
>
>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 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: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Rodney Dunham wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
> <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>
> So........
>
> I've wired my Becker TXPDR with altitude encoding from my Dynon
> EFIS in my VFR only Sonex.
>
> Am I legal???
Yes.
> Must I have to have an avionics shop "sign off" on it??? WHAT!!!!!!!!
Yes. You must have the shop perform a transponder correspondence
check where they verify that the transponder and encoder report the
same altitude as your altimeter over the normal operating range of
your altimeter. This is not an inspection of your installation or of
what equipment you have chosen to use, but is just a check to make
sure it is reporting what it is supposed to report. Every airplane
with a transponder must pass this check.
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 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: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:36 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>> From the FAR's, as noted:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> --------
>
> 91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections.
> (a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in
> 91.215(a),
> 121.345(c), or 135.143(c) of this chapter unless, within the
> preceding 24
> calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected
> and found
> to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> --------
>
> 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
> (a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
> conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder
> equipment
> installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements
> of any
> class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with
> altitude
> reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of
> TSO-C112
> (Mode S).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> --------
>
> As I, and many others, read this and the other portions Part 91, it
> says:
>
> 1. In some places, you are required to have a transponder, but in many
> others you are not REQUIRED to have one.
>
> 2. VFR or IFR is immaterial for the purposes of this particular
> discussion.
>
> 3. If you have a transponder, whether required or not required, it
> must be
> tested and inspected every 24 months.
>
> In short, if you are going to use a transponder in the US Airspace
> system,
> it must MEET TSO SPECIFICATIONS, and it must be inspected every 24
> months.
>
> Like it or not, it makes sense...
And all of this applies to the TRANSPONDER, not to the altitude
encoder feeding altitude information into the transponder. Since you
are buying a transponder that already meets these specs you are home
free. Yes you must have the transponder certified every 24 months but
that is an operational check, not a verification of anything you have
installed.
You guys are trying to make this just WAY too hard.
Here it is, one more time:
1. Buy the transponder you like best. Transponders from reputable
manufacturers of avionics all qualify. (I have had good experience
with King, Narco, and Apollo. I have had bad experience with Terra
and Garmin. YMMV.)
2. Connect it to the encoder you like best, be it your EFIS, a Rocky
Mountain uEncoder, a standard production encoder, etc. It does not
matter what kind of encoder it is so long as it does what it is
supposed to do.
3. Install all this stuff in your airplane using standard practices
and good workmanship. (But you are already doing that anyway because
you know that the butt you save may be your own.)
4. When you are ready to fly your airplane, find someone who can do
the transponder certification check for you. It will probably be your
local radio shop but there may be others. They will do the
*operational* check and make an entry in your airframe logbook.
5. Go fly and have a good time.
6. Go to step 4 in 24 months.
NOTE: at no time in the above five steps do you see the words "get
approval".
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brianl at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
"Five percent of the people think.
Ten percent of the people think they think.
Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think."
---Thomas A. Edison
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 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: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> "Wire it to your transponder and be happy. Don't worry about the radio
> shop."
>
> Since the altimeter/encoder/transponder combination have to be
> inspected and
> checked by the radio shop, how could one do this?
Just what I said. Your installation does not need any kind of FAA
approval, IA approval, A&P approval, or radio shop approval. The only
thing you need to get is a transponder check to verify that the
transponder is working, on frequency, and that its mode-C reports the
same altitude as your altimeter. It is not a check of what kind of
encoder you have or of how you installed it. It is just an
operational check. Of course, you want to do that anyway because
*YOU* want to make sure it is working properly. The radio shop has
the tools to interrogate your transponder on the ground and you
essentially want to borrow that.
The radio shop just needs to connect to the static port and place an
antenna from the test box near your transponder antenna. They will
then vary the pressure on your static port. Your altimeter should
show the same altitude that their altimeter shows. Your transponder
should also report the same altitude in its mode-C. That is all there
is to it. If it passes this functional test, you get a logbook entry
and you are good to go.
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 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 |
|
Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
Brian,
A quick question (I hope) - if the transponder displays what altitude it is
transmitting to ATC, is it still necessary to have the shop do the
calibration? Would seem to me that one would only need to compare one's own
altimeter to the transmitted information. I am speaking of experimental AC,
not certified.
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Sunday, 13 August, 2006 14:58
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Rodney Dunham wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
>> <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>>
>> So........
>>
>> I've wired my Becker TXPDR with altitude encoding from my Dynon EFIS in
>> my VFR only Sonex.
>>
>> Am I legal???
>
> Yes.
>
>> Must I have to have an avionics shop "sign off" on it??? WHAT!!!!!!!!
>
> Yes. You must have the shop perform a transponder correspondence check
> where they verify that the transponder and encoder report the same
> altitude as your altimeter over the normal operating range of your
> altimeter. This is not an inspection of your installation or of what
> equipment you have chosen to use, but is just a check to make sure it is
> reporting what it is supposed to report. Every airplane with a
> transponder must pass this check.
>
> 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 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: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 13, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Doug Windhorn wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn"
> <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
>
> Brian,
>
> A quick question (I hope) - if the transponder displays what
> altitude it is transmitting to ATC, is it still necessary to have
> the shop do the calibration?
Yes. The correspondence check is requires by the FARs.
> Would seem to me that one would only need to compare one's own
> altimeter to the transmitted information. I am speaking of
> experimental AC, not certified.
That is a good idea to do on a regular basis but it is not enough.
You must get a transponder certification check every 24 months.
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 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 |
|
Subject: | Re: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 13-Aug-06, at 6:33 PM, Doug Windhorn wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn"
> <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
>
> Brian,
>
> A quick question (I hope) - if the transponder displays what
> altitude it is transmitting to ATC, is it still necessary to have
> the shop do the calibration? Would seem to me that one would only
> need to compare one's own altimeter to the transmitted
> information. I am speaking of experimental AC, not certified.
Ignoring the FAR requirements for a moment - if you haven't had the
system checked, how do you know the altimeter is showing the correct
altitude?
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: | Re: Best way to join wires |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:19 PM 8/13/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com"
><mchamberlain@runbox.com>
>
>Hi folks,
>
>I have a bundle of 22 g wires that I need to extend (for the intercom,
>about 20 of them). What is the preferred method for joining small wires?
>Is it to solder and heat shrink over them? Use butt splice joints? These
>should not need to be removed ever so I'm thinking a plug of some kind
>would be overkill.
>
>Any suggestions will be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark - N234C res
>
>RV-7 - finishing up the wiring.
See series of step=by-step photos at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice
Bob . . .
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! --
|