---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 08/13/06: 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:58:48 AM PST US From: "Darwin N. Barrie" 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:48:11 AM PST US From: MikeEasley@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:03:25 AM PST US From: Hopperdhh@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:37:31 AM PST US From: "William Slaughter" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:30:47 AM PST US From: cfi@conwaycorp.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:35:15 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder replacement..... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:59:56 AM PST US From: "Dennis Johnson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:26:03 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd [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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:26:39 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Thanks to Brian L and Bob W --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:00:05 AM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" 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 [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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:03:06 AM PST US From: Bob White Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Thanks to Brian L and Bob W --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:24:37 -0400 Brian Lloyd wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:10:19 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" 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 wrote: > Your repairman's certificate means you get to do that. -- ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 12:41:26 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 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: > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:44:25 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:52:23 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 13, 2006, at 1:56 PM, Bill Denton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:06:22 PM PST US From: "Rodney Dunham" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" 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" >To: >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval >Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:56:47 -0500 > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > >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 > >[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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:11:54 PM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" "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 On Aug 13, 2006, at 1:56 PM, Bill Denton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:21:04 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Best way to join wires From: "mchamberlain@runbox.com" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:39:28 PM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" >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" 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" >To: >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval >Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:56:47 -0500 > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > >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 > >[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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:00:30 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Rodney Dunham wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:26:19 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:36 PM, Bill Denton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:30:32 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Bill Denton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > > "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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:38:37 PM PST US From: "Doug Windhorn" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" 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" Sent: Sunday, 13 August, 2006 14:58 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > > On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Rodney Dunham wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" >> >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:06:05 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 13, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Doug Windhorn wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:26:51 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 13-Aug-06, at 6:33 PM, Doug Windhorn wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:08:29 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Best way to join wires --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:19 PM 8/13/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "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 . . .