Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:26 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connectorElectric Elevator Trim connector (Darwin N. Barrie)
2. 07:31 AM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Doug Windhorn)
3. 08:14 AM - Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! (mchamberlain@runbox.com)
4. 11:03 AM - local grounds (Robert G. Wright)
5. 11:23 AM - Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! (Bill Denton)
6. 11:47 AM - Re: local grounds (Ralph E. Capen)
7. 11:57 AM - encoder approval ()
8. 12:12 PM - Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! (Jim Streit)
9. 12:21 PM - encoder approval ()
10. 12:32 PM - Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) ()
11. 12:35 PM - Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! (wgill10@comcast.net)
12. 01:23 PM - Re: Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
13. 01:23 PM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 01:23 PM - Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd)
15. 01:37 PM - Re: Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 01:43 PM - encoder approval ()
17. 02:17 PM - Z14 wire size question (Deems Davis)
18. 02:19 PM - Re: Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) (John W. Cox)
19. 02:21 PM - Re: Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) (John W. Cox)
20. 02:26 PM - Re: OBAM vs. ABEA (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 05:07 PM - Toggle Switch Guard (Paul McAllister)
22. 05:16 PM - Re: encoder approval (Michael Hinchcliff)
23. 05:39 PM - Re: encoder approval (Doug Windhorn)
24. 06:56 PM - Re: Toggle Switch Guard (Craig Mac Arthur)
25. 07:16 PM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Bret Smith)
26. 07:40 PM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (DonVS)
27. 08:11 PM - Re: encoder approval (Bruce Gray)
28. 08:43 PM - Re: local grounds (Richard Sipp)
29. 09:07 PM - Fw: local grounds (Richard Sipp)
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 connectorElectric Elevator |
Trim connector
Hi William,
My local hobby shop had some 5 pin connectors. Check with a hobby shop
and see. If they don't you can use a 2 and a 3. Pretty simple to use the
3 for the colored wires and the 2 for the power wires.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV7 N717EE
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: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
Kevin,
Thought of that after Brian's reply and reading the FAR 43 App F.
Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper equipment and knew how
to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
Sent: Sunday, 13 August, 2006 18:23
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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: | Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com" <mchamberlain@runbox.com>
Hi Folks,
When I built my wings I installed the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my fuel
tanks. I recently installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which needs a signal
from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company called Princeton
electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a couple of weeks ago
about the senders and got a reply saying that they make them, I wrote back and
asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a reply back form them, sent
several emails and called a few times.
Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact these guys is there any other way anybody
knows to get this signal to the Dynon? If I can't figure this out it looks
like the only other option is to open up the tanks and change the senders to the
resistive type.
Any help or suggestions will be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark - N234C res
RV-7 Finishing up wiring.
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54698#54698
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 |
|
What methods have folks used to make local grounds? Screw/washer/nut/eye
terminal, fast-on tab/small forest, etc?
Rob Wright
RV-10 #392
Wings
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: | Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Grand Rapids Technologies also sells
them...
http://www.grtavionics.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
mchamberlain@runbox.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help!
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com"
<mchamberlain@runbox.com>
Hi Folks,
When I built my wings I installed the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my
fuel tanks. I recently installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which
needs a signal from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company
called Princeton electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a
couple of weeks ago about the senders and got a reply saying that they make
them, I wrote back and asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a
reply back form them, sent several emails and called a few times.
Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact these guys is there any other way
anybody knows to get this signal to the Dynon? If I can't figure this out it
looks like the only other option is to open up the tanks and change the
senders to the resistive type.
Any help or suggestions will be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark - N234C res
RV-7 Finishing up wiring.
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54698#54698
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: local grounds |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
I have used a nutplate and screw (#6 or #8 size depending...) to locally ground
up to three (the standard max) locals....
I have a 'forest' on either side of my firewall.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights@adelphia.net>
>Sent: Aug 14, 2006 2:01 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: local grounds
>
>What methods have folks used to make local grounds? Screw/washer/nut/eye
>terminal, fast-on tab/small forest, etc?
>
>
>
>Rob Wright
>
>RV-10 #392
>
>Wings
>
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: | encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/14/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by:
cfi@conwaycorp.net
Hello Michael H. Thanks for your input.
1) You wrote: "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."
I agree. Maybe my choice of the word "proactive" was not the best. What I
really expected of EAA was for them to acknowledge that a (potential)
problem existed for their members and that the existence and proper
interpretation of FAR 91.217 (b) could solve that problem.
2) You wrote: "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 that complying with FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F places an
encoder / transponder installation in compliance with the intent of FAR
91.217 (b). Please read those items carefully for yourself and tell us why
you would think differently.
3) You wrote: "I believe the EAA is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since
it is the current rule."
The EAA did not even acknowledge the existence of 91.217 (b) on their
website or in communicating with me. They took the position that only 91.217
(c) -- TSO'd encoders are required -- was relevant.
4) You wrote: "It would be foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to
publicly support breaking any FAR."
I agree. The issue is not breaking an FAR. The issue is a rational
interpretation of the intent of FAR 91.217 (b) which calls for tests of the
installation. It does not call for the elaborate, but undefined tests that
HQ FAA described in response to my letter.
5) You wrote: "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."
I agree. Hundreds of non TSO'd encoders in amateur built experimental
aircraft have been performing satisfactorily both in the tests required by
FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F and in flight under ATC control or radar
contact for many years. This indicates to me that the elaborate tests that
HQ FAA says are required to comply with FAR 91.217 (b) are not needed.
6) You wrote: "Im also not aware of anybody who has had enforcement action
taken against them for using a nonTSOd encoder. If you have, please let
us hear about the facts of the case."
Please see the posting by "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net> which
reads in part:
"I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA was
saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in
encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or
calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for
months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder."
I again thank you for your interest and welcome your support on this issue.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<<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.>>
<<http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31>>
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: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Streit <wooody04@bellsouth.net>
mchamberlain@runbox.com wrote:
Mark, Check with Electronics International (also sold by Vans) They
make a converter to go between Vans Cap. plates and their EI gauge that
should work.
Jim Streit
RV-9A
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/14/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd
Hello Brian, Thanks for your input.
You wrote in part: "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."
I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR 91.217 is
relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as called for in 91.217
(c) then the installation must pass the tests required by FAR 91.217 (b).
Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has described a
testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that is unreasonable. See
their response to my letter in a previous posting.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge
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: | Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
There were 2 replies to the magnetic screwdriver thread, one said when
going to A+P school hardware was placed in a bowl that had a magnetic in
the bottom and slight magnetized the hardware and it needed to be
discarded, and there was another reply about having to discard hardware
that becomes magnetic on turbine aircraft.
Where can you not use magnetic hardware safely on a piston, and a turbine
aircraft and why?
I read something from Lycoming when a friend was rebuilding a O-540 about
checking the hydraulic valve lifters with a thin piece of string and a
paperclip and to discard if there was more than some sort of deflection.
Initial I thought it was because it may attract metal particles and fail
the check valve, but it may be that the magnetism may hinder operation of
check valve?
I have a 914 Rotax on a Europa. Has a magnetic plug to catch debris.
Ron Parigoris
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: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
Mark,
I installed the AF-2500 engine monitor from Advanced Flight Systems. They did sell
me the converters for the capacitive senders and I believe they are from Princeton
-- they're a little pricey. I'll confirm when I get home or you can phone
Advanced Flight Systems directly.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "mchamberlain@runbox.com" <mchamberlain@runbox.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com"
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> When I built my wings I installed the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my fuel
> tanks. I recently installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which needs a
> signal from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company called
> Princeton electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a couple of weeks
> ago about the senders and got a reply saying that they make them, I wrote back
> and asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a reply back form them,
> sent several emails and called a few times.
>
> Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact these guys is there any other way
> anybody knows to get this signal to the Dynon? If I can't figure this out it
> looks like the only other option is to open up the tanks and change the senders
> to the resistive type.
>
> Any help or suggestions will be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark - N234C res
> RV-7 Finishing up wiring.
>
> --------
> Rv-7 (234C Res)
> Engine
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54698#54698
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>Mark,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I installed the AF-2500 engine monitor from Advanced Flight Systems. They
did sell me the converters for the capacitive senders and I believe they are
from Princeton -- they're a little pricey. I'll confirm when I get home or
you can phone Advanced Flight Systems directly. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bill</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "mchamberlain@runbox.com"
<mchamberlain@runbox.com> <BR><BR>> --> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com" <BR>> <MCHAMBERLAIN@RUNBOX.COM><BR>>
<BR>> Hi Folks, <BR>> <BR>> When I built my wings I installed
the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my fuel <BR>> tanks. I recently
installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which needs a <BR>> signal
from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company called <BR>> Princeton
electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a couple of weeks <BR>>
ago about the senders and got a reply saying that they make them, I wrote
back <BR>> and asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a reply
back form them, <BR>> sent several emails and called a few times. <BR>>
<BR>> Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact t
hese g
rowse,
></htm
l>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) |
Anything that can be magnetized can be de-magnetized. I have a magnetic
tape eraser from the very early computer days that I use to demagnetize
(degauss) tools, and it would work on a lifter too, I'm sure.
You press the button which turns on the AC, and wave the item to be
degaussed around in its alternating magnetic field while slowly drawing it away.
When it is about 2 feet or more away you can then shut off the AC current, and
you're done.
This is something that I made from an old transformer. If you want details,
I can give 'em.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 8/14/2006 3:36:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
There were 2 replies to the magnetic screwdriver thread, one said when
going to A+P school hardware was placed in a bowl that had a magnetic in
the bottom and slight magnetized the hardware and it needed to be
discarded, and there was another reply about having to discard hardware
that becomes magnetic on turbine aircraft.
Where can you not use magnetic hardware safely on a piston, and a turbine
aircraft and why?
I read something from Lycoming when a friend was rebuilding a O-540 about
checking the hydraulic valve lifters with a thin piece of string and a
paperclip and to discard if there was more than some sort of deflection.
Initial I thought it was because it may attract metal particles and fail
the check valve, but it may be that the magnetism may hinder operation of
check valve?
I have a 914 Rotax on a Europa. Has a magnetic plug to catch debris.
Ron Parigoris
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: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:34 AM 8/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>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
Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
hole under discussion?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 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: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:19 PM, <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 8/14/2006
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by
> Brian Lloyd
>
> Hello Brian, Thanks for your input.
>
> You wrote in part: "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."
>
> I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR
> 91.217 is relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as
> called for in 91.217 (c) then the installation must pass the tests
> required by FAR 91.217 (b).
ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out.
OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are insisting on
muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were.
YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR
TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER
CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY.
Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads:
(b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to
transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the
altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that
altimeter referenced to
29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum
operating altitude of the aircraft;
Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test
performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute
pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude
(mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of
your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is
indicated on your altimeter.
The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it
is working.
> Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has
> described a testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that
> is unreasonable. See their response to my letter in a previous
> posting.
This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA. You get
some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you. The key
point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs no interpretation.
The transponder certification test is where you test and calibrate
your encoder to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125' of
the indicated or calibrated data of the altimeter normally used to
maintain flight attitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92"Hg
for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the
aircraft.
Notice just how similar my words are to 91.217(b)?
Now, if you don't cease and desist trying to confuse this issue, I am
going to come over there and beat your hands into a bloody pulp with
a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-)
(BTW, if you use the same pressure sensor to generate your altitude
readout AND drive your transponder, the altitude sent by the
transponder absolutely MUST be the same indicated since they are both
the same data.)
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 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: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:43 AM 8/13/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>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
Consider also TurboCAD which will open, edit, save and print
LOTS of drawings downloadable from:
http://aeroelectric.com/PPS
It's a lot faster to modify these drawings as needed than
to start over from scratch.
Anything above V7.0 will work and is REALLY cheap. See
item 290017312239 on http://ebay.com
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/14/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd.
Hello Brian, Thank you for your inputs on this subject. A bit of
clarification if I may:
1) You wrote: " 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."
Actually the only thing that an individual's repairman's certificate for a
specific amateur built experimental aircraft permits that individual to do
is to perform and sign off the condition inspection that is required for
that aircraft during the previous 12 calendar months.
It does not permit him to repair, work on, or maintain that aircraft because
no such permission is required for anyone, I repeat ANYONE, to repair, work
on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft.
So anyone, doesn't have to be the the holder of the repairman's certificate
(aircraft builder), can do what you suggest above.
2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*"
As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described
above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built
experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental
Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it has not received
wide spread use.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
PS:
A)It should be noted that there are FAR's that require that certain aircraft
maintenance records be maintained. ABEA are not excused from those
requirements.
B) It should also be noted that, if the work on an ABEA is determined to be
a major modification, regardless of who does it, the Operating Limitations
for that specific aircraft should be consulted to determine the proper
procedures to be followed.
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: | Z14 wire size question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
The Z14 (Dual Battery, Dual Bus) schematic in the Aero Electric
connection depicts a Cross-Feed contactor who's purpose is to connect
the 2 electrical systems together if required/desired. My question is:
Why is one side of the Cross-Feed contactor wired w/ 10 AWG (Aux Bus)
and the other 4AWG (Main Bus)?????
In my plane the batteries (and contactors)are of necessity mounted in
the rear, the respective distribution buses will be mounted forward
(panel/firewall). If not absolutely necessary I would like to avoid the
4AWG run from the crossfeed contactor in the rear to the main
distribution buss (forward), and replace this with--- say 10AWG? (I have
limited space for wire pulls).
THANKS for any help/advice
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse/finish/Panel
http://deemsrv10.com/
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: | Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
The instructor said there was no place for the Snap-On magnetic trays in
aviation repair except diesels and auto repair shops. The theory had to
do with dynamic balance on a turbine shaft spinning in the 20,000 plus
revs and its critical balance between moving parts. It effects bearings
and balanced components on reciprocating devices as well.
John Cox
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:31 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic
screwdrivers)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
There were 2 replies to the magnetic screwdriver thread, one said when
going to A+P school hardware was placed in a bowl that had a magnetic in
the bottom and slight magnetized the hardware and it needed to be
discarded, and there was another reply about having to discard hardware
that becomes magnetic on turbine aircraft.
Where can you not use magnetic hardware safely on a piston, and a
turbine
aircraft and why?
I read something from Lycoming when a friend was rebuilding a O-540
about
checking the hydraulic valve lifters with a thin piece of string and a
paperclip and to discard if there was more than some sort of deflection.
Initial I thought it was because it may attract metal particles and fail
the check valve, but it may be that the magnetism may hinder operation
of
check valve?
I have a 914 Rotax on a Europa. Has a magnetic plug to catch debris.
Ron Parigoris
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: | Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic screwdrivers) |
Without a cheap handheld degauss meter you are only half the way to
confirming a component is degaussed. A poor man's device is a simple
Boy Scout compass, just FYI.
John
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hopperdhh@aol.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magnetic hardware? (was magnetic
screwdrivers)
Anything that can be magnetized can be de-magnetized. I have a magnetic
tape eraser from the very early computer days that I use to demagnetize
(degauss) tools, and it would work on a lifter too, I'm sure.
You press the button which turns on the AC, and wave the item to be
degaussed around in its alternating magnetic field while slowly drawing
it away. When it is about 2 feet or more away you can then shut off the
AC current, and you're done.
This is something that I made from an old transformer. If you want
details, I can give 'em.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 8/14/2006 3:36:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
<rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
There were 2 replies to the magnetic screwdriver thread, one
said when
going to A+P school hardware was placed in a bowl that had a
magnetic in
the bottom and slight magnetized the hardware and it needed to
be
discarded, and there was another reply about having to discard
hardware
that becomes magnetic on turbine aircraft.
Where can you not use magnetic hardware safely on a piston, and
a turbine
aircraft and why?
I read something from Lycoming when a friend was rebuilding a
O-540 about
checking the hydraulic valve lifters with a thin piece of string
and a
paperclip and to discard if there was more than some sort of
deflection.
Initial I thought it was because it may attract metal particles
and fail
the check valve, but it may be that the magnetism may hinder
operation of
check valve?
I have a 914 Rotax on a Europa. Has a magnetic plug to catch
debris.
Ron
=========================
p; = Use lities Day
=========================
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
bsp; -->
=========================
nbsp; - NEW
MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
=========================
p; - List Contribution
Web Site ;
=========================
=========================
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
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: OBAM vs. ABEA |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*"
>
>As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described
>above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built
>experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built
>Experimental Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it
>has not received wide spread use.
Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind
"OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur"
while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption.
The average Joe on the street thinks getting into any little airplane
is foolhardy. Pasting an "experimental" label on the "amateur" built
machine only serves to elevate the listener/reader's level of
tension/apprehension.
Back when I gave depositions in accident investigations and
analysis we took pains to avoid words like "impact", "crash",
"shattered", etc in favor of equally accurate but less exciting words
like "contact", "event", "failed", etc. When attempting to
explain the finer details of an accident where 90% of the energy
is expended in the first few hundred milliseconds of an event,
it's challenging but useful to downplay the violence while
focusing on the science.
It's easier to keep the listener's attention to facts and
logic if you avoid the kind of words one hears in abundance
on the 6 o-clock news. It worked well in the courtroom and
many of our aviation-ignorant fellow citizens are considered
ideal jury material.
Further, in many venues the owner of a TC aircraft has accomplished
some pretty heavy maintenance and repairs albeit under the watchful
eye of a "certified" individual who ultimately accepts responsibility
for the work.
Bob . . .
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: | Toggle Switch Guard |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all,
I am trying to locate some "slim line" toggle switch guards. I seem to
recall seeing some that were smaller than the ones Steinair sells, but I
can't recall where I saw them. Can any one give me some leads.
Thanks, Paul
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: "Michael Hinchcliff" <cfi@conwaycorp.net>
OC, thanks for your objective response to my message. I appreciate healthy
debate in that it improves my understanding of the issues, in this case FAR
91.217. I now see what you are saying. Everything else aside, 91.217 (c)
does not say the equipment must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO
standards. My question to the non-TSO'd encoder community is this: How do
you prove your equipment meets the required TSO standards? TSO
certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is. Part (b) just
references how the equipment is to be tested and does not necessarily prove
compliance with the required TSO. My simpleton answer would be to either
A.) formally prove the non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide
the paperwork that goes with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by
purchasing equipment that's already certified as meeting the standard and
start flying. Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the
non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the
equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp. Have you
barked up that tree yet?
Michael H.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Cc: <avionics-list@matronics.com>; <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: encoder approval
> 8/14/2006
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by:
> cfi@conwaycorp.net
>
> Hello Michael H. Thanks for your input.
>
> 1) You wrote: "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."
>
> I agree. Maybe my choice of the word "proactive" was not the best. What I
> really expected of EAA was for them to acknowledge that a (potential)
> problem existed for their members and that the existence and proper
> interpretation of FAR 91.217 (b) could solve that problem.
>
> 2) You wrote: "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 that complying with FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F places an
> encoder / transponder installation in compliance with the intent of FAR
> 91.217 (b). Please read those items carefully for yourself and tell us why
> you would think differently.
>
> 3) You wrote: "I believe the EAA is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since
> it is the current rule."
>
> The EAA did not even acknowledge the existence of 91.217 (b) on their
> website or in communicating with me. They took the position that only
> 91.217 (c) -- TSO'd encoders are required -- was relevant.
>
> 4) You wrote: "It would be foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to
> publicly support breaking any FAR."
>
> I agree. The issue is not breaking an FAR. The issue is a rational
> interpretation of the intent of FAR 91.217 (b) which calls for tests of
> the installation. It does not call for the elaborate, but undefined tests
> that HQ FAA described in response to my letter.
>
> 5) You wrote: "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."
>
> I agree. Hundreds of non TSO'd encoders in amateur built experimental
> aircraft have been performing satisfactorily both in the tests required by
> FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F and in flight under ATC control or radar
> contact for many years. This indicates to me that the elaborate tests that
> HQ FAA says are required to comply with FAR 91.217 (b) are not needed.
>
> 6) You wrote: "Im also not aware of anybody who has had enforcement action
> taken against them for using a nonTSOd encoder. If you have, please
> let us hear about the facts of the case."
>
> Please see the posting by "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net>
> which reads in part:
>
> "I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA
> was
> saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in
> encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or
> calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for
> months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder."
>
> I again thank you for your interest and welcome your support on this
> issue.
>
> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
>
> <<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.>>
>
> <<http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31>>
>
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>
OC,
If I interpret these comments correctly, you are saying I could go buy an
Experimental category aircraft and do anything I want on it with the
exception of signing off the annual inspection?
That changes my previous perceptions, but I like it. I was under the
impression that the purchaser of an Experimental was in the same boat as a
Certified owner when it came to changing the A/C.
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, 14 August, 2006 13:42
Subject: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 8/14/2006
> snip <<
>
> 1) You wrote: " 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."
>
> Actually the only thing that an individual's repairman's certificate for a
> specific amateur built experimental aircraft permits that individual to do
> is to perform and sign off the condition inspection that is required for
> that aircraft during the previous 12 calendar months.
>
> It does not permit him to repair, work on, or maintain that aircraft
> because no such permission is required for anyone, I repeat ANYONE, to
> repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft.
>
> So anyone, doesn't have to be the the holder of the repairman's
> certificate (aircraft builder), can do what you suggest above.
>
>
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: | Toggle Switch Guard |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Mac Arthur" <jetfr8t@hotmail.com>
Try this: http://www.periheliondesign.com/switchguards.htm
Craig Mac Arthur
>From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Toggle Switch Guard
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:05:13 -0500
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
><paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I am trying to locate some "slim line" toggle switch guards. I seem to
>recall seeing some that were smaller than the ones Steinair sells, but I
>can't recall where I saw them. Can any one give me some leads.
>
>Thanks, Paul
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
Bob, here is a pic of the hole in the rear horizontal stabilizer spar
(RV-9). I have mine stored but you can see the hole is approx. 5/8 to 3/4".
Bret Smith
RV-9A (91314)
Mineral Bluff, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:34 AM 8/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>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
Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
hole under discussion?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 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: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
Bob,
The measurement on the RV 7 HS is 3/8 inch. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bret
Smith
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 7:15 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
Bob, here is a pic of the hole in the rear horizontal stabilizer spar
(RV-9). I have mine stored but you can see the hole is approx. 5/8 to 3/4".
Bret Smith
RV-9A (91314)
Mineral Bluff, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:34 AM 8/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>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
Darwin . . . or anyone else. Exactly what is the size of the
hole under discussion?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Your perception is correct. Anyone can work on an experimental and do
anything they desire with 2 exceptions. One - the 24 month
transponder/encoder/altimeter certification. This must be done by a licensed
shop. Two - the annual condition inspection. This must be done by an A/P (no
IA required), or by the licensing builder/repairman.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug
Windhorn
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn"
<N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
OC,
If I interpret these comments correctly, you are saying I could go buy an
Experimental category aircraft and do anything I want on it with the
exception of signing off the annual inspection?
That changes my previous perceptions, but I like it. I was under the
impression that the purchaser of an Experimental was in the same boat as a
Certified owner when it came to changing the A/C.
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, 14 August, 2006 13:42
Subject: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 8/14/2006
> snip <<
>
> 1) You wrote: " 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."
>
> Actually the only thing that an individual's repairman's certificate for a
> specific amateur built experimental aircraft permits that individual to do
> is to perform and sign off the condition inspection that is required for
> that aircraft during the previous 12 calendar months.
>
> It does not permit him to repair, work on, or maintain that aircraft
> because no such permission is required for anyone, I repeat ANYONE, to
> repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft.
>
> So anyone, doesn't have to be the the holder of the repairman's
> certificate (aircraft builder), can do what you suggest above.
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: local grounds |
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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! --
|