---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 01/04/07: 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:09 AM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (Bill Boyd) 2. 05:15 AM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (Bill Boyd) 3. 05:23 AM - small spade lugs (Bill Boyd) 4. 06:17 AM - Re: 91.205 (WAAS) () 5. 07:02 AM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (Bret Smith) 6. 07:03 AM - WingWag wiring (Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR) 7. 07:22 AM - Re: small spade lugs (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 07:34 AM - Re: filter cap (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 07:43 AM - Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 10. 07:46 AM - Re: small spade lugs () 11. 07:49 AM - Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (BobsV35B@aol.com) 12. 07:53 AM - Re: filter cap () 13. 08:05 AM - Re: filter cap (Matt Prather) 14. 08:56 AM - RG400 vs. RG17 (Jim Piavis) 15. 08:57 AM - Transponder Ant. Cable Length (Jim Piavis) 16. 10:03 AM - Self excitation (Dan Ballin) 17. 10:08 AM - Re: Transponder Ant. Cable Length (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 18. 10:45 AM - Re: RG400 vs. RG17 (TimRhod@aol.com) 19. 12:03 PM - Re: small spade lugs (Bill Boyd) 20. 12:04 PM - Re: Transponder Ant. Cable Length (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 21. 12:05 PM - Re: RG400 vs. RG17 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 22. 02:19 PM - Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? (jdalton77) 23. 03:47 PM - Forest of Fast-On Tabs (Tom Murphy) 24. 04:53 PM - Re: Self excitation (Vern W.) 25. 08:27 PM - What Are The Odds - Problem Solved (I think) () ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:09:11 AM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade. Thanks, gentlemen. Bill B. On 1/4/07, Dan Beadle wrote: > > The key is the 146 TSO. Without that, GPS is just a backup system. VOR or > NDB must be primary. (We all know, that we fly it the other way around). > In some cases, like flying direct, we can't even use VORs (too high, too > low, too far away). But if we are at vectoring altitudes with radar > coverage, again we can use the non-146 GPS as Secondary (even tho VOR is out > of range.) > > With 146 TSO, it is a new ballgame - no underlying VOR required. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > bakerocb@cox.net > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:56 PM > To: Hicks, Wayne > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) > > > 1/3/2007 > > Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you. > > You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built plane > cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional VOR > and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you think > experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft > (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs and nothing else? Why > must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board when the new avionics > suites in the newer planes do not?" > > I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental > Aircraft)) must > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board." > > Here is why I do not agree with that statement: > > A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAA's TSO C146a Gamma-3 > certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with Vertical > (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area > Augmentation System (WAAS)." > > B) "Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of > certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids > for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument > Landing System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids > of any kind." > > C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the > GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used > for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route > through precision approach at airports." > > These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see copy > below. > > D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin says > in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description of > the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and a WMS > (WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground. > > Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF > navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations > which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating > IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in > compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment > appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." > > I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly don't > intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. Obviously when > flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer and glideslope > equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published approach that > requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on board and > functioning. > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > > > ------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS -------------- > November 9, 2006 GarminR Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W > series OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire - Garmin International, a > unit of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of a > major aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association > (AOPA) Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the > FAA's TSO C146a > Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with > Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide > Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved model > list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed on over > 980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins the > G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft. Garmin > currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider. > "This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary > Kelley, Garmin's vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA commissioned > WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified equipment > in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 Garmin GNS > 400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to WAAS. We > expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, and pilots > will be able to operate to and from airports that would otherwise be > unavailable to them in marginal weather." > Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmin's popular > GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade their > products to meet the FAA's WAAS standards* without a field approval**. These > upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map redraws, fully coupled > and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, and increased XM weather > content. Pilots will also experience significantly enhanced functionality > because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, and LNAV approach capabilities. > Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of certification > for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for precise > lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument Landing > System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids of any > kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets pilots fly the FAA's new LPV > approaches. The FAA has already published over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS > approach procedures. > The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the GPS > signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used for > sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route > through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, pilots > will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be able to > navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument flight > rules. > Garmin's panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly three-fourths of > all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted > since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the avionics > industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmin's GNS 480T was the > first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a Gamma-3 > certification. > Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430WT and GNS 530WT to begin in > about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are > available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not > currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of > upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS 530W > units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for > additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers. > *Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, Garmin's > GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary means" of > GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. Garmin > expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 issuing the > software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader card. > This required software update is expected to be available in the first > quarter of 2007. > **The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for a > large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not > pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness > approval will be required. > > ------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hicks, Wayne" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM > Subject: 91.205 > > > > OC: > > > > Happy New Year to you! > > > > Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more than > > once > > that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must > > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. > > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board > > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used." > > > > Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard > > certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs > > and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board > > when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not? > > > > I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the only > > answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav > > capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type > > certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of > > certifying > > the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So the > > FAA > > makes us use their nav system. > > > > How close am I? > > > > =================== > > L. Wayne Hicks > > Senior Engineer > > Zel Technologies, LLC > > 757-325-1282 phone > > wayne.hicks@zeltech.com > > http://www.zeltech.com > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:12 AM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) Corollary question to my own, below: any thoughts on how one practices partial panel training and checkride performance when all the flight instruments exist only on a pair of redundant glass EFIS's? I'm a bit worried the examiner is going to balk at giving me a checkride in my own expereimental if there is no way for him to selectively fail just the airspeed or HSI or altimeter or whatever. Any real-world failure of an AHRS would be detected by automated cross check between the two AHRS units, and the A/P gyro info would tell me which AHS was spewing bad data. Such a scenario seems to throw a monkey wrench into the archaic training and testing standards that were written in the days of the six-pack of gyro and electric instruments. Anyone been there and done that with an examiner? -Bill B. On 1/4/07, Bill Boyd wrote: > Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for > the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so > far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types > of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to > mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified > GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other > two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked > into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you > explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements > in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say > this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a > homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade. > > Thanks, gentlemen. > > Bill B. > > On 1/4/07, Dan Beadle wrote: > > > > The key is the 146 TSO. Without that, GPS is just a backup system. VOR or > > NDB must be primary. (We all know, that we fly it the other way around). > > In some cases, like flying direct, we can't even use VORs (too high, too > > low, too far away). But if we are at vectoring altitudes with radar > > coverage, again we can use the non-146 GPS as Secondary (even tho VOR is out > > of range.) > > > > With 146 TSO, it is a new ballgame - no underlying VOR required. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > > bakerocb@cox.net > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:56 PM > > To: Hicks, Wayne > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) > > > > > > 1/3/2007 > > > > Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you. > > > > You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built plane > > cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional VOR > > and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. > > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board > > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you think > > experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft > > (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs and nothing else? Why > > must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board when the new avionics > > suites in the newer planes do not?" > > > > I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental > > Aircraft)) must > > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board." > > > > Here is why I do not agree with that statement: > > > > A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAA's TSO C146a Gamma-3 > > certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with Vertical > > (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area > > Augmentation System (WAAS)." > > > > B) "Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of > > certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids > > for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument > > Landing System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids > > of any kind." > > > > C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the > > GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used > > for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route > > through precision approach at airports." > > > > These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see copy > > below. > > > > D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin says > > in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description of > > the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and a WMS > > (WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground. > > > > Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF > > navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations > > which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating > > IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in > > compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment > > appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." > > > > I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly don't > > intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. Obviously when > > flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer and glideslope > > equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published approach that > > requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on board and > > functioning. > > > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > > > > > > ------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS -------------- > > November 9, 2006 GarminR Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W > > series OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire - Garmin International, a > > unit of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of a > > major aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association > > (AOPA) Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the > > FAA's TSO C146a > > Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with > > Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide > > Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved model > > list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed on over > > 980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins the > > G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft. Garmin > > currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider. > > "This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary > > Kelley, Garmin's vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA commissioned > > WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified equipment > > in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 Garmin GNS > > 400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to WAAS. We > > expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, and pilots > > will be able to operate to and from airports that would otherwise be > > unavailable to them in marginal weather." > > Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmin's popular > > GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade their > > products to meet the FAA's WAAS standards* without a field approval**. These > > upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map redraws, fully coupled > > and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, and increased XM weather > > content. Pilots will also experience significantly enhanced functionality > > because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, and LNAV approach capabilities. > > Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of certification > > for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for precise > > lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument Landing > > System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids of any > > kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets pilots fly the FAA's new LPV > > approaches. The FAA has already published over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS > > approach procedures. > > The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the GPS > > signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used for > > sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route > > through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, pilots > > will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be able to > > navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument flight > > rules. > > Garmin's panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly three-fourths of > > all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted > > since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the avionics > > industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmin's GNS 480T was the > > first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a Gamma-3 > > certification. > > Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430WT and GNS 530WT to begin in > > about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are > > available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not > > currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of > > upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS 530W > > units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for > > additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers. > > *Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, Garmin's > > GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary means" of > > GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. Garmin > > expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 issuing the > > software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader card. > > This required software update is expected to be available in the first > > quarter of 2007. > > **The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for a > > large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not > > pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness > > approval will be required. > > > > ------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hicks, Wayne" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM > > Subject: 91.205 > > > > > > > OC: > > > > > > Happy New Year to you! > > > > > > Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more than > > > once > > > that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must > > > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. > > > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board > > > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used." > > > > > > Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard > > > certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs > > > and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board > > > when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not? > > > > > > I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the only > > > answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav > > > capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type > > > certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of > > > certifying > > > the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So the > > > FAA > > > makes us use their nav system. > > > > > > How close am I? > > > > > > =================== > > > L. Wayne Hicks > > > Senior Engineer > > > Zel Technologies, LLC > > > 757-325-1282 phone > > > wayne.hicks@zeltech.com > > > http://www.zeltech.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:23:26 AM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: AeroElectric-List: small spade lugs Bob: the barrier terminal strip in question has a terminal spacing of .25" and with the thickness of the plastic dividers between, leaves .180" width for spade terminals to fit under the screw heads. I saw none that small in the DigiKey catalog, and found none that narrow in my junkbox. I have an email in to "JD" at Infinity Aerospace, but no reply so far. Looks like I may be grinding down my own lugs if I elect not to just clamp bare wires. Is there a possible problem with tinning the tips of the wires with solder, to prevent fraying when shoving them under the hold-down plates, as far as getting a good, lasting torque-down of the screws? I don't want anyting coming loose under vibration later on. Something tells me the screws won't "mash down" as well on solder-dressed stranded wire as they might on the free strands. Thanks, -Bill B. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:17:43 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) 01/04/2007 Hello Wayne, Thanks for your quick response. I wrote: " Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." And you wrote: "I wish we could somehow train the DAR and ABEA communities to accept this." I don't agree with the concept of required acceptance by a DAR or FAA inspector during an initial airworthiness inspection of an ABEA's (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft's) avionics suite configuration and eventual use of that ABEA in IFR flight . The inspector is not in a position to pass judgement on such future IFR employment of the aircraft or enforce equipment provisions for that future employment. Instead the inspector places such judgement and future responsibility for compliance with FAR's and the AIM equipment requirements on the builder / pilot by the wording of that ABEA's Operating Limitations. To whit: After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. I suppose it is possible that an FAA ramp inspector after an IFR flight, or an investigation after an incident, could conclude that an ABEA equipped with only 146 TSO'd compliant WAAS equipment was in violation of minimum IFR navigation equipment requirements, but that is not my interpretation of the words available to me. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hicks, Wayne" Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:05 AM Subject: RE: 91.205 (WAAS) >I wish we could somehow train the DAR and ABEA communities to accept this. > > =================== > L. Wayne Hicks > Senior Engineer > Zel Technologies, LLC > 757-325-1282 phone > wayne.hicks@zeltech.com > http://www.zeltech.com ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:02:14 AM PST US From: "Bret Smith" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) Bill, When I took my IFR checkride, my plane (C172) was not equipped with an ADF, thus, no NDB approach. I ended up shooting an ILS and LOC at Knoxville, TN and a GPS approach at Andrews-Murphy, NC. As far as partial panel with glass EFIS, most examiners will use good-ol "sticky notes" to cover up relevant areas of the display. I have the number of my examiner who would be glad to discuss any questions with you via phone. Let me know if you want his number. Bret ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Boyd" Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:14 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) > > Corollary question to my own, below: any thoughts on how one > practices partial panel training and checkride performance when all > the flight instruments exist only on a pair of redundant glass EFIS's? > I'm a bit worried the examiner is going to balk at giving me a > checkride in my own expereimental if there is no way for him to > selectively fail just the airspeed or HSI or altimeter or whatever. > Any real-world failure of an AHRS would be detected by automated cross > check between the two AHRS units, and the A/P gyro info would tell me > which AHS was spewing bad data. Such a scenario seems to throw a > monkey wrench into the archaic training and testing standards that > were written in the days of the six-pack of gyro and electric > instruments. Anyone been there and done that with an examiner? > > -Bill B. > > On 1/4/07, Bill Boyd wrote: >> Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for >> the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so >> far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types >> of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to >> mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified >> GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other >> two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked >> into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you >> explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements >> in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say >> this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a >> homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade. >> >> Thanks, gentlemen. >> >> Bill B. >> >> On 1/4/07, Dan Beadle wrote: >> > >> > >> > The key is the 146 TSO. Without that, GPS is just a backup system. VOR >> > or >> > NDB must be primary. (We all know, that we fly it the other way >> > around). >> > In some cases, like flying direct, we can't even use VORs (too high, >> > too >> > low, too far away). But if we are at vectoring altitudes with radar >> > coverage, again we can use the non-146 GPS as Secondary (even tho VOR >> > is out >> > of range.) >> > >> > With 146 TSO, it is a new ballgame - no underlying VOR required. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> > bakerocb@cox.net >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:56 PM >> > To: Hicks, Wayne >> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) >> > >> > >> > 1/3/2007 >> > >> > Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you. >> > >> > You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built >> > plane >> > cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional >> > VOR >> > and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. >> > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board >> > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you >> > think >> > experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft >> > (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs and nothing else? >> > Why >> > must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board when the new avionics >> > suites in the newer planes do not?" >> > >> > I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built >> > Experimental >> > Aircraft)) must >> > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on >> > board." >> > >> > Here is why I do not agree with that statement: >> > >> > A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAA's TSO C146a Gamma-3 >> > certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with >> > Vertical >> > (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area >> > Augmentation System (WAAS)." >> > >> > B) "Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of >> > certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based >> > navaids >> > for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to >> > Instrument >> > Landing System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based >> > navaids >> > of any kind." >> > >> > C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of >> > the >> > GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be >> > used >> > for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en >> > route >> > through precision approach at airports." >> > >> > These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see >> > copy >> > below. >> > >> > D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin >> > says >> > in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description >> > of >> > the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and >> > a WMS >> > (WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground. >> > >> > Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF >> > navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating >> > Limitations >> > which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when >> > operating >> > IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would >> > be in >> > compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment >> > appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." >> > >> > I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly >> > don't >> > intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. Obviously >> > when >> > flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer and >> > glideslope >> > equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published approach that >> > requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on board and >> > functioning. >> > >> > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. >> > >> > >> > ------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS -------------- >> > November 9, 2006 GarminR Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W >> > series OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire - Garmin >> > International, a >> > unit of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of >> > a >> > major aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association >> > (AOPA) Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the >> > FAA's TSO C146a >> > Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision >> > with >> > Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the >> > Wide >> > Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved >> > model >> > list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed on >> > over >> > 980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins >> > the >> > G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft. >> > Garmin >> > currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider. >> > "This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary >> > Kelley, Garmin's vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA >> > commissioned >> > WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified >> > equipment >> > in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 Garmin >> > GNS >> > 400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to WAAS. We >> > expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, and >> > pilots >> > will be able to operate to and from airports that would otherwise be >> > unavailable to them in marginal weather." >> > Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmin's >> > popular >> > GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade their >> > products to meet the FAA's WAAS standards* without a field approval**. >> > These >> > upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map redraws, fully >> > coupled >> > and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, and increased XM >> > weather >> > content. Pilots will also experience significantly enhanced >> > functionality >> > because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, and LNAV approach >> > capabilities. >> > Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of >> > certification >> > for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for >> > precise >> > lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument Landing >> > System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids of >> > any >> > kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets pilots fly the FAA's new >> > LPV >> > approaches. The FAA has already published over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS >> > approach procedures. >> > The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the >> > GPS >> > signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be >> > used for >> > sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route >> > through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, >> > pilots >> > will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be able >> > to >> > navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument >> > flight >> > rules. >> > Garmin's panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly >> > three-fourths of >> > all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted >> > since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the >> > avionics >> > industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmin's GNS 480T was >> > the >> > first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a Gamma-3 >> > certification. >> > Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430WT and GNS 530WT to begin >> > in >> > about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are >> > available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not >> > currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of >> > upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS >> > 530W >> > units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for >> > additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers. >> > *Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, >> > Garmin's >> > GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary >> > means" of >> > GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. >> > Garmin >> > expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 >> > issuing the >> > software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader >> > card. >> > This required software update is expected to be available in the first >> > quarter of 2007. >> > **The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data >> > for a >> > large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not >> > pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of >> > airworthiness >> > approval will be required. >> > >> > ------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------ >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Hicks, Wayne" >> > To: >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM >> > Subject: 91.205 >> > >> > >> > > OC: >> > > >> > > Happy New Year to you! >> > > >> > > Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more >> > > than >> > > once >> > > that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It >> > > must >> > > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on >> > > board. >> > > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board >> > > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used." >> > > >> > > Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard >> > > certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS >> > > GPSs >> > > and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on >> > > board >> > > when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not? >> > > >> > > I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the >> > > only >> > > answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav >> > > capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type >> > > certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of >> > > certifying >> > > the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So >> > > the >> > > FAA >> > > makes us use their nav system. >> > > >> > > How close am I? >> > > >> > > =================== >> > > L. Wayne Hicks >> > > Senior Engineer >> > > Zel Technologies, LLC >> > > 757-325-1282 phone >> > > wayne.hicks@zeltech.com >> > > http://www.zeltech.com >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:03:36 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: WingWag wiring From: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" Bob, I'm having trouble with the implementation of your Single Switch, two power source WingWag circuit found at http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Lighting/WigWag.pdf (page 4) using the 4TL1-10 switch. Specifically, the switch as you show it on your schematic does not appear to match it's specification (found at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/tl_series.pdf ). More specifically, the center switch position doesn't appear to have any connections between pins 7 - 8 or between 11 - 12, thereby not allowing for proper WingWag operation. Furthermore, the operation of pins 1,2,&3 are different than shown in your schematic. It also appears that the only reason a four pole switch was used in this design was to facilitate the WingWag function on the center location of the switch. If the design requirements were to have a center OFF position, a less costly double pole ON-OFF-ON switch could be used. Any comments? Fred Stucklen N925RV RV-6A (Sold after 2008 Hrs) N926RV RV-6A (700+ hrs) N924RV RV-7A (Building the fuselage) ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:22:35 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: small spade lugs At 08:22 AM 1/4/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >Bob: the barrier terminal strip in question has a terminal spacing of >.25" and with the thickness of the plastic dividers between, leaves >.180" width for spade terminals to fit under the screw heads. I saw >none that small in the DigiKey catalog, and found none that narrow in >my junkbox. I have an email in to "JD" at Infinity Aerospace, but no >reply so far. Looks like I may be grinding down my own lugs if I >elect not to just clamp bare wires. Please DO NOT clamp screws down on bare wires. It is ALWAYS acceptable to file down the sides of a PIDG style ring terminal to fit between barriers on a terminal strip. > Is there a possible problem with >tinning the tips of the wires with solder, to prevent fraying when >shoving them under the hold-down plates, as far as getting a good, >lasting torque-down of the screws? I don't want anyting coming loose >under vibration later on. > Something tells me the screws won't "mash >down" as well on solder-dressed stranded wire as they might on the >free strands. It's a toss-up. If that were my only choice, I'd probably tin the strands first. The major problem with terminal strips and wires is vibration support just outside the crimped, clamped (or soldered) connection. This is the "magic" of the PIDG style terminal . . . whether you crimp -or- solder, there is a stress concentration in the wire's strands immediately where they emerge from the electrical connection. The insulation grip immediately adjacent to this stress point prevents future failures at that location due to flexing under vibration. In articles published by two different authors . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf supposedly authoritative individuals hat-dance completely around these simple-ideas described in . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf In the 75 or so years since PIDG terminals were developed, there have been billions of connections made between wires and terminals that have run failure-free simply because the designer took time to recognize and accommodate this little vulnerability in a wire's termination. 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 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:34:34 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: filter cap At 05:10 PM 1/3/2007 -0800, you wrote: > >Steinair has faston adapters for use on terminal strips that could be cut >in half and used. Don Why drive up parts count? What advantage is gained by placing an adapter on a threaded stud to accommodate a fast-on terminal when a simple ring terminal to the same stud will suffice? If you have concerns about maintaining joint integrity in the threaded fastener, those concerns don't go away just because you've turned a fast-on terminal into a ring-terminal with an adapter. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:43:09 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery AND Starter Contactor? At 07:59 PM 1/3/2007 -0500, you wrote: Hello, I'm new to the list, and just getting started on the wings of an RV-10, having finished the tail kit last month. I've read Bob's book, but as I'm starting to design my electrical system I have (at least for now) a question. The schematic in "the book" shows the main battery pos wire connected to the battery contactor and then from there to the starter contactor. I just viewed the HomebuiltHelper Video on wiring a homebuilt and they showed the battery connected directly to the "starter solenoid" which I think is meant to be called the starter contactor (at least it looks like one). So my newbie questions are: 1. Are both of these approaches correct? Both will "function" . . . but you won't find a type certified airplane wired as shown in the video. It is the function of the battery contactor to remove as much power from ship's wiring as possible when in the OFF condition. 2. Is the "starter contactor" any different than the "batter contactor?" In the book we talk about the differences between starter contactors and battery contactors. Starter contactors are intermittent duty devices that draw a lot of coil current (3-5 amps) to provide large closing forces on the contacts. Battery contactors continuous duty devices that draw typically 1 amp or less. 3. Am I correct in that the device in the video is not called a "solenoid?" From reading Bob's book, I'm guessing this is the "close but no cigar" example. All contactors (hi-current relays) have solenoids (short stroke, linear-motion motors) but not all solenoids have contacts. This is a good example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about a part's functionality. 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:46:44 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: small spade lugs Bob, Allied sells "ferruls" that while not perfect, allow wire termination with support of the insulation in places that ring terminals will not fit. One down side is the need for still another crimper. I am suing an engine monitor that had no other good way to terminate the wires. I will report later after some flight time as to weather these "ferrules" work out. Don ---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote: > > At 08:22 AM 1/4/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >Bob: the barrier terminal strip in question has a terminal spacing of > >.25" and with the thickness of the plastic dividers between, leaves > >.180" width for spade terminals to fit under the screw heads. I saw > >none that small in the DigiKey catalog, and found none that narrow in > >my junkbox. I have an email in to "JD" at Infinity Aerospace, but no > >reply so far. Looks like I may be grinding down my own lugs if I > >elect not to just clamp bare wires. > > Please DO NOT clamp screws down on bare wires. It is ALWAYS > acceptable to file down the sides of a PIDG style ring terminal > to fit between barriers on a terminal strip. > > > Is there a possible problem with > >tinning the tips of the wires with solder, to prevent fraying when > >shoving them under the hold-down plates, as far as getting a good, > >lasting torque-down of the screws? I don't want anyting coming loose > >under vibration later on. > > > > > Something tells me the screws won't "mash > >down" as well on solder-dressed stranded wire as they might on the > >free strands. > > It's a toss-up. If that were my only choice, I'd probably > tin the strands first. The major problem with terminal strips > and wires is vibration support just outside the crimped, clamped > (or soldered) connection. This is the "magic" of the PIDG > style terminal . . . whether you crimp -or- solder, there > is a stress concentration in the wire's strands immediately > where they emerge from the electrical connection. The insulation > grip immediately adjacent to this stress point prevents future > failures at that location due to flexing under vibration. > > In articles published by two different authors . . . > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf > > supposedly authoritative individuals hat-dance completely > around these simple-ideas described in . . . > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf > > In the 75 or so years since PIDG terminals were developed, > there have been billions of connections made between wires > and terminals that have run failure-free simply because the > designer took time to recognize and accommodate this > little vulnerability in a wire's termination. > > 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 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:49:22 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) Good Morning OC, Great comments. May I use your message as a springboard to further discussion? Somebody on this thread referred to the C129 approval as "GPS is just a backup system". That imply's that you must have a VOR based plan in use all the time you are navigating via GPS. I have even read some comments that state you cannot fly a VOR defined airway unless the VORs are in service. That is NOT the intent of the approval. The GPS under 129 is a Supplementary System, not a "back up" system. You can shoot an NDB or a VOR approach using GPS as long as it has an approved overlay procedure. The underlying VOR or NDB does not have to be in service or monitored if it is in service. The same goes for flying an airway , you can fly the airway using the GPS even if every VOR along the way is inoperative. What you must have is a plan to be able to safely revert to a p lan of action that will allow you to safely navigate following the loss of the GPS. The precise way you do that is not specified. If whatever you do ends up in an incident, you may have to explain your reasoning at a hearing. Highly unlikely, but always a possibility for any fl ight with any equipment! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 1/4/2007 8:20:21 A.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb@cox.net writes: Hello Wayne, Thanks for your quick response. I wrote: " Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." And you wrote: "I wish we could somehow train the DAR and ABEA communities to accept this." I don't agree with the concept of required acceptance by a DAR or FAA inspector during an initial airworthiness inspection of an ABEA's (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft's) avionics suite configuration and eventual us e of that ABEA in IFR flight . The inspector is not in a position to pass judgement on such future IFR employment of the aircraft or enforce equipment provisions for that future employment. Instead the inspector places such judgement and future responsibility for compliance with FAR's and the AIM equipment requirements on the builder / pilot by the wording of that ABEA's Operating Limitations. To whit: =9CAfter completion of Phase I flight testing, unless approp riately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.=9D I suppose it is possible that an FAA ramp inspector after an IFR flight, or an investigation after an incident, could conclude that an ABEA equipped with only 146 TSO'd compliant WAAS equipment was in violation of minimum IF R navigation equipment requirements, but that is not my interpretation of the words available to me. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:53:18 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: filter cap Bob, This was in response to Matt's comment about not wanting to use screw terminals becausr of the difficulty in doing maintenance later on in blind spots or difficult to reach spots. He said that he preferred fast on type hook ups. This was a way that faston type could be used with existing screw type caps. ---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote: > > At 05:10 PM 1/3/2007 -0800, you wrote: > > > > >Steinair has faston adapters for use on terminal strips that could be cut > >in half and used. Don > > Why drive up parts count? What advantage is gained by placing an > adapter on a threaded stud to accommodate a fast-on terminal when > a simple ring terminal to the same stud will suffice? If you have > concerns about maintaining joint integrity in the threaded fastener, > those concerns don't go away just because you've turned a fast-on > terminal into a ring-terminal with an adapter. > > Bob . . . > > > > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:05:56 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: filter cap From: "Matt Prather" Hey Bob, I think I started this twist... I just don't like ring terminals when trying to make a connection in the blind. I wasn't concerned about joint integrity. I agree with your point about parts count.. Matt- > > > At 05:10 PM 1/3/2007 -0800, you wrote: > >> >>Steinair has faston adapters for use on terminal strips that could be cut >>in half and used. Don > > Why drive up parts count? What advantage is gained by placing an > adapter on a threaded stud to accommodate a fast-on terminal when > a simple ring terminal to the same stud will suffice? If you have > concerns about maintaining joint integrity in the threaded fastener, > those concerns don't go away just because you've turned a fast-on > terminal into a ring-terminal with an adapter. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:56:47 AM PST US From: Jim Piavis Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG400 vs. RG17 Is there any issue with mixing RG400 with other coax in the runs? My harnes s came with short RG17 "pigtails" for the radio stack. Is there any reason I can't use RG400 for the remainder of the runs? Thanks, Jim ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:57:05 AM PST US From: Jim Piavis Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder Ant. Cable Length Antennas are still black magic to me but is there any requirement to have t he transponder cable run a certain length for optimal signal transmission? Or is the signal quality all based on antenna length? Jim -7 Redmond, WA ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 10:03:56 AM PST US From: "Dan Ballin" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Self excitation There were some posts on self exciting alternators and a new z 25 figure to make the SD-8 self exciting. My question is how necessary is this? I am working on a Legacy dual alt (70 and an SD-20) dual battery with EI (using z-14 as a starting point). My understanding of this is that if the battery is totally dead then an alternator will not "start". I don't think I would start a flight that way, but could imagine a battery disconnect of some sort in flight. My question is should I design the system so one or both of the alternators are self exciting or is this overkill. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 10:08:19 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Transponder Ant. Cable Length From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Yes, keep it as short as possible. From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Piavis Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:55 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder Ant. Cable Length Antennas are still black magic to me but is there any requirement to have the transponder cable run a certain length for optimal signal transmission? Or is the signal quality all based on antenna length? Jim -7 Redmond, WA ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 10:45:14 AM PST US From: TimRhod@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG400 vs. RG17 I've mixed these and my radios work fine Tim ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 12:03:55 PM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: small spade lugs It suddenly dawned on me that I can crimp on a .250" FastOn male connector and grind down the sides to correct width and slot the center to straddle the little #4 screw, thus making my own mini-spade lug. All the spades I have in my assortment have such wide slots, there'd be almost no material left after filing the sides down. I think this is what I will do. Thanks for the review of options. -Bill On 1/4/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 08:22 AM 1/4/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >Bob: the barrier terminal strip in question has a terminal spacing of > >.25" and with the thickness of the plastic dividers between, leaves > >.180" width for spade terminals to fit under the screw heads. I saw > >none that small in the DigiKey catalog, and found none that narrow in > >my junkbox. I have an email in to "JD" at Infinity Aerospace, but no > >reply so far. Looks like I may be grinding down my own lugs if I > >elect not to just clamp bare wires. > > Please DO NOT clamp screws down on bare wires. It is ALWAYS > acceptable to file down the sides of a PIDG style ring terminal > to fit between barriers on a terminal strip. > > > Is there a possible problem with > >tinning the tips of the wires with solder, to prevent fraying when > >shoving them under the hold-down plates, as far as getting a good, > >lasting torque-down of the screws? I don't want anyting coming loose > >under vibration later on. > > > > Something tells me the screws won't "mash > >down" as well on solder-dressed stranded wire as they might on the > >free strands. > > It's a toss-up. If that were my only choice, I'd probably > tin the strands first. The major problem with terminal strips > and wires is vibration support just outside the crimped, clamped > (or soldered) connection. This is the "magic" of the PIDG > style terminal . . . whether you crimp -or- solder, there > is a stress concentration in the wire's strands immediately > where they emerge from the electrical connection. The insulation > grip immediately adjacent to this stress point prevents future > failures at that location due to flexing under vibration. > > In articles published by two different authors . . . > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf > > supposedly authoritative individuals hat-dance completely > around these simple-ideas described in . . . > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf > > In the 75 or so years since PIDG terminals were developed, > there have been billions of connections made between wires > and terminals that have run failure-free simply because the > designer took time to recognize and accommodate this > little vulnerability in a wire's termination. > > 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 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:25 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transponder Ant. Cable Length At 08:55 AM 1/4/2007 -0800, you wrote: >Antennas are still black magic to me but is there any requirement to have >the transponder cable run a certain length for optimal signal >transmission? Or is the signal quality all based on antenna length? Coax cable length should be minimized for the lengths commonly used in light aircraft, both type of cable and variability in length will have no observable effect on performance. 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 21 ____________________________________ Time: 12:05:32 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG400 vs. RG17 At 08:53 AM 1/4/2007 -0800, you wrote: >Is there any issue with mixing RG400 with other coax in the runs? My >harness came with short RG17 pigtails for the radio stack. Is there any >reason I can t use RG400 for the remainder of the runs? No, any good quality 50 ohm cable can be used to extend your pigtail cables to the antenna. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 02:19:52 PM PST US From: "jdalton77" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery AND Starter Contactor? Thanks Bob. I just read that in your book. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery AND Starter Contactor? > > > At 07:59 PM 1/3/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > Hello, > > I'm new to the list, and just getting started on the wings of an RV-10, > having finished the tail kit last month. I've read Bob's book, but as I'm > starting to design my electrical system I have (at least for now) a > question. > > The schematic in "the book" shows the main battery pos wire connected to > the battery contactor and then from there to the starter contactor. I > just viewed the HomebuiltHelper Video on wiring a homebuilt and they > showed the battery connected directly to the "starter solenoid" which I > think is meant to be called the starter contactor (at least it looks like > one). > > So my newbie questions are: > > 1. Are both of these approaches correct? > > Both will "function" . . . but you won't find a type certified > airplane wired as shown in the video. It is the function of the > battery contactor to remove as much power from ship's wiring as > possible when in the OFF condition. > > 2. Is the "starter contactor" any different than the "batter contactor?" > > In the book we talk about the differences between starter contactors > and battery contactors. Starter contactors are intermittent duty devices > that draw a lot of coil current (3-5 amps) to provide large closing > forces on the contacts. Battery contactors continuous duty devices > that draw typically 1 amp or less. > > 3. Am I correct in that the device in the video is not called a > "solenoid?" From reading Bob's book, I'm guessing this is the "close but > no cigar" example. > > All contactors (hi-current relays) have solenoids (short stroke, > linear-motion motors) but not all solenoids have contacts. This is > a good example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about > a part's functionality. > > 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 23 ____________________________________ Time: 03:47:32 PM PST US From: "Tom Murphy" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Forest of Fast-On Tabs I'am a new builder using Forest of Fast-On Tabs for firewall engine and cabin side close to battery. And another Forest of Fast-On Tabs aprox 4 ft near inst panel ( small helicopter ). What size wire to join these Forest of Tabs grounds ? ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 04:53:28 PM PST US From: "Vern W." Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Self excitation Dan, With a dual alternator AND dual battery system, you're worrying way too much about a self-starting alternator. Where you might want to consider a self-starting alternator is if you were going with just one battery. If your entire system goes down and you lose both batteries as well, I think you'd be in a lot more hurt than could be resolved with a self-starting alternator. Build your dual/dual system correctly, and change out your batteries for new ones once in a while, and you'll never have to worry about power. Since I doubt if you're going to be installing de-icing equipment on that Legacy, my opinion is that you're taking your system further than is practical anyway. Vern On 1/4/07, Dan Ballin wrote: > > > My question is how necessary is this? I am working on a Legacy dual alt > (70 and an SD-20) dual > battery with EI (using z-14 as a starting point). Thanks > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 08:27:49 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: What Are The Odds - Problem Solved (I think) 01/04/2007 Hello George, You wrote: "The voltage regulator is bolted to the stainless steel firewall." A stainless steel firewall can make a very poor grounding connection because of a film that forms on the surface of the stainless steel. Sharp points of a meter's probes can pierce this film, but the flat bolted on base of a voltage regulator may not make a good electrical connection. There is more in the archives on this subject. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. Time: 02:55:28 PM PST US From: Sally Kilishek Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What Are The Odds - Problem Solved (I think) Bob: As usual, your intuition (in this case about faulty ground connections) is right on target. I replaced the alternator ground wire, which had run to a nearby engine bolt, with a piece of #18 wire going directly to the regulator case. All aberrant behavior stopped at once. Bus voltage is now mostly 14.6 to 14.8 volts, with infrequent excursions to 14.4 or 15.0 volts. Dont know why this worked, since the original ground connection tested fine on the multimeter (showed zero ohms to airframe ground), but who am I to question success? Ill put some additional flight test time on the system when the weather improves, but Im feeling pretty confident that the problem is solved. I know that a 14.8V bus voltage will put more stress on the battery than 13.8 volts would, but I think we can probably live with that. I dont think that this will hurt the avionics. In answer to your questions: My ground system is as follows. The voltage regulator is bolted to the stainless steel firewall. The landing light and strobes are grounded to the wing structure. The PTT switches are grounded to convenient points near the control sticks. Everything else is grounded at a single accessible point behind the instrument panel. With the exception of the 60A alternator B lead breaker (which is a push to reset thermal breaker) all circuit breakers are Polyswitch PTC current limiters with indicator lights for each circuit. I know that I speak for many others when I express my sincere gratitude to you for monitoring this list and for steering dummies like me away from despair. God bless you. George Kilishek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.