Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:46 AM - Re: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) (glen matejcek)
2. 05:20 AM - Re: Re: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) (Bill Boyd)
3. 05:21 AM - WAAS ()
4. 05:42 AM - 91.205 (WAAS) ()
5. 06:50 AM - Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? (Michael T. Ice)
6. 06:55 AM - Re: Re: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) (Mike)
7. 07:22 AM - The D-25 essential buss diode (Bill Bradburry)
8. 07:28 AM - Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:38 AM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 (Ron Brown)
10. 08:13 AM - 91.205 (WAAS) ()
11. 08:21 AM - small spade lugs ()
12. 09:36 AM - Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? (Michael Ice)
13. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) (Bill Boyd)
14. 09:52 AM - Re: The D-25 essential buss diode (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 10:08 AM - Re: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 (Bill Boyd)
16. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 (OldBob Siegfried)
17. 11:20 AM - Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage regulator failure (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
18. 12:12 PM - Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage regulator failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 01:04 PM - Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage regulator failure (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
20. 01:49 PM - Re: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 (6440 Auto Parts)
21. 02:02 PM - Re: 91.205 (WAAS) ()
22. 03:04 PM - Keyed push to start switch source? (Grant Neilson)
23. 03:10 PM - Re: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 (OldBob Siegfried)
24. 03:26 PM - Re: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 (6440 Auto Parts)
25. 03:45 PM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 (BobsV35B@aol.com)
26. 03:52 PM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (Bill Boyd)
27. 04:14 PM - Re: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 (Jerry Grimmonpre)
28. 04:50 PM - The D-25 essential buss diode (Bill Bradburry)
29. 05:28 PM - Re: Keyed push to start switch source? (LarryMcFarland)
30. 05:33 PM - Re: Keyed push to start switch source? (Tim & Diane Shankland)
31. 05:38 PM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 (BobsV35B@aol.com)
32. 07:07 PM - Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) (Bret Smith)
33. 08:40 PM - Re: "Broken and Garbled" (Additional data) (Speedy11@aol.com)
34. 08:52 PM - Re: Keyed push to start switch source? (6440 Auto Parts)
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: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
Hi Bill-
Two types of non-precision approaches not on your list are VOR and visual.
Visual approaches tend to fall out of peoples thinking since they are, uh,
visual, but the fact remains that you can / will only be issued a visual
approach clearance while operating under IFR. IFR is, of course, a
distinct concept from IMC, which is another detail that tends to get
blurred.
Before the firestorm starts, let me say that I've "been there, done that".
> 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.
>
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
violate the spirit of the thing, somehow ;-)
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, glen matejcek <aerobubba@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill-
>
> Two types of non-precision approaches not on your list are VOR and visual.
> Visual approaches tend to fall out of peoples thinking since they are, uh,
> visual, but the fact remains that you can / will only be issued a visual
> approach clearance while operating under IFR. IFR is, of course, a
> distinct concept from IMC, which is another detail that tends to get
> blurred.
>
> Before the firestorm starts, let me say that I've "been there, done that".
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
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 |
|
1/5/2007
Skip wrote: "I thought the WAAS signal was generated from the ground, am I
wrong?"
Hello Skip, How WAAS works is a bit complex. Here is a brief description
from a US govt web site http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm.
------------------------- BRIEF WAAS DESCRIPTION
BEGINS -----------------------------
"How It Works
Unlike traditional ground-based navigation aids, the WAAS covers nearly all
of the National Airspace System (NAS). The WAAS provides augmentation
information to GPS receivers to enhance the accuracy and reliability of
position estimates.
The signals from GPS satellites are received across the NAS at many
widely-spaced Wide Area Reference Stations (WRS) sites. The WRS locations
are precisely surveyed so that any errors in the received GPS signals can be
detected.
The GPS information collected by the WRS sites is forwarded to the WAAS
Master Station (WMS) via a terrestrial communications network. At the WMS,
the WAAS augmentation messages are generated. These messages contain
information that allows GPS receivers to remove errors in the GPS signal,
allowing for a significant increase in location accuracy and reliability.
The augmentation messages are sent from the WMS to uplink stations to be
transmitted to navigation payloads on Geostationary communications
satellites.
The navigation payloads broadcast the augmentation messages on a GPS-like
signal. The GPS/WAAS receiver processes the WAAS augmentation message as
part of estimating position. The GPS-like signal from the navigation
transponder can also be used by the receiver as an additional source for
calculation of the user's position.
WAAS also provides indications to GPS/WAAS receivers of where the GPS system
is unusable due to system errors or other effects. Further, the WAAS system
was designed to the strictest of safety standards - users are notified
within six seconds of any issuance of hazardously misleading information
that would cause an error in the GPS position estimate."
------------------------------- BRIEF WAAS DESCRIPTION
ENDS --------------------------------
One significant point that I want to make is that while WAAS is not
considered a "ground based system" by the US Govt it still involves "ground
facilities" and 91.205 (d) (2) reads "Two way radio communications system
and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used".
My position is that an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) equipped
with TSO C146a Gamma-3 certification WAAS avionics complies with 91.205 (d)
(2).
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
Time: 10:38:28 AM PST US
From: CardinalNSB@aol.com
Subject: Avionics-List: WAAS
I thought the WAAS signal was generated from the ground, am I wrong? Skip
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 |
|
1/5/2007
Hello Marcel, Thank you for your input. I welcome information from across
the ocean.
You wrote: "This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of
being able to
certify for IFR operation in your experimental."
One of my major points is that there is no such thing as "certifying for IFR
operation" in an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) here in the US.
The FAA has neither the capability or, under the present FAR's, the process
to certify an ABEA for IFR operations.
Instead, for the equipment required for IFR operations, the builder / pilot
is given the responsibility in the aircraft's Operating Limitations to
comply with FAR 91.205, part of which requires: "Two way radio
communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used".
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
Time: 01:52:42 AM PST US
From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Hi,
apologies for butting in on this. We have a RV10 with full Garmin stack and
have had quite some difficulty getting pin outs and ended up sending the
units to an avionics shop to get wired. (we purchased without looms)
I have since spoken to the main Garmin agent in the UK and he explained that
due to complexity of the avionics Garmin does not encourage(read does not
make available pinout)homebuilders to do their own wiring.
This can well be where the snag is in this story. You buy Garmin with a
manufactored loom which is tested for proper function and there's a degree
of assured quality.
This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of being able to
certify for IFR operation in your experimental.
It may also be a good idea to print a copy of 91.205 to hand over to your
DAR if he doesn't sign willingly! :-)
Marcel
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
Bob,
Thanks for the explanation, I especially like your words, "This is a good
example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about a parts
functionality".
I am totally confused. I bought the Van's "Starter Solenoid" and "Master
Relay" listed on page 82 of their accessories catalog and now I can't figure
out if they are the same animals as what are required in the Z-11 drawing.
In the Z-11 drawing the required devices are listed as Battery Contactor and
Starter Contactor.
Are these animals the same with just different names or should I throw away
the units I have and order new ones from B&C with the proper names just to
be sure?
>From what I can glean so far it looks like they are the same, they are all
"contactors" just that one is continuous and one is intermittent. Is that
correct?
Thank you,
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery AND Starter Contactor?
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> 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 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: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
Don't confuse training and real life. Training is to learn something
(hopefully as much as you can cause most GA pilots will never see
training again). Real life is getting the job done. You could fly on
an IFR clearance without any navigation equipment. For example if you
filed IFR from say Phoenix AZ to Falcon Field AZ (15~20nm both under
Phoenix class B) and the ceiling and visibility was 3000 and 3, you
probably wouldn't need any of that fancy stuff or the old stuff for that
matter. The flight would be a tower to tower radar vectors to a visual
approach unless you wanted the non-precession instrument approach. All
you would need would be a Com radio and transponder with encoder, that's
it. You need the equipment needed to navigate, nothing more. So radar
is usable to pilots and that is what you use on a GCA or PAR approach.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Boyd
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: instrument approach types, was
91.205 (WAAS)
<sportav8r@gmail.com>
Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
violate the spirit of the thing, somehow ;-)
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, glen matejcek <aerobubba@earthlink.net> wrote:
<aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi Bill-
>
> Two types of non-precision approaches not on your list are VOR and
visual.
> Visual approaches tend to fall out of peoples thinking since they are,
uh,
> visual, but the fact remains that you can / will only be issued a
visual
> approach clearance while operating under IFR. IFR is, of course, a
> distinct concept from IMC, which is another detail that tends to get
> blurred.
>
> Before the firestorm starts, let me say that I've "been there, done
that".
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
--
12/12/2006
--
12/12/2006
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: | The D-25 essential buss diode |
Bob and others...
I am trying to use this diode to connect my endurance buss as well as
follow the Z-19 drawing for the fuel pump and ECU circuits. The
schematic I have seen for this device does not seem to correlate to the
orientation of the connection tabs for the device. I am stumped as to
which tab should be used in these various connections. Can someone
please help me? Please assume that you are talking to a 2 year old
electrical engineer...that is roughly my level of expertise!
Thanks,
Bill B
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: Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
At 05:48 AM 1/5/2007 -0900, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the explanation, I especially like your words, "This is a good
>example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about a parts
>functionality".
>
>I am totally confused. I bought the Van's "Starter Solenoid" and "Master
>Relay" listed on page 82 of their accessories catalog and now I can't
>figure out if they are the same animals as what are required in the Z-11
>drawing.
>
>In the Z-11 drawing the required devices are listed as Battery Contactor
>and Starter Contactor.
>
>Are these animals the same with just different names or should I throw
>away the units I have and order new ones from B&C with the proper names
>just to be sure?
>
> From what I can glean so far it looks like they are the same, they are
> all "contactors" just that one is continuous and one is intermittent. Is
> that correct?
>
>Thank you,
>Mike
Yes. It's not uncommon for contactors to be referred to as
"solenoids" and they do indeed contain a solenoid for operation.
Starter solenoids mounted directly on starters have double duty -
the solenoid extends the pinion gear to mechanically engage the
starter. At the same time, it makes electrical connection between
the battery and starter motor by means of contacts in the same
assembly. Here, the proper term for the device is starter solenoid.
As soon as you pull it off the starter it becomes a fat relay more
properly called a contactor.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
A comment on the three required approaches.
I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS to tke my instrument check
ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129 certified for enroute and terminal.
As long as the permanant data base depicts the required waypoints (NDB), the
SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and navigate to the missed approach
waypoints.
Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer approaches to meet the requirement.
And incidentally, the new 400/500 WAAS simulator is at Garmin now. Neat - a
glide slope signal is generated for the CDI as soon as you hit the FAF for
GPS approaches.
Incidentally, the instrument rating is highly effective at making you a
better pilot - however it does not enable you to do approaches down to
minimums. We have had an alarming bunch of crashes around the Carolinas for
folks trying to do instrument approaches when the ceiling was 300' and
visibility of a mile or less. Two Cirruses, two C182's and a twin Cessna
made the unwise decision to fly ILS approaches to destinations where the
weather was absolutely lousy. At least 14 souls lost in less than three
months around here. Absolutely appalling!!!!
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 |
|
1/5/2007
Hello Bill, Welcome to the world of IFR flight and thanks for your
questions.
You wrote: "....skip....can you explain how one might satisfy the training
and checkride requirements in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF
nav?"
No, I can't. But let's examine the reality of a WAAS-GPS-only equipped
plane. I can't speak for the high end integrated systems (Chelton, Avidyne,
etc.), but the Garmin 400 / 500 series GPS units that can be upgraded to a
430W or 530W configuration already contain VHF nav capability. I presume the
newly built 430W and 530W boxes will also contain VHF nav capability. So one
will continue to have VHF nav capability even after a WAAS upgrade or new
purchase with these kinds of boxes.
Maybe an issue is whether or not one should plan on / need a separate VHF
nav box such as an SL-30 for back up purposes.**
A) So with an approach qualified GPS (non WAAS capable) and VHF nav one can
have four different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1)
VOR, 2) Localizer, 3) ILS, 4) GPS.
B) With an approach qualified GPS (with WAAS capability) and VHF nav one can
have five different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1)
VOR, 2) Localizer, 3) ILS, 4) GPS, 5) an approach that requires WAAS to
achieve the published minimums.
C) With no approach qualified GPS and only VHF nav one can have three
different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1) VOR, 2)
Localizer, 3) ILS.
And the question of ADF capability in your aircraft doesn't need to raise
its ugly head unless you choose to use some GPS capability to substitute for
a NDB where permitted.
You might want to discuss the above positions with your examiner prior to
showing up for the practical test to determine if he agrees.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
**PS: I use my GNS 430 and SL-30 together whenever possible. If one intends
to fly IFR to the extent that an approach capable GPS is needed then I think
the investment in a separate VHF nav box is well justified.
Time: 05:09:11 AM PST US
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
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.
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: | small spade lugs |
1/5/2007
Hello Don, You wrote: "I am suing an engine monitor that had
no other good way to terminate the wires."
Would you please identify the manufacturer of this unit to all of us? Just a
simple statement of who made it and a description of the configuration at
issue would be helpfull. Thanks.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
Time: 07:46:44 AM PST US
From: <dsvs@ca.rr.com>
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
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: Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
Bob,
Thank you kind sir.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery AND Starter Contactor?
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> At 05:48 AM 1/5/2007 -0900, you wrote:
>
> <aurbo@ak.net>>
> >Bob,
> >
> >Thanks for the explanation, I especially like your words, "This
> is a good
> >example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about a
> parts
> >functionality".
> >
> >I am totally confused. I bought the Van's "Starter Solenoid" and
> "Master
> >Relay" listed on page 82 of their accessories catalog and now I
> can't
> >figure out if they are the same animals as what are required in
> the Z-11
> >drawing.
> >
> >In the Z-11 drawing the required devices are listed as Battery
> Contactor
> >and Starter Contactor.
> >
> >Are these animals the same with just different names or should I
> throw
> >away the units I have and order new ones from B&C with the proper
> names
> >just to be sure?
> >
> > From what I can glean so far it looks like they are the same,
> they are
> > all "contactors" just that one is continuous and one is
> intermittent. Is
> > that correct?
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Mike
>
> Yes. It's not uncommon for contactors to be referred to as
> "solenoids" and they do indeed contain a solenoid for operation.
> Starter solenoids mounted directly on starters have double
> duty -
> the solenoid extends the pinion gear to mechanically engage the
> starter. At the same time, it makes electrical connection between
> the battery and starter motor by means of contacts in the same
> assembly. Here, the proper term for the device is starter
> solenoid.
> As soon as you pull it off the starter it becomes a fat relay more
> properly called a contactor.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
Thanks, Mike.
The thread started out being about whether WAAS GPS met the letter of
the law for "ground-based facilities to be used," and I asked a
question expanding the scope from operational IFR to include the
training environment, which is where I'm soon to be.
I've concluded that, even though our current ground-based VHF
technology is antiquated, it is essential for adequate IFR
instrumentation in today's cockpit, and will be in continued use for
decades more, if only because the system is standardized worldwide and
there are a lot of nations without the funding to replace VHF 1940's
tech with anything better for the air carriers to use. It might be
somehow legal to fly IFR in IMC with only a WAAS GPS for nav and
approach, but I don't think for a minute I'd ever get an istructor or
examiner willing to train and sign me off that way, so it's back to
plan A for me, which means there will be an SL-30 in the panel besides
the GPS gear. Redundancy is a good thing.
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, Mike <mlas@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Don't confuse training and real life. Training is to learn something
> (hopefully as much as you can cause most GA pilots will never see
> training again). Real life is getting the job done. You could fly on
> an IFR clearance without any navigation equipment. For example if you
> filed IFR from say Phoenix AZ to Falcon Field AZ (15~20nm both under
> Phoenix class B) and the ceiling and visibility was 3000 and 3, you
> probably wouldn't need any of that fancy stuff or the old stuff for that
> matter. The flight would be a tower to tower radar vectors to a visual
> approach unless you wanted the non-precession instrument approach. All
> you would need would be a Com radio and transponder with encoder, that's
> it. You need the equipment needed to navigate, nothing more. So radar
> is usable to pilots and that is what you use on a GCA or PAR approach.
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Boyd
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:19 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: instrument approach types, was
> 91.205 (WAAS)
>
> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>
> Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
> rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
> GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
> military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
> with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
> violate the spirit of the thing, somehow ;-)
>
> -Bill B.
>
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: The D-25 essential buss diode |
At 10:22 AM 1/5/2007 -0500, you wrote:
><bbradburry@allvantage.com>
>
>Bob and others...
>I am trying to use this diode to connect my endurance buss as well as
>follow the Z-19 drawing for the fuel pump and ECU circuits. The schematic
>I have seen for this device does not seem to correlate to the orientation
>of the connection tabs for the device. I am stumped as to which tab
>should be used in these various connections. Can someone please help
>me? Please assume that you are talking to a 2 year old electrical
>engineer...that is roughly my level of expertise!
>Thanks,
>Bill B
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/diode_wiring.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg
Note that the (+) terminal ties to the e-bus and is easily identified
by it's orientation (90-degree twist with respect to other three terminals).
Bob . . .
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: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten that VOR and localizer
were two distinct approaches <blush>; I badly need to quit simply
reading and start actually flying this stuff. But right now my plane
has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a VOR - just a _slight_
impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the pay-as-I-go plan.
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, Ron Brown <romott@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> A comment on the three required approaches.
>
> I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS to tke my instrument check
> ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129 certified for enroute and terminal.
> As long as the permanant data base depicts the required waypoints (NDB), the
> SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and navigate to the missed approach
> waypoints.
>
> Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer approaches to meet the requirement.
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
Good Afternoon Bill,
Chances are you already know this, but just in case
there is any question!!
Many VOR, ILS, Localizer and even NDB approaches
require the use of an ADF or DME for them to be
executed. Sometimes that information will be in the
title such as "VOR DME to Rwy 31" Other times it will
just be a note somewhere on the page that says "DME
required" or "ADF required".
To shoot those approaches you must be so equipped
UNLESS you have an IFR approved GPS. It does NOT have
to be an approach approved set. One that is only
approved for Enroute and Terminal guidance is
sufficient.
The GPS may be used in Lieu of ADF and/or DME for
almost all purposes anywhere in the United States
National Airspace System.
One big No/No. You cannot use the GPS to execute an
NDB approach unless it is equipped with an overlay
approach. In that case, it will say "ADF (or GPS) to
Rwy 31".
A further restriction is that the GPS being used must
have a current data card installed and it must be used
to obtain the data.
Any other time when the words ADF or DME are included
in the approach name or where there is a note stating
that an ADF or a DME is required, the GPS may be used
for whatever purpose would have required an ADF or
DME.
Unfortunately, that provision is not well known. You
can check it out in the AIM section 1-1-19. paragraph
f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com> wrote:
> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>
> In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten that
> VOR and localizer
> were two distinct approaches <blush>; I badly need
> to quit simply
> reading and start actually flying this stuff. But
> right now my plane
> has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a VOR
> - just a _slight_
> impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
>
> Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the
> pay-as-I-go plan.
>
> -Bill B.
>
> On 1/5/07, Ron Brown <romott@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Brown" <romott@sprintmail.com>
> >
> > A comment on the three required approaches.
> >
> > I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS to
> tke my instrument check
> > ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129 certified
> for enroute and terminal.
> > As long as the permanant data base depicts the
> required waypoints (NDB), the
> > SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and
> navigate to the missed approach
> > waypoints.
> >
> > Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer approaches
> to meet the requirement.
> >
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage |
regulator failure
Add me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about 75 hours
on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this happening before
but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator to a repair shop and for
$20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no such place around here so far that
can do that....but that's not why I'm writing.
I want to learn if I can read this problem in advance in the future. I did recently
have a battery that got weak. It put out about 11.2 volts one day out
of the blue no matter how long I charged it with my Battery Tender. I replaced
it and flew a couple of hours on the new battery before the voltage regulator
went belly up. Now the alternator puts out about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn
on all the lights I can get the voltage to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle.
Why would the battery probem eventually lead to the regulator problem (I've heard
it could) and can it be pretty much guaranteed to do so under certain conditions?
thx,
lucky
<html><body>
<DIV>Add me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about
75 hours on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this happening
before but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator to a repair
shop and for $20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no such place around
here so far that can do that....but that's not why I'm writing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I want to learn if I can read this problem in advance in the future.
I did recently have a battery that got weak. It put out about
11.2 volts one day out of the blue no matter how long I charged it with my Battery
Tender. I replaced it and flew a couple of hours on the new battery
before the voltage regulator went belly up. Now the alternator puts out
about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn on all the lights I can get the voltage
to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why would the battery probem eventually lead to the regulator problem (I've
heard it could) and can it be pretty much guaranteed to do so under certain
conditions?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>thx,</DIV>
<DIV>lucky</DIV>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated |
voltage regulator failure
At 07:19 PM 1/5/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>Add me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about 75
>hours on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this
>happening before but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator
>to a repair shop and for $20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no such
>place around here so far that can do that....but that's not why I'm writing.
>
>I want to learn if I can read this problem in advance in the future.
>I did recently have a battery that got weak.
What kind and how old was the battery? Did it
get any kind of testing done since new to track
its condition?
>It put out about 11.2 volts one day out of the blue no matter how long I
>charged it with my Battery Tender. I replaced it and flew a couple of
>hours on the new battery before the voltage regulator went belly up.
>Now the alternator puts out about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn on all
>the lights I can get the voltage to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle.
It may have been a regulation problem since day-one. Do you
monitor voltage in the cockpit? Are you sure that an over-zealous
IR alternator didn't cook the battery?
>
>Why would the battery probem eventually lead to the regulator
>problem (I've heard it could) and can it be pretty much guaranteed
>to do so under certain conditions?
I'm aware of no combination in the physics that suggests
a battery can damage a regulator. Most likely, it's the
other way around.
The symptoms you describe mimic a shorted regulator
the causes the alternator to run flat-out. The only reason
the bus voltage is not climbing quickly to 100 volts or
more is that your new battery is doing its level best
to use up the alternator's output. Fortunately, the
alternator is current limited and the new battery fairly
robust . . . but the alternator will eventually win.
The regulator is not difficult to replace but you need to
know the make and model of your alternator to acquire the
right replacement part.
Bob . . .
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated |
voltage regulator failure
It was an Odyssey pc680 and it's van's 60 amp alternator with the internal voltage
regulator. I don't know for sure the make but many say it's a nippondenso
(ND). I didn't take it off yet.
Yes, the voltage is monitored all the time by my EIS & EFIS and there's a pretty
tight voltage range which would trigger an "alarm" if it went out of range.
It never did prior to just oughtright dropping a couple of volts permanently.
But it was my original battery which I abused throughout the build process and
I'm not the least bit surprised. I got my 4 years money's worth as far as
the battery goes....
No, I didn't actively track the battery's voltage becuase I ALWAYS left it on a
trickle charger while hangared at the home airport and it never gave me any grief
during long trips like to Oshkosh plus the alarm range was pretty tight
on the EFIS (I guess you could say that's gross tracking to some extent). My
bus voltage once the engine is running has always been about 14.2 volts plus or
minus .1
I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator so this seamed
to have validated that statement. For sure though, from my observations,
the battery appeared to go bad first then 2 hours later after a new battery
was installed the regulator seems to have failed. My current battery voltage is
really good, even after the voltage regulator failure stress on the battery.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
> At 07:19 PM 1/5/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >Add me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about 75
> >hours on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this
> >happening before but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator
> >to a repair shop and for $20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no such
> >place around here so far that can do that....but that's not why I'm writing.
> >
> >I want to learn if I can read this problem in advance in the future.
> >I did recently have a battery that got weak.
>
> What kind and how old was the battery? Did it
> get any kind of testing done since new to track
> its condition?
>
> >It put out about 11.2 volts one day out of the blue no matter how long I
> >charged it with my Battery Tender. I replaced it and flew a couple of
> >hours on the new battery before the voltage regulator went belly up.
> >Now the alternator puts out about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn on all
> >the lights I can get the voltage to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle.
>
> It may have been a regulation problem since day-one. Do you
> monitor voltage in the cockpit? Are you sure that an over-zealous
> IR alternator didn't cook the battery?
> >
> >Why would the battery probem eventually lead to the regulator
> >problem (I've heard it could) and can it be pretty much guaranteed
> >to do so under certain conditions?
>
> I'm aware of no combination in the physics that suggests
> a battery can damage a regulator. Most likely, it's the
> other way around.
>
> The symptoms you describe mimic a shorted regulator
> the causes the alternator to run flat-out. The only reason
> the bus voltage is not climbing quickly to 100 volts or
> more is that your new battery is doing its level best
> to use up the alternator's output. Fortunately, the
> alternator is current limited and the new battery fairly
> robust . . . but the alternator will eventually win.
>
> The regulator is not difficult to replace but you need to
> know the make and model of your alternator to acquire the
> right replacement part.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>It was an Odyssey pc680 and it's van's 60 amp alternator with the internal
voltage regulator. I don't know for sure the make but many say it's a nippondenso
(ND). I didn't take it off yet.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, the voltage is monitored all the time by my EIS & EFIS and there's
a pretty tight voltage range which would trigger an "alarm" if it went out of
range. It never did prior to just oughtright dropping a couple of volts
permanently. But it was my original battery which I abused throughout
the build process and I'm not the least bit surprised. I got my 4 years
money's worth as far as the battery goes....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>No, I didn't actively track the battery's voltage becuase I ALWAYS left it
on a trickle charger while hangared at the home airport and it never gave me
any grief during long trips like to Oshkosh plus the alarm range was pretty
tight on the EFIS (I guess you could say that's gross tracking to some extent).
My bus voltage once the engine is running has always been about 14.2
volts plus or minus .1</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator so this
seamed to have validated that statement. For sure though, from my observations,
the battery appeared to go bad first then 2 hours later after a new
battery was installed the regulator seems to have failed. My current
battery voltage is really good, even after the voltage regulator failure stress
on the battery.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>lucky</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> <BR><BR>> --> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <BR>> <NUCKOLLSR@COX.NET><BR>>
<BR>> At 07:19 PM 1/5/2007 +0000, you wrote: <BR>> <BR>> >Add
me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about 75 <BR>>
>hours on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this <BR>>
>happening before but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator <BR>>
>to a repair shop and for $20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no
such <BR>> >place around here so far that can do that....but that's not
why I'm writing. <BR>> > <BR>> >I want to learn if I can read this
problem in advance in the future. <BR>> >I did recently have a battery
that got weak. <BR>> <BR>> What kind and how ol
d was
the battery? Did it <BR>> get any kind of testing done since new to track <BR>>
its condition? <BR>> <BR>> >It put out about 11.2 volts one day
out of the blue no matter how long I <BR>> >charged it with my Battery
Tender. I replaced it and flew a couple of <BR>> >hours on the new battery
before the voltage regulator went belly up. <BR>> >Now the alternator
puts out about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn on all <BR>> >the lights I can
get the voltage to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle. <BR>> <BR>> It may have
been a regulation problem since day-one. Do you <BR>> monitor voltage in
the cockpit? Are you sure that an over-zealous <BR>> IR alternator didn't
cook the battery? <BR>> > <BR>> >Why would the battery probem eventually
lead to the regulator <BR>> >problem (I've heard it could) and can
it be pretty much guaranteed <BR>> >to do so under certain conditions?
<BR>> <BR>> I'm aware of no combination in th
e phys
e many
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
>Bob you said:Any other time when the >words ADF or DME are included
>in the approach name or where there is a >note stating
>that an ADF or a DME is required, the >GPS may be used
>for whatever purpose would have ?>required an ADF or
>DME.Unfortunately, that
>provision is not well known. You
>can check it out in the AIM section 1-1->19. paragraph
>f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
Can you be more specific ? Are you refering to "
NOTE-
This approval does not alter the conditions and requirements for use of GPS
to fly existing nonprecision instrument approach procedures as defined in
the GPS approach overlay program. "
or are you refering to: "(6) Charted requirements for ADF and/or DME can be
met using the GPS system, except for use as the principal instrument
approach navigation source."
The specifics seem rather sketchy for me to come to any real conclusion. It
just makes no sense that a RAIM GPS can be used for substitution of NDB/DME
wp's and not be allowed on an accual NDB approach since they are not very
precise to start with.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "OldBob Siegfried" <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500
> <oldbob@beechowners.com>
>
> Good Afternoon Bill,
>
> Chances are you already know this, but just in case
> there is any question!!
>
> Many VOR, ILS, Localizer and even NDB approaches
> require the use of an ADF or DME for them to be
> executed. Sometimes that information will be in the
> title such as "VOR DME to Rwy 31" Other times it will
> just be a note somewhere on the page that says "DME
> required" or "ADF required".
>
> To shoot those approaches you must be so equipped
> UNLESS you have an IFR approved GPS. It does NOT have
> to be an approach approved set. One that is only
> approved for Enroute and Terminal guidance is
> sufficient.
>
> The GPS may be used in Lieu of ADF and/or DME for
> almost all purposes anywhere in the United States
> National Airspace System.
>
> One big No/No. You cannot use the GPS to execute an
> NDB approach unless it is equipped with an overlay
> approach. In that case, it will say "ADF (or GPS) to
> Rwy 31".
>
> A further restriction is that the GPS being used must
> have a current data card installed and it must be used
> to obtain the data.
>
> Any other time when the words ADF or DME are included
> in the approach name or where there is a note stating
> that an ADF or a DME is required, the GPS may be used
> for whatever purpose would have required an ADF or
> DME.
>
> Unfortunately, that provision is not well known. You
> can check it out in the AIM section 1-1-19. paragraph
> f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> --- Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>>
>> In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten that
>> VOR and localizer
>> were two distinct approaches <blush>; I badly need
>> to quit simply
>> reading and start actually flying this stuff. But
>> right now my plane
>> has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a VOR
>> - just a _slight_
>> impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
>>
>> Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the
>> pay-as-I-go plan.
>>
>> -Bill B.
>>
>> On 1/5/07, Ron Brown <romott@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> Brown" <romott@sprintmail.com>
>> >
>> > A comment on the three required approaches.
>> >
>> > I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS to
>> tke my instrument check
>> > ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129 certified
>> for enroute and terminal.
>> > As long as the permanant data base depicts the
>> required waypoints (NDB), the
>> > SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and
>> navigate to the missed approach
>> > waypoints.
>> >
>> > Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer approaches
>> to meet the requirement.
>> >
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>> Web Forums!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
1/5/2007
Hello Bill,
1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread."
Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the picture a
bit.
2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind: about
the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand
Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install"
Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this
equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past.
Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics meet
either TSO C145 or 146A.
Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS / internal
GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what additional legal
value it would have when operating IFR. Like any other reasonably capable
GPS unit it could provide very beneficial situational awareness support.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
> OC, let me fess up here... I forgot that the GNS-430 includes the vhf
> nav comm side of things! I read the actual words in your post, but my
> brain fast-forwarded to the question more heavily on my mind: about
> the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand
> Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install, the one that
> would let me omit the 430 from my purchase list and use just an SL30
> in its place (and save mega-thousands). So my question was based in
> part on faulty assumptions of what was inside the 430-<head slap!> and
> partly on my impatience to get my own questions answered. Sorry to
> cloud any points in the thread.
>
> -Bill B.
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: | Keyed push to start switch source? |
I'm going to be putting in a dual electronic ignition, dual battery setup
and in order to maintain separate redundant ignition systems will have
separate ignition toggle switches. I could use a simple push to start switch
to the starter contactor, but would like the albeit minor security of a
keyed switch. Does anyone know of a source for a keyed SPST momentary push
to start or turn to start switch? It should be able to handle at least 5
amps at 14 volts DC. Thanks in advance for any info.
Do not archive
Grant Neilson
RV9A, finishing
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: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
Good Evening Randy,
Both of the paragraphs you have quoted tell the truth.
The simple explanation is that an IFR approved GPS CAN
be used for all of those functions under the
provisions of "GPS in Lieu of DME and ADF".
Why did they not allow it to be used to execute an NDB
approach? Because their policy was that all waypoints
had to be auto-sequenced for any approach flown by
GPS.
The operator would have been required to either load a
way point or think a little bit about what they were
doing.
When we were fighting to get the "In Lieu Of"
provisions approved, every FAA person I talked to
agreed that doing as you suggest would be better than
what we now have for an NDB approach, but it didn't
fit FAA policy. We got what we could, but not
everything we wanted.
If you have any more questions concerning the
application of the current policy, please ask.
The key thing is that: For flight in the USNAS we
don't need a DME or an ADF as long as we have an IFR
approved GPS with at least enroute and terminal
capability.
The language in 1-1-19 gets a little convoluted
because so many different departments of the FAA had
to sign off on the final interpretation. Each one
wanted to add their own two bits worth.
It took us three years to get it through in even that
very rough form.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- 6440 Auto Parts <sales@6440autoparts.com> wrote:
> Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
>
>
>
> >Bob you said:Any other time when the >words ADF or
> DME are included
> >in the approach name or where there is a >note
> stating
> >that an ADF or a DME is required, the >GPS may be
> used
> >for whatever purpose would have ?>required an ADF
> or
> >DME.Unfortunately, that
> >provision is not well known. You
> >can check it out in the AIM section 1-1->19.
> paragraph
> >f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
>
> Can you be more specific ? Are you refering to "
> NOTE-
> This approval does not alter the conditions and
> requirements for use of GPS
> to fly existing nonprecision instrument approach
> procedures as defined in
> the GPS approach overlay program. "
>
> or are you refering to: "(6) Charted requirements
> for ADF and/or DME can be
> met using the GPS system, except for use as the
> principal instrument
> approach navigation source."
>
> The specifics seem rather sketchy for me to come to
> any real conclusion. It
> just makes no sense that a RAIM GPS can be used for
> substitution of NDB/DME
> wp's and not be allowed on an accual NDB approach
> since they are not very
> precise to start with.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "OldBob Siegfried" <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: 91.205
> (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500
>
>
> Siegfried
> > <oldbob@beechowners.com>
> >
> > Good Afternoon Bill,
> >
> > Chances are you already know this, but just in
> case
> > there is any question!!
> >
> > Many VOR, ILS, Localizer and even NDB approaches
> > require the use of an ADF or DME for them to be
> > executed. Sometimes that information will be in
> the
> > title such as "VOR DME to Rwy 31" Other times it
> will
> > just be a note somewhere on the page that says
> "DME
> > required" or "ADF required".
> >
> > To shoot those approaches you must be so equipped
> > UNLESS you have an IFR approved GPS. It does NOT
> have
> > to be an approach approved set. One that is only
> > approved for Enroute and Terminal guidance is
> > sufficient.
> >
> > The GPS may be used in Lieu of ADF and/or DME for
> > almost all purposes anywhere in the United States
> > National Airspace System.
> >
> > One big No/No. You cannot use the GPS to execute
> an
> > NDB approach unless it is equipped with an overlay
> > approach. In that case, it will say "ADF (or GPS)
> to
> > Rwy 31".
> >
> > A further restriction is that the GPS being used
> must
> > have a current data card installed and it must be
> used
> > to obtain the data.
> >
> > Any other time when the words ADF or DME are
> included
> > in the approach name or where there is a note
> stating
> > that an ADF or a DME is required, the GPS may be
> used
> > for whatever purpose would have required an ADF or
> > DME.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that provision is not well known.
> You
> > can check it out in the AIM section 1-1-19.
> paragraph
> > f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> >
> > --- Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> Boyd"
> >> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten
> that
> >> VOR and localizer
> >> were two distinct approaches <blush>; I badly
> need
> >> to quit simply
> >> reading and start actually flying this stuff.
> But
> >> right now my plane
> >> has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a
> VOR
> >> - just a _slight_
> >> impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
> >>
> >> Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the
> >> pay-as-I-go plan.
> >>
> >> -Bill B.
> >>
> >> On 1/5/07, Ron Brown <romott@sprintmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Brown" <romott@sprintmail.com>
> >> >
> >> > A comment on the three required approaches.
> >> >
> >> > I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS
> to
> >> tke my instrument check
> >> > ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129
> certified
> >> for enroute and terminal.
> >> > As long as the permanant data base depicts the
> >> required waypoints (NDB), the
> >> > SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and
> >> navigate to the missed approach
> >> > waypoints.
> >> >
> >> > Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer
> approaches
> >> to meet the requirement.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> browse
> >> Subscriptions page,
> >> FAQ,
> >>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >>
> >> Web Forums!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
=== message truncated ==
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
Bob I'm to sure if I want to laugh or cry. I appreciate your
willingness to share but not sure if it would help me understand since
seemingly there is no logical understanding. Thank goodness as far as I know
anyway there is an accual GPS approach at most any airport that has an NDB
approach.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "OldBob Siegfried" <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500
> <oldbob@beechowners.com>
>
> Good Evening Randy,
>
> Both of the paragraphs you have quoted tell the truth.
>
> The simple explanation is that an IFR approved GPS CAN
> be used for all of those functions under the
> provisions of "GPS in Lieu of DME and ADF".
>
> Why did they not allow it to be used to execute an NDB
> approach? Because their policy was that all waypoints
> had to be auto-sequenced for any approach flown by
> GPS.
>
> The operator would have been required to either load a
> way point or think a little bit about what they were
> doing.
>
> When we were fighting to get the "In Lieu Of"
> provisions approved, every FAA person I talked to
> agreed that doing as you suggest would be better than
> what we now have for an NDB approach, but it didn't
> fit FAA policy. We got what we could, but not
> everything we wanted.
>
> If you have any more questions concerning the
> application of the current policy, please ask.
>
> The key thing is that: For flight in the USNAS we
> don't need a DME or an ADF as long as we have an IFR
> approved GPS with at least enroute and terminal
> capability.
>
> The language in 1-1-19 gets a little convoluted
> because so many different departments of the FAA had
> to sign off on the final interpretation. Each one
> wanted to add their own two bits worth.
>
> It took us three years to get it through in even that
> very rough form.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> --- 6440 Auto Parts <sales@6440autoparts.com> wrote:
>
>> Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bob you said:Any other time when the >words ADF or
>> DME are included
>> >in the approach name or where there is a >note
>> stating
>> >that an ADF or a DME is required, the >GPS may be
>> used
>> >for whatever purpose would have ?>required an ADF
>> or
>> >DME.Unfortunately, that
>> >provision is not well known. You
>> >can check it out in the AIM section 1-1->19.
>> paragraph
>> >f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
>>
>> Can you be more specific ? Are you refering to "
>> NOTE-
>> This approval does not alter the conditions and
>> requirements for use of GPS
>> to fly existing nonprecision instrument approach
>> procedures as defined in
>> the GPS approach overlay program. "
>>
>> or are you refering to: "(6) Charted requirements
>> for ADF and/or DME can be
>> met using the GPS system, except for use as the
>> principal instrument
>> approach navigation source."
>>
>> The specifics seem rather sketchy for me to come to
>> any real conclusion. It
>> just makes no sense that a RAIM GPS can be used for
>> substitution of NDB/DME
>> wp's and not be allowed on an accual NDB approach
>> since they are not very
>> precise to start with.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "OldBob Siegfried" <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: 91.205
>> (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500
>>
>>
>> Siegfried
>> > <oldbob@beechowners.com>
>> >
>> > Good Afternoon Bill,
>> >
>> > Chances are you already know this, but just in
>> case
>> > there is any question!!
>> >
>> > Many VOR, ILS, Localizer and even NDB approaches
>> > require the use of an ADF or DME for them to be
>> > executed. Sometimes that information will be in
>> the
>> > title such as "VOR DME to Rwy 31" Other times it
>> will
>> > just be a note somewhere on the page that says
>> "DME
>> > required" or "ADF required".
>> >
>> > To shoot those approaches you must be so equipped
>> > UNLESS you have an IFR approved GPS. It does NOT
>> have
>> > to be an approach approved set. One that is only
>> > approved for Enroute and Terminal guidance is
>> > sufficient.
>> >
>> > The GPS may be used in Lieu of ADF and/or DME for
>> > almost all purposes anywhere in the United States
>> > National Airspace System.
>> >
>> > One big No/No. You cannot use the GPS to execute
>> an
>> > NDB approach unless it is equipped with an overlay
>> > approach. In that case, it will say "ADF (or GPS)
>> to
>> > Rwy 31".
>> >
>> > A further restriction is that the GPS being used
>> must
>> > have a current data card installed and it must be
>> used
>> > to obtain the data.
>> >
>> > Any other time when the words ADF or DME are
>> included
>> > in the approach name or where there is a note
>> stating
>> > that an ADF or a DME is required, the GPS may be
>> used
>> > for whatever purpose would have required an ADF or
>> > DME.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, that provision is not well known.
>> You
>> > can check it out in the AIM section 1-1-19.
>> paragraph
>> > f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
>> >
>> > Happy Skies,
>> >
>> > Old Bob
>> >
>> > --- Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Boyd"
>> >> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten
>> that
>> >> VOR and localizer
>> >> were two distinct approaches <blush>; I badly
>> need
>> >> to quit simply
>> >> reading and start actually flying this stuff.
>> But
>> >> right now my plane
>> >> has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a
>> VOR
>> >> - just a _slight_
>> >> impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the
>> >> pay-as-I-go plan.
>> >>
>> >> -Bill B.
>> >>
>> >> On 1/5/07, Ron Brown <romott@sprintmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Brown" <romott@sprintmail.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > A comment on the three required approaches.
>> >> >
>> >> > I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS
>> to
>> >> tke my instrument check
>> >> > ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129
>> certified
>> >> for enroute and terminal.
>> >> > As long as the permanant data base depicts the
>> >> required waypoints (NDB), the
>> >> > SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and
>> >> navigate to the missed approach
>> >> > waypoints.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer
>> approaches
>> >> to meet the requirement.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> browse
>> >> Subscriptions page,
>> >> FAQ,
>> >>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> >>
>> >> Web Forums!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>>
> === message truncated ==
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
Good Evening Randy,
I am sure there is a logical understanding available, it just seems I am not
able to explain it very well.
If you can frame an individual question, I would be happy to attempt an
individual answer that may make it a bit more clear.
Incidentally, during the time we were working on the approval, I did ask for
the right to use the GPS to shoot NDB approaches. One of the things I was
told was that it really wouldn't make any difference because all NDB
approaches would either have an overlay or a standalone GPS to the same runway
with
the same or lower minima. Unfortunately the FAA policy has changed since then
and they will no longer approve a new overlay. There have been a few new NDB
approaches placed in service with no overlay and with no alternative GPS
approach. I don't like it either, but that is the way it happened.
One thing that I have found out is that there are very few folks who care.
Consequently, we have very little chance of getting anything changed. If I
delve back into my wandering mind a bit, I imagine I could come up with a half
dozen or more things we asked for and didn't get because not enough people took
the time to back our efforts.
Such is life.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that jazz!
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 1/5/2007 5:28:37 P.M. Central Standard Time,
sales@6440autoparts.com writes:
Bob I'm to sure if I want to laugh or cry. I appreciate your
willingness to share but not sure if it would help me understand since
seemingly there is no logical understanding. Thank goodness as far as I know
anyway there is an accual GPS approach at most any airport that has an NDB
approach.
Randy
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
My understanding from talking to them is that it would be fully
approach-legal in its final form. How they plan to accomplish that
"legislatively" I am less clear on, but they convinced me that, for my
purposes (IFR with gps approach capability), their unit plus an SL30
would completely do away with the need for a 430 or 530 in my panel.
Maybe someone (else) from the GRT_EFIS group will chime in here.
-Bill
On 1/5/07, bakerocb@cox.net <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
>
> 1/5/2007
>
> Hello Bill,
>
> 1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread."
>
> Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the picture a
> bit.
>
> 2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind: about
> the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand
> Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install"
>
> Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this
> equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past.
>
> Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics meet
> either TSO C145 or 146A.
>
> Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS / internal
> GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what additional legal
> value it would have when operating IFR. Like any other reasonably capable
> GPS unit it could provide very beneficial situational awareness support.
>
> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
> To: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>
>
> > OC, let me fess up here... I forgot that the GNS-430 includes the vhf
> > nav comm side of things! I read the actual words in your post, but my
> > brain fast-forwarded to the question more heavily on my mind: about
> > the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand
> > Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install, the one that
> > would let me omit the 430 from my purchase list and use just an SL30
> > in its place (and save mega-thousands). So my question was based in
> > part on faulty assumptions of what was inside the 430-<head slap!> and
> > partly on my impatience to get my own questions answered. Sorry to
> > cloud any points in the thread.
> >
> > -Bill B.
>
>
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: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
Do Not Archive
Hi Bob ...
Thanks for your usual fine contributions and the clearing of the air for
everyone's understanding.
I've learned a lot from you over the many years of our plying the skies
together plus here on the electric list. Have a wonderful New Year.
Regards ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
> <oldbob@beechowners.com>
>
> Good Evening Randy,
>
> Both of the paragraphs you have quoted tell the truth.
>
> The simple explanation is that an IFR approved GPS CAN
> be used for all of those functions under the
> provisions of "GPS in Lieu of DME and ADF".
>
> Why did they not allow it to be used to execute an NDB
> approach? Because their policy was that all waypoints
> had to be auto-sequenced for any approach flown by
> GPS.
>
> The operator would have been required to either load a
> way point or think a little bit about what they were
> doing.
>
> When we were fighting to get the "In Lieu Of"
> provisions approved, every FAA person I talked to
> agreed that doing as you suggest would be better than
> what we now have for an NDB approach, but it didn't
> fit FAA policy. We got what we could, but not
> everything we wanted.
>
> If you have any more questions concerning the
> application of the current policy, please ask.
>
> The key thing is that: For flight in the USNAS we
> don't need a DME or an ADF as long as we have an IFR
> approved GPS with at least enroute and terminal
> capability.
>
> The language in 1-1-19 gets a little convoluted
> because so many different departments of the FAA had
> to sign off on the final interpretation. Each one
> wanted to add their own two bits worth.
>
> It took us three years to get it through in even that
> very rough form.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
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: | The D-25 essential buss diode |
Thanks, Bob...That answers my confusion about the E-buss, but I am still
stuck on the Z-19 diodes that bring both batteries power into the fuel
pump and ECU...There are two ins and one out and I don't understand how
to tell which is which....??
Thanks,
Bill B
> Subject: Re: The D-25 essential buss diode
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III (nuckollsr@cox.net)
> Date: Fri Jan 05 - 9:52 AM
>
> At 10:22 AM 1/5/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
> ><bbradburry@allvantage.com>
> >
> >Bob and others...
> >I am trying to use this diode to connect my endurance buss as well as
> >follow the Z-19 drawing for the fuel pump and ECU circuits. The schematic
> >I have seen for this device does not seem to correlate to the orientation
> >of the connection tabs for the device. I am stumped as to which tab
> >should be used in these various connections. Can someone please help
> >me? Please assume that you are talking to a 2 year old electrical
> >engineer...that is roughly my level of expertise!
> >Thanks,
> >Bill B
>
>
> See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/diode_wiring.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg
>
> Note that the (+) terminal ties to the e-bus and is easily identified
> by it's orientation (90-degree twist with respect to other three terminals).
>
> Bob . . .
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Keyed push to start switch source? |
Grant,
I had the same need for security, what with curious kids today. I
purchased a good one from
O'Rielly's Automotive as a stock item and it didn't give me any problems
at all. You'd have an accessory terminal
that is useful for auxiliary lighting as well.
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/controllinkages/full/panelinflight(2).gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/electrical/full/primary-wiring.gif
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Grant Neilson wrote:
>
> I'm going to be putting in a dual electronic ignition, dual battery setup
> and in order to maintain separate redundant ignition systems will have
> separate ignition toggle switches. I could use a simple push to start switch
> to the starter contactor, but would like the albeit minor security of a
> keyed switch. Does anyone know of a source for a keyed SPST momentary push
> to start or turn to start switch? It should be able to handle at least 5
> amps at 14 volts DC. Thanks in advance for any info.
>
> Do not archive
>
> Grant Neilson
> RV9A, finishing
>
>
>
Message 30
| 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: Keyed push to start switch source? |
Grant,
I got my switch at my local John Deer Dealer, those tractors have
starters as large as my Suburu. Come to think of it that's also where I
get my oil filters.
Tim Shankland
Grant Neilson wrote:
>
>I'm going to be putting in a dual electronic ignition, dual battery setup
>and in order to maintain separate redundant ignition systems will have
>separate ignition toggle switches. I could use a simple push to start switch
>to the starter contactor, but would like the albeit minor security of a
>keyed switch. Does anyone know of a source for a keyed SPST momentary push
>to start or turn to start switch? It should be able to handle at least 5
>amps at 14 volts DC. Thanks in advance for any info.
>
>Do not archive
>
>Grant Neilson
>RV9A, finishing
>
>
>
>
Message 31
| 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: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
In a message dated 1/5/2007 6:16:11 P.M. Central Standard Time, jerry@mc.net
writes:
Regards ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Good Evening Jerry,
Thank You For the Very Kind Words!
It has been fun, hasn't it?
How's that project going?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
Message 32
| 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: 91.205 (WAAS) |
See http://www.grtavionics.com/documents/Horizon%20System%20Flyer.pdf
"The addition of the internal GPS receiver eliminates the need for an
external
GPS, or may be used as a backup to your primary GPS. Available in two
versions. The standard WAAS GPS module is perfect for VFR use, or as backup
to an external GPS. The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity
monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR GPS
TSO C129 and C146."
Standard WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $450
RAIM-Equipped WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $750
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 Bill Boyd
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
--> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
My understanding from talking to them is that it would be fully
approach-legal in its final form. How they plan to accomplish that
"legislatively" I am less clear on, but they convinced me that, for my
purposes (IFR with gps approach capability), their unit plus an SL30 would
completely do away with the need for a 430 or 530 in my panel.
Maybe someone (else) from the GRT_EFIS group will chime in here.
-Bill
On 1/5/07, bakerocb@cox.net <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
>
> 1/5/2007
>
> Hello Bill,
>
> 1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread."
>
> Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the
> picture a bit.
>
> 2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind:
> about the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by
> Grand Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install"
>
> Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this
> equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past.
>
> Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics
> meet either TSO C145 or 146A.
>
> Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS /
> internal GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what
> additional legal value it would have when operating IFR. Like any
> other reasonably capable GPS unit it could provide very beneficial
situational awareness support.
>
> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
> To: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>
>
> > OC, let me fess up here... I forgot that the GNS-430 includes the
> > vhf nav comm side of things! I read the actual words in your post,
> > but my brain fast-forwarded to the question more heavily on my mind:
> > about the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by
> > Grand Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install, the
> > one that would let me omit the 430 from my purchase list and use
> > just an SL30 in its place (and save mega-thousands). So my question
> > was based in part on faulty assumptions of what was inside the
> > 430-<head slap!> and partly on my impatience to get my own questions
> > answered. Sorry to cloud any points in the thread.
> >
> > -Bill B.
>
>
Message 33
| 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: "Broken and Garbled" (Additional data) |
Well, that is dramatically different than the advertising. The ones I saw
advertised ranges that varied between 5 and 18 miles.
Stan
Do not archive
>One comment on these radios, take the advertised range and cut it in half
>at best.
Yeah, the itty-bitty hand-helds are victims of way too
much marketing hype. I've used them vehicle to vehicle
solid out to 1/2 mile and open line-of-sight to about a
mile. One pair I had was good to a couple hundred yards
vehicle to vehicle.
However, for the tasks to which I've applied these radios
a range of a few feet has been sufficient.
Message 34
| 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: Keyed push to start switch source? |
Probably a good move, at least on the switch, I have had tractor,
forklift, backhoe etc starter switches go bad that had lasted for Who knows
how many years in rough outdoors environment. And like a doofis I go down to
the local auto parts house and replace it with cheap auto switch which
does'nt last but maybe a year, done it several times. I keep a cheap spare
in my desk drawer. Maybe next time one goes bad I'll remember that you get
what you pay for and get an original equipment replacement. Hopefully they
still make em as good as they used to. One thing about it a starter switch
going bad is definately not going to spoil your day it's just so easy to
jumper around them.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim & Diane Shankland" <tshank@core.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Keyed push to start switch source?
> <tshank@core.com>
>
> Grant,
> I got my switch at my local John Deer Dealer, those tractors have starters
> as large as my Suburu. Come to think of it that's also where I get my oil
> filters.
>
> Tim Shankland
>
> Grant Neilson wrote:
>
>><grantneilson@telus.net>
>>
>>I'm going to be putting in a dual electronic ignition, dual battery setup
>>and in order to maintain separate redundant ignition systems will have
>>separate ignition toggle switches. I could use a simple push to start
>>switch
>>to the starter contactor, but would like the albeit minor security of a
>>keyed switch. Does anyone know of a source for a keyed SPST momentary push
>>to start or turn to start switch? It should be able to handle at least 5
>>amps at 14 volts DC. Thanks in advance for any info.
>>
>>Do not archive
>>
>>Grant Neilson
>>RV9A, finishing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|