Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:37 AM - Strobe and other wireing (JOHN TIPTON)
2. 06:31 AM - Re: Strobe and other wireing (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:14 AM - Wicks Aircraft Seminar date posted (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:25 AM - test (George, Neal E Capt MIL USAF 605TES/TSI)
5. 08:37 AM - Wire size, battery to starter (John Richardson)
6. 08:54 AM - Re: Transpo V1200 Voltage Regulator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:17 AM - Garmin WAAS upgrade for GNS 430 (Eric Parlow)
8. 09:50 AM - Re: GRT GPS TSO ()
9. 09:50 AM - Interesting running notice on the Aerotronics web site (DeWitt Whittington)
10. 10:52 AM - GRT GPS TSO ()
11. 10:57 AM - Re: Strobe and other wireing (JOHN TIPTON)
12. 11:41 AM - ABEA and TSO's ()
13. 12:59 PM - Re: Wire size, battery to starter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 01:32 PM - Re: ABEA and TSO's (Ernest Christley)
15. 01:53 PM - Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage regulator failure ()
16. 02:05 PM - Re: ABEA and TSO's (Chuck Jensen)
17. 02:07 PM - Re: ABEA and TSO's (Bill Denton)
18. 02:14 PM - Re: GRT GPS TSO ()
19. 02:16 PM - Re: Transpo V1200 Voltage Regulator (EXCELLENT!) ()
20. 02:57 PM - So Cal Seminar? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 03:04 PM - Re: Re: Strobe and other wireing (Bill Settle)
22. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: GRT GPS TSO (Kevin Horton)
23. 03:14 PM - Re: ABEA and TSO's (Kevin Horton)
24. 07:22 PM - Garmin 300XL - CDI connections (glaesers)
25. 10:25 PM - Re: ABEA and TSO's...and fuel level sensors (Ernest Christley)
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: | Strobe and other wireing |
Should the strobe wires (from a central power pack) be kept apart from the
other wires e.g. trim, and nav light wiring to the emp, and nav lights etc
in the wings, or is it OK to bundle all in the same conduit - I have been
told this is asking for trouble regarding electrical interference
Best regards - John (England) building RV9a
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: Strobe and other wireing |
At 10:34 AM 1/9/2007 +0000, you wrote:
><jmtipton@btopenworld.com>
>
>Should the strobe wires (from a central power pack) be kept apart from the
>other wires e.g. trim, and nav light wiring to the emp, and nav lights etc
>in the wings, or is it OK to bundle all in the same conduit - I have been
>told this is asking for trouble regarding electrical interference
It's one of aviation's enduring myths.
You may bundle them together. If you DO
experience noise from the strobes, it will
have nothing to do with wiring proximity.
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 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Wicks Aircraft Seminar date posted |
Dr. Dee and I will be in Highland IL on March 10/11
to do an AeroElectric Connection seminar in the facilities
of Wicks Aircraft. If interested in this presentation, see
http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
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 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 |
|
Do not archive
neal
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: | Wire size, battery to starter |
I would appreciate anyone's real life experience with this seemingly simple
decision of what wire size to use connecting battery to starter. After
reading Bob's Aero-Electric Connection chapter 8 and calculating voltage
drops using numbers from Figure 8-3 (AWG wire table), #4 AWG wire is more
than adequate in a 24 volt system with battery to starter run of about 10
feet starting a 6 cylinder engine. In my case, the airframe is composite,
so I can not use the airframe as the return conductor and must run a second
wire back to the battery from the starter. Bob discussion on page 8-9 "WHEN
IS AN OVERLOAD NOT AN OVERLOAD" helps me lean toward #4 AWG vs the larger #2
AWG.
Have any of you wired your 24 volt, aft battery location, starter system
with #4 AWG wire and if so, how does it crank when you first hit the starter
switch? And does anyone know the wire size used on newer production single
piston aircraft with aft mounted batteries?
I'm sure this issue has been discussed in the past, but I haven't seen it
during my involvement with the Aeroelectric list. I apologize to anyone
seeing this for the Nth time.
John Richardson
Lancair Legacy
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: Transpo V1200 Voltage Regulator |
At 07:36 PM 1/8/2007 -0500, you wrote:
><bbradburry@allvantage.com>
>
>Bob and others,
>
>I have the regulator that is described in the following data sheet.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
>
>It is a little difficult to tell from the picture, but the connection tabs
>are labeled like this left to right and top to bottom:
>F S A I
>
>Stator Output
>
>B-
>
>This regulator is a replacement for a stock Ford regulator, however, I do
>not think that it is grounded though the case. The case is heavily
>anodized aluminum and would be very difficult to make a good connection.
Looking over Transpo's product line, they have a common
thread that runs through their labeling system where B- is
the same as "case ground".
>I have the F connected to the alternator field, the A connected to the 5A
>circuit breaker, the A and S are jumpered together.
>I have no idea what to do with the tab labeled "Stator Output" or the tab
>labeled "B-". I suspect that the "B-" is the ground, but not certain.
Hmmmm . . . if I recall correctly, the original mechanical Ford
regulators attached the "S" terminal to the stator center tap. When
later alternator eliminated that feature, S and A were tied together.
I don't know what that "stator output" might be unless it's analogous
to the later regulator topologies that watch for stator AC output
(shaft is spinning) to activate the regulator.
>The only instruction that comes with the unit is a sheet of paper that
>says not to over torque the mounting screws.
>I have tried the internet and all I find is the pdf file above. I
>have tried calling Transpo tech support, but they will not call me back.
Too bad. They have a very wide range of products and as far
as I know, a reasonably clean reputation for quality and
performance. As soon as I get my drive stand running (the
phase converter arrived yesterday), I could run some tests
on your regulator and see what it takes to wake it up.
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 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: | Garmin WAAS upgrade for GNS 430 |
Has anyone upgraded their GNS-430 to a GNS-430W (WAAS)?
And are there any additional hardware/software changes required?
ERic
RV-10
Avionics
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 |
|
1/9/2007
Hello Bret, Continuing our dialogue.
1) You wrote: "If I get called out on the carpet for a non-TSO'd GPS, what
would they say
about my non-TSO'd TruTrak AP, Ray Allen trim system, GRT AHRS/Magnetometer,
HID homegrown landing lights, LED nav lights, etc?"
I believe that IFR / Night equipment for ABEA's falls into one of the
following categories:
1A) Purely optional equipment installed at the desire of the builder with no
existing regulatory requirement.
1B) Equipment required by FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) because of wording in
the aircraft's Operating Limitations.
1C) Equipment required by FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) because of wording in
the aircraft's Operating Limitation that is identified as needing to be
"approved" in those paragraphs.
1D) Equipment required by other paragraphs within the FAR's that would apply
to all aircraft, both type certificated with standard airworthiness
certificates and ABEA's with special airworthiness certificates.
1E) Equipment required by the AIM for certain types of operations that would
apply to all aircraft, both type certificated with standard airworthiness
certificates and ABEA's with special airworthiness certificates.
2) Your non-TSO'd TruTrak AP, Ray Allen trim system, GRT AHRS/Magnetometer,
HID homegrown landing lights and other equipment of that ilk would fall into
category 1A above and should generate no FAA criticism because it is not
TSO'd.
3) Your LED nav (position) lights would fall into category 1C above. See
91.205 (c), (2). If your initial ABEA airworthiness inspector issues the
aircraft a special airworthiness certificate he has, by implication,
"approved" those position lights in the name of the FAA Administrator (see
FAR 1.1). If he refuses to issue the certificate and demands to see TSO
markings because the regulations require it, he is wrong. If he refuses to
issue the certificate and demands to see either TSO markings or test results
showing that the lights meet FAR Part 23 position light standards, that is
within his prerogative as an inspector.
4) If you had only a non TSO'd GPS aboard and performed a specific operation
that the AIM required a TSO approved GPS for then you would not be in
compliance with 1E and may be subject to a charge of careless or reckless
operation (see FAR 91.13).
5) You wrote: "My understanding is that before flight into the national air
system, under
IFR, the pilot/builder of the OBAM aircraft must determine and document via
flight testing that the aircraft and it's systems meet the requirements for
IFR flight, night flight, etc."
This is certainly common sense. I would be interested in seeing some
regulatory basis for the above. The sources that I am aware of that cover
specific ABEA requirements for IFR and night flight are the Operating
Limitations for that aircraft and the references contained therein including
FAR 91.319.
FAR 91.319 (d), (2) reads "Operate under VFR day only, unless otherwise
specifically authorized by the Administrator."
The Operating Limitations will contain these words: "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."
If the aircraft meets the "appropriately equipped" criteria it is considerd
by the FAA to have been given the Administrator's specific authorization to
fly at night and under IFR. What we have been discussing is what constitutes
"appropriately equipped".**
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
**PS: It is interesting to note that if the aircraft is given authorization
for aerobatic flight in the Operating Limitations that those maneuvers must
be specifically tested and documented in the aircraft's logbook.
PPS: You wrote: "This is a really interesting topic and I truly respect your
opinions.
It is evident you have a good understanding of these issues."
I appreciate your kind words.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb@tds.net>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
>I see your point, and have a GNS 430 as my primary GPS. I want the GRT IFR
>GPS as a secondary GPS (hard to beat getting an IFR WAAS GPS for $750.00).
>
> If I get called out on the carpet for a non-TSO'd GPS, what would they say
> about my non-TSO'd TruTrak AP, Ray Allen trim system, GRT
> AHRS/Magnetometer, HID homegrown landing lights, LED nav lights, etc?
>
> My understanding is that before flight into the national air system, under
> IFR, the pilot/builder of the OBAM aircraft must determine and document
> via flight testing that the aircraft and it's systems meet the
> requirements for IFR flight, night flight, etc.
>
> Bret
>
> PS, This is a really interesting topic and I truly respect your opinions.
> It is evident you have a good understanding of these issues.
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: | Interesting running notice on the Aerotronics web site |
All,
I just noticed the following announcement on the www.Aerotronics.com
web site. Anybody knows what they are referring to?
Oshkosh Alert: Be the first to Building A, Booth 1073/1074 to witness
the unveiling of the next generation in avionics. This unveiling
will revolutionize your experimental panel! See you July 24th - 30th!
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
GlaStar Sportsman 2+2 #7034
Eggenfellner H6 Subaru with 2.01 redrive
dee.whittington@gmail.com
www.glasairaviation.com
www.glastar.org
www.eggenfellneraircraft.com
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 |
|
1/9/2007
Hello Bill,
1) You wrote: " In some instances the regs require that a piece of equipment
MUST MEET TSO
STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders. In other instances the
equipment MUST BE TSO'd. This is the case with IFR GPS units."
Both TSO-145A and TSO-C146A dealing with IFR GPS units contain the following
paragraph (MPS means Minimum Performance Standards):
"g. Deviations. The FAA has provisions for using alternative or equivalent
means of compliance to the criteria set forth in the MPS of this TSO.
Applicants invoking these provisions shall demonstrate that an equivalent
level of safety is maintained and shall apply for a deviation per 14 CFR
21.609"
2) TSO-C129a is an older TSO dealing with IFR GPS units and does not contain
specific alternate compliance words within it as is the case with more
current FAA TSO's, but here is a quote from the current AIM, note the use of
the word "equivalent":
"g. Equipment and Database Requirements.
1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems
requires that:
(a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in
class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and......"
3) You wrote: "If simply meeting the TSO requirements is adequate, why
should a
manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"?"
My point exactly. Simply meeting some of the TSO requirements is not
adequate to fulfill the intent of the FAA TSO requirements.
GRT implies that they are completely fulfilling the FAA TSO intent by
writing: "The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity monitoring and 5
updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR GPS TSO C129 and C146."
The equipment must either be TSO'd in accordance with the provisions of FAR
Part 21 Subpart O or FAA deviation approval from the TSO in accordance with
paragraph 21.609 must be obtained. Neither one of these are easy actions to
take and there is no indication in the GRT statement posted that either
action has been taken. Hence my suspicion of misleading weasel wording.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
Time: 09:35:15 AM PST US
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GRT GPS TSO
"A piece of equipment either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked
TSO compliant or it is not TSO'd."
True, but not necessarily the point...
In some instances the regs require that a piece of equipment MUST MEET TSO
STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders.
In other instances the equipment MUST BE TSO'd. This is the case with IFR
GPS units.
You mentioned, "...manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of
obtaining TSO approval for a piece of equipment..."
If simply meeting the TSO requirements is adequate, why should a
manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"?
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Strobe and other wireing |
Bob
Thank you
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe and other wireing
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 10:34 AM 1/9/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>
>><jmtipton@btopenworld.com>
>>
>>Should the strobe wires (from a central power pack) be kept apart from the
>>other wires e.g. trim, and nav light wiring to the emp, and nav lights etc
>>in the wings, or is it OK to bundle all in the same conduit - I have been
>>told this is asking for trouble regarding electrical interference
>
> It's one of aviation's enduring myths.
> You may bundle them together. If you DO
> experience noise from the strobes, it will
> have nothing to do with wiring proximity.
>
> 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 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 |
|
1/9/2007
Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no
law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a country!?
The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when consideration of fines
begin, it is immaterial."
This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we have
come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real soon.
We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have non
regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.) to help
interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those same
bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB judge
charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation because you
violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and certificate action
is not immaterial.
2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several
years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a TSOed
unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in the
wind."
The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a pilot
knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that the AIM
said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or violation
occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to punishment for such a
violation of the AIM. This is true.
3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the
price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing, why
wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?"
If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only be
performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking a risk.
His risk could result in:
a) No harm.
b) Embarrassment.
c) A fine.
d) Loss of certificate
e) Injury to self or others.
f) Death of self or others.
g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding community.
Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________
Time: 10:53:58 AM PST US
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's
bakerocb@cox.net wrote:
> I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe
> that an ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being
> called to account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or
> improper performance on his part would have a very difficult time
> convincing the authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be
> entirely acceptable to them.
Could you please stand back while I prepare to insert my foot in my
mouth, but...
That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial. That just quacks to
much like "ex post facto" law to not be "ex post facto" law. If the
non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in
the wind.
> So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his
> aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger
> him or others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that
> goal then his choice should be clear to him.
If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?
Ernest Christley
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: Wire size, battery to starter |
>At 08:32 AM 1/9/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>
>I would appreciate anyone s real life experience with this seemingly
>simple decision of what wire size to use connecting battery to
>starter. After reading Bob s Aero-Electric Connection chapter 8 and
>calculating voltage drops using numbers from Figure 8-3 (AWG wire table),
>#4 AWG wire is more than adequate in a 24 volt system with battery to
>starter run of about 10 feet starting a 6 cylinder engine. In my case,
>the airframe is composite, so I can not use the airframe as the return
>conductor and must run a second wire back to the battery from the
>starter. Bob discussion on page 8-9 WHEN IS AN OVERLOAD NOT AN OVERLOAD
>helps me lean toward #4 AWG vs the larger #2 AWG.
>
>Have any of you wired your 24 volt, aft battery location, starter system
>with #4 AWG wire and if so, how does it crank when you first hit the
>starter switch? And does anyone know the wire size used on newer
>production single piston aircraft with aft mounted batteries?
>
>I m sure this issue has been discussed in the past, but I haven t seen it
>during my involvement with the Aeroelectric list. I apologize to anyone
>seeing this for the Nth time.
I've seen some 14v LongEz wired with a pair of 4AWG where
the round trip was on the order of 24 feet. They reported
"adequate performance". But they never ventured out of
the California style weather.
The question becomes one of maximizing performance when
trying to crank an engine in cold weather where battery
impedance goes up as does cranking currents. Our cold weather
test parameters for getting STC to put RG batteries into
TC aircraft assumed 300A for 15 seconds and a cold soaked
BATTERY (about -15C) voltage had to stay above 9V for the
15 second interval.
The 24 a.h. RG battery passed with flying colors. Now the
question becomes how much of that 9V are you willing to toss
of at the terminals of the starter for the same cranking
scenario?
I know this is a very broad brush . . . I'm aware of very
few detailed cold weather cranking studies done on our
piston singles . . . and all those airplanes have the
battery mounted up front in an all metal airplane. That
data would not be very helpful to us here.
The risks are as follows: You may find that 4AWG "get's
'er started" most if not all of the time. But I'll suggest
it will crank better and start sooner if wiring drops
are minimized. Short cranking cycles translates to longer
battery and starter brush life. Finally, it may make the
go/no-go difference in an unusually cold cranking environment.
2AWG is 4 oz/foot, 4AWG is 2.5 oz/foot. The delta weight
for your proposed 20' round trip run is 1.5 x 20 = 30
oz. The real question before you is are you willing to
trade about 2 pounds of empty weight for cold-cranking
insurance?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ABEA and TSO's |
bakerocb@cox.net wrote:
>
> 1/9/2007
>
> Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
>
> 1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's
> no law against
> it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
> country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
> consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial."
>
> This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we
> have come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real
> soon.
>
> We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
> written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have
> non regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.)
> to help interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those
> same bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
> interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
>
> And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB
> judge charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation
> because you violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and
> certificate action is not immaterial.
>
> 2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for
> several years, but then went
> flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
> TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke
> in the wind."
>
> The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a
> pilot knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that
> the AIM said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or
> violation occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to
> punishment for such a violation of the AIM. This is true.
I'm not a lawyer, but you say "punishment for such a violation of the
AIM". Earlier, you said that, "the AIM is not regulatory in nature."
How can you be punished for something that isn't a regulation?
(Aaaaah, shucks!! Now I'm gonna have to go off and study something
else... 'cause it won't leave me alone until I know.)
>
> 3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half
> the price, only
> lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
> why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
> pre-requisite homework, after all?"
>
> If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
> equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only
> be performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking
> a risk. His risk could result in:
>
> a) No harm.
>
> b) Embarrassment.
>
> c) A fine.
>
> d) Loss of certificate
>
> e) Injury to self or others.
>
> f) Death of self or others.
>
> g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding
> community.
>
> Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
> effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
I don't mean to disparage you, because you have presented yourself very
honorably in these many conversations, but this just sounds like
complete FUD. Dont' use that non-TSOed stuff...you'll die. There is a
way for the FAA to communicate their intentions...(F)ederal (A)viation
(R)egulations. There is a process for the FAA to get a FAR in place
that protects everyones rights. They can put anything they want into an
AIM, without Congressional oversight, or public review. I do not know
it for a fact, but I'll be dollars to donuts that no one has ever been
convicted for an "AIM violation". . . but I'll have to study up some to
be sure.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
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: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage |
regulator failure
>From: "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland@novellus.com>
>Hmmm. My 60A alternator just failed after 15
>hours. Mine had blast tubes for cooing on both
>front and back openings.
>Randy 7A San Jose, Ca
Van suffered from a poor supplier for awhile. I talk
to Tom Green and suggested new vendor's.
It's not the ALTS issue, quality of new units are better.
MAKE NO MISTAKE THESE ARE NOT NIPPON
DENSO (ND) ALTERNATORS. They are China
made and all vendors from that part of the world are
not the same. Ones made in Taiwan are of higher
quality. ND stopped making these alternators 10-15
years ago. Get ND replacement parts if possible.
http://www.densoproducts.com/
http://www.densoaftermarket.com/
http://www.densocorp-na.com/
http://www.globaldensoproducts.com/
>From: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>I could not tell a difference from
>The outside though their computer said 55 amp and
>not 60 amp.
That's because Van sells a 55 amp alternator that
they call 60 amps. ND rates the output at a lower
RPM (recall 5000 rpm) not max out put at full RPM
(8000 rpm than it levels off).
>In the install manual, it has a CAUTION: A
>defective or discharged battery can damage your
>new alternator.
NO KIDDING. Humm those engineers, dumb
Amen brother, I can't believe all the justification.
Even Bob N has gone on&on how important the main
battery is, and suggest schemes to proactively change
batteries as preventative maintenance. Why risk it? Sure
a dead battery will take all the charge it can (based on
internal resistance) and the alternator will give it all
it can. ANY OF THIS SOUNDS GOOD? No.
The Odyssey battery has very specific charge
requirements & *alternator charging* a dead battery is
NOT ONE OF THE APPROVED METHODS. I
love experts, but please just read the instructions,
follow them. They are written by engineers. Sure
you will get away with it in a pinch, but this is an
airplane not a car.
>From: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>I have a blast tube towards the back where the
>regulator is.
Great IDEA! Folks the alternator set up on a
Lycoming is like comparing it to a car but you're bolting
the alternator directly to the exhaust pipe or header-stack.
BY ALL MEANS DO THE FOLLOWING:
Put a heat shield between the #1 exhaust pipe and
alternator. This is called radiant heat. If the alternator
is LOOKING at the pipe that's at +1000 degrees F
and is only a handful of inches what do you think
it does to the alternators temp? darn engineers.
Not all blast tubes are equal, but by all means put it
right on the back where the regulator fins are. There
is no doubt heat will reduce service life of diodes
and I-VR.
Also running at 60% or 70% of the alternators rated
power MAX helps. If you must have seat heaters, pitot
heat (on a VFR plane oh brother) and million watt
landing lights, may be a 60 amp alternator will not
hack it. PLANE POWER has high power alternators,
and unlike B&C they have the fans that work counter-
clockwise for aircraft use.
>From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
> If I leave the ignition/key on with my ND IR
>alternator on my aircraft without starting the
>engine, the alternator does draw several amps of
>field current and it will heat up quite noticeably
>with no cooling airflow.
I healthy ND should not draw that much with the
engine off, but I have to check. Are you sure its not
part drain from other things like the 1 amp from the
master relay?
The modern microprocessor I-regulators have "logic
functions" that do not turn the field flow (thru the B-
lead not the IGN wire) until the thing's up to speed,
called soft start. Different ND models do different
things and its possible the low cost aftermarket
rebuild / clone you have may have a basic regulator
(read cheap) in it. Try to find ND parts if possible.
You make good points and I'll check the current drain
with the ign on and standing still.
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
Ernst,
The AIM is like the Work Rules that Railroad Companies provide to their
employees. One important rule is when dismounting a moving train, the
employee musto ensure that he selects a safe, sound landing spot. Of
course, with rocks, weeds, ditches, ties and general debris, a safe,
sound landing spot is neigh impossible to find. Nonetheless, when
ankles are twisted or bones broken in this somewhat high risk but
necessary activity, the RR has the perfect proof that you broke the Work
Rule, because obviously, the landing spot you selected was not safe and
sound.
So it is with the AIM--a catch 22, gourdian knot, gotcha and the rest.
How can you possible be operating a plane in a safe prudent manner if
you are violating AIMs?
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Christley
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's
--> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
bakerocb@cox.net wrote:
>
> 1/9/2007
>
> Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
>
> 1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's
> no law against
> it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
> country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
> consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial."
>
> This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we
> have come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real
> soon.
>
> We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
> written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have
> non regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.)
> to help interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those
> same bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
> interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
>
> And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB
> judge charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation
> because you violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and
> certificate action is not immaterial.
>
> 2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for
> several years, but then went
> flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
> TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke
> in the wind."
>
> The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a
> pilot knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that
> the AIM said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or
> violation occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to
> punishment for such a violation of the AIM. This is true.
I'm not a lawyer, but you say "punishment for such a violation of the
AIM". Earlier, you said that, "the AIM is not regulatory in nature."
How can you be punished for something that isn't a regulation?
(Aaaaah, shucks!! Now I'm gonna have to go off and study something
else... 'cause it won't leave me alone until I know.)
>
> 3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half
> the price, only
> lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
> why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
> pre-requisite homework, after all?"
>
> If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
> equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only
> be performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking
> a risk. His risk could result in:
>
> a) No harm.
>
> b) Embarrassment.
>
> c) A fine.
>
> d) Loss of certificate
>
> e) Injury to self or others.
>
> f) Death of self or others.
>
> g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding
> community.
>
> Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
> effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
I don't mean to disparage you, because you have presented yourself very
honorably in these many conversations, but this just sounds like
complete FUD. Dont' use that non-TSOed stuff...you'll die. There is a
way for the FAA to communicate their intentions...(F)ederal (A)viation
(R)egulations. There is a process for the FAA to get a FAR in place
that protects everyones rights. They can put anything they want into an
AIM, without Congressional oversight, or public review. I do not know
it for a fact, but I'll be dollars to donuts that no one has ever been
convicted for an "AIM violation". . . but I'll have to study up some to
be sure.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
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 |
|
I've seen this discussion before...
It's somewhat convoluted, but it's also quite simple.
"Careless and reckless" essentially means operating outside of what might be
described as "good practices".
The FARs prohibit "careless and reckless" operation.
The AIM describes "good practices".
So, operating outside the "good practices" described in the AIM can be
"careless and reckless" operation, which is a violation of the FAR's.
As a side note, not necessarily applicable to this particular post...
How often have we seen people spend a great deal of time and money
attempting to bypass a regulation that they could have easily complied with
for half the price?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's
<echristley@nc.rr.com>
bakerocb@cox.net wrote:
>
> 1/9/2007
>
> Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
>
> 1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's
> no law against
> it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
> country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
> consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial."
>
> This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we
> have come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real
> soon.
>
> We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
> written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have
> non regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.)
> to help interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those
> same bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
> interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
>
> And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB
> judge charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation
> because you violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and
> certificate action is not immaterial.
>
> 2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for
> several years, but then went
> flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
> TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke
> in the wind."
>
> The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a
> pilot knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that
> the AIM said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or
> violation occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to
> punishment for such a violation of the AIM. This is true.
I'm not a lawyer, but you say "punishment for such a violation of the
AIM". Earlier, you said that, "the AIM is not regulatory in nature."
How can you be punished for something that isn't a regulation?
(Aaaaah, shucks!! Now I'm gonna have to go off and study something
else... 'cause it won't leave me alone until I know.)
>
> 3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half
> the price, only
> lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
> why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
> pre-requisite homework, after all?"
>
> If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
> equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only
> be performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking
> a risk. His risk could result in:
>
> a) No harm.
>
> b) Embarrassment.
>
> c) A fine.
>
> d) Loss of certificate
>
> e) Injury to self or others.
>
> f) Death of self or others.
>
> g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding
> community.
>
> Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
> effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
I don't mean to disparage you, because you have presented yourself very
honorably in these many conversations, but this just sounds like
complete FUD. Dont' use that non-TSOed stuff...you'll die. There is a
way for the FAA to communicate their intentions...(F)ederal (A)viation
(R)egulations. There is a process for the FAA to get a FAR in place
that protects everyones rights. They can put anything they want into an
AIM, without Congressional oversight, or public review. I do not know
it for a fact, but I'll be dollars to donuts that no one has ever been
convicted for an "AIM violation". . . but I'll have to study up some to
be sure.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
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 |
|
1/9/2007
Hello Bret:
1) You wrote: "As you can see, the FAA has left a wide loophole with the
phrase "or equivalent"."
The FAA has learned from experience that locking technical requirements in
bureaucratic documents in concrete can come back to bite them when
technology comes up with a better mouse trap that was not envisioned in the
document. So now-a-days they caveat their TSO's with a statement to the
effect that "if you can do it just as good, but maybe a little differently
we are willing to listen to your proposal."
The process for a request to deviate is described in FAR 21.609 and the
loophole is not that wide. You might find that entire FAR 21 Subpart O
interesting reading. You can see that obtaining TSO approval and
manufacturing in accordance with that approval can be burdensome.**
2) You wrote: "It appears that, from my understanding, a GPS used for IFR
navigation must meet the minimum standard of RTCA/DO-208 in order to meet
the standard of TSO-C129 in order to be approved for IFR navigation."
I agree. Also realize that there are other documents referenced in TSO-C129a
that may contain standards that the unit may have to meet. And the FAA may
chose to not incorporate all provisions of referenced documents into the
TSO. Some TSO's are absolutely infuriating -- they say nothing of substance
technically themselves, but instead reference several documents (such as SAE
documents) that cost a bunch of money for just three or four pages.
3) You wrote: "Problem is, I don't see where the FAA requires the GPS to be
"certified".
I agree. The words theFAA uses are "authorization (to perfom IFR operations)
requires equipment approved IAW TSO -C129" (version C129a is the current
version). Lawyers may not agree with me, but I bet the Garmin marketing
people looked at the FAA terminology of "authorization" and "approved" and
said "certified sounds better to us".
4) You wrote: "I may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin states
their GNS430 is "IFR Approach Certified", they are only stating that this
receiver meets the requirements of TSO-C129."
I agree -- and also meeting all the pertinent references to TSO-C129a and
permitting the FAA oversight of Garmin's production of the GNS 430. (See FAR
21.615).
In addition now Garmin is stating that the GNS 430W meets all the
requirements of TSO 146a.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
**PS: I worked with Lance Turk, founder of Vision Microsystems, on a special
size oil temperature probe for my TCM engine. He would not make the probe
for me because it would be non TSO'd and he did not want to contaminate his
FAA TSO approved production line. I wound up buying an empty brass
temperature probe body from Westach and sending it to Lance so that he could
have one of his technicians epoxy one of the Vision Microsystems special oil
temperature probe sensors into that brass body's cavity. Works like a charm.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb@tds.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
OC,
This is truly fascinating.
You said >
4) If you had only a non TSO'd GPS aboard and performed a specific operation
that the AIM required a TSO approved GPS for then you would not be in
compliance with 1E and may be subject to a charge of careless or reckless T
operation (see FAR 91.13).
A brief perusal of the AIM revealed: (italics mine)
AIM 1-1-19
d. General Requirements
1. Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR requires that:
(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance
with the requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129,
or equivalent, and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory
Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System
(GPS) Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation
System, or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of
Navigation or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation
Sensors, or equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does
not meet the requirements of TSO-C129.
The words "must be approved..." pretty much settles the issue with me. Then
they continue on with the phrase "or equivalent". What would be equivalent
to TSO-C129? So off I go to read TSO-C129....
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/e560cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf
I now know the requirements of any GPS to meet the TSO...
"Airborne supplemental area navigation equipment using GPS that are
to be so identified and that are manufactured on or after the date of this
TSO must meet the minimum performance standard of Section 2, RTCA,
Inc. Document No. RTCA/DO-208, "Minimum Operational Performance Standards
for Airborne Supplemental Navigation Equipment Using Global Positioning
System (GPS)," dated July 1991."
See the RTCA/DO-208 document here...
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/meetings/summaryrpts/31stmeeting/chesto/chesto.pdf
As you can see, the FAA has left a wide loophole with the phrase "or
equivalent". It appears that, from my understanding, a GPS used for IFR
navigation must meet the minimum standard of RTCA/DO-208 in order to meet
the standard of TSO-C129 in order to be approved for IFR navigation.
Problem is, I don't see where the FAA requires the GPS to be "certified". I
may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin states their GNS430 is
"IFR Approach Certified", they are only stating that this receiver meets the
requirements of TSO-C129.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Bret
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: Transpo V1200 Voltage Regulator (EXCELLENT!) |
>From: Bill Bradburry
<bbradburry@allvantage.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transpo V1200
>Voltage Regulator
>Bob and others, I have the regulator that is
>described in the following data sheet.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
>It is a little difficult to tell from the picture, but the
>connection tabs are labeled like this left to right
>and top to bottom: F S A I B-
A = switch power to ALT switch
-B= ground
S= (power signal/switch to regulator)
I= Indicator LIGHT (ground side)
F=field
>I have the F connected to the alternator field, the
>A connected to the 5A circuit breaker, the A and
>S are jumpered together.
Sounds about right. Since we have a master switch
and just kill the whole electrical system that is fine.
I might try it with out the jump.
>I have no idea what to do with the tab labeled
>"Stator Output" .
Just leave it disconnected, Stator takes voltage off
the neutral junction to turn a relay on (internal to
the voltage regulator). JUST TO BE CLEAR you
have both S and Stator output. Leave Stator OUT
alone.
>"B-". I suspect that the "B-" is the ground, but
>not certain.
Correct.
************************************************************
Transpo 1200!
EVERY ONE THIS IS A GREAT REGULATOR. IT IS
10000 TIMES BETTER THAN A B&C AND COST 1/4TH
100% SOLID STATE, PART DIGITAL CONTROL, WITH
OV PROTECTION BUT NO CROW BAR!! YEA FOR
TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERS
************************************************************
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
Dr. Dee and I have been working on our 2007 seminar
schedule and we note that it's been a long time since
we visited southern California.
Are there any List members aware of an EAA chapter that
might like to host a program this spring/summer? We're
looking to fill slots in May and July.
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
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: Strobe and other wireing |
Thanks John for your question, and Bob for your answer. I'm working on my wings
and was thinking about asking the same question...
Bill Settle
Winston-Salem, NC
RV-8 Wings
>
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> Date: 2007/01/09 Tue AM 09:28:40 EST
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe and other wireing
>
>
> At 10:34 AM 1/9/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>
> ><jmtipton@btopenworld.com>
> >
> >Should the strobe wires (from a central power pack) be kept apart from the
> >other wires e.g. trim, and nav light wiring to the emp, and nav lights etc
> >in the wings, or is it OK to bundle all in the same conduit - I have been
> >told this is asking for trouble regarding electrical interference
>
> It's one of aviation's enduring myths.
> You may bundle them together. If you DO
> experience noise from the strobes, it will
> have nothing to do with wiring proximity.
>
> 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 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 |
|
On 9 Jan 2007, at 17:10, <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
>
> 4) You wrote: "I may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin
> states their GNS430 is "IFR Approach Certified", they are only
> stating that this receiver meets the requirements of TSO-C129."
>
> I agree -- and also meeting all the pertinent references to TSO-
> C129a and permitting the FAA oversight of Garmin's production of
> the GNS 430. (See FAR 21.615).
>
One more thing - if Garmin says that their GNS430 is "IFR Approach
Certified", it also means that it has been found by the FAA to be
capable of being installed to meet the guidelines in Advisory
Circular 20-138A Airworthiness Approval of Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS) Equipment.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: ABEA and TSO's |
On 8 Jan 2007, at 13:52, Ernest Christley wrote:
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price,
> only lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic
> blessing, why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder
> has done the pre-requisite homework, after all?
I've seen frequent software crashes, completely confusing operator
interfaces, display of misleading information, etc when doing TSO
testing. And this was always on equipment that the manufacturer was
convinced was ready for a TSO. This is all too common with
equipment from small companies that are making their first attempt to
produce equipment with a new capability. They simply lack the
experience to know how to do comprehensive testing in the new area.
There is a big difference between a piece of equipment that a company
claims meets TSO requirements, and a piece of equipment that actually
has a TSO.
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
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: | Garmin 300XL - CDI connections |
I am installing a Garmin 300XL in my panel and it will be connected to a GRT
Sport, via a serial connection, which will display the GPS CDI. However GRT
told me that in order to use the 300XL for IFR approaches, I need a
'regular' CDI connected because the Sport doesn't have the To/From/Off flag.
So I am eventually going to add a GI 102A (or equivalent), and I want to
install the wires from the 300XL that will eventually go to the CDI (because
adding them later will be a REAL pain). I think I've identified the 300XL
pins required, but want to find the pin definitions for the CDI to be sure.
So far my internet searches have not turned up anything, so I'm hoping
someone on the list has this info.
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A - wiring
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: ABEA and TSO's...and fuel level sensors |
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
> Ernst,
>
> The AIM is like the Work Rules that Railroad Companies provide to their
> employees. One important rule is when dismounting a moving train, the
> employee musto ensure that he selects a safe, sound landing spot. Of
> course, with rocks, weeds, ditches, ties and general debris, a safe,
> sound landing spot is neigh impossible to find. Nonetheless, when
> ankles are twisted or bones broken in this somewhat high risk but
> necessary activity, the RR has the perfect proof that you broke the Work
> Rule, because obviously, the landing spot you selected was not safe and
> sound.
>
> So it is with the AIM--a catch 22, gourdian knot, gotcha and the rest.
> How can you possible be operating a plane in a safe prudent manner if
> you are violating AIMs?
>
> Chuck Jensen
> Do Not Archive
>
8*) There's the explanation that makes it all clear. The AIM is
informational, not regulatory. It just happens that the information it
provides is the definitions of what they meant in the regulation. When
OC spoke of "violat[ing] a provision of the AIM" , it really isn't the
AIM that's violated. It's the FAR, viewed in the light of the AIM, that
is violated.
I think an interesting corollary is provided by this document:
http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FAA/008464.pdf It's a note to field
personnel on how to deal with making mechanics comply with
manufacturer's manual. My unlawyerly summation is that the maintenance
manual doesn't mean squat, unless there is a specific AD or FAR that
says it means something. Even then, the FAA has the burden of proof
that an equivalent repair/procedure was not sufficient. "The FAA case
should show that an equivalent level of safety was not attained."
I think these situations are related in that in both cases we have
regulations that have been instituted through due process (the FARs and
ADs), being assisted by documents that have no public review process
(AIMs and manufacturer manuals). Bureaucrats will try to brandish the
lesser documents as much as possible, but at an enforcement hearing only
the ones having passed through due process carry enforcement powers. My
faith in the American way is restored.
BTW, there's interesting reading at
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/Query.ASP?WCI=Answer&WCU
NTSB Orders are written in plain English. Read them for yourself to see
how the system really works. For instance, there is an explanation of
the Lindstam Doctrine in Order #3588. If you have an accident in an
airplane, the accident itself is proof enough that you were careless and
reckless.
Now back to what this list is about. I've modified Jim Weir's
capacitive fuel tank sensor so that a plate along the bottom can act as
the active element in the reference oscillator. This should make it
resistance to any alcohol laden gas I might pick up. It's not TSOed,
but the schematic is at
http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Library/FuelLevelSensor.pdf
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Ernest Christley
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:31 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's
>
>
> --> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> bakerocb@cox.net wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 1/9/2007
>>
>> Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
>>
>> 1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's
>> no law against
>> it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
>> country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
>> consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial."
>>
>> This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we
>> have come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real
>> soon.
>>
>> We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
>> written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have
>> non regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.)
>> to help interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those
>> same bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
>> interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
>>
>> And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB
>> judge charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation
>>
>
>
>> because you violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and
>> certificate action is not immaterial.
>>
>> 2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for
>> several years, but then went
>> flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
>> TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke
>> in the wind."
>>
>> The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a
>> pilot knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that
>>
>
>
>> the AIM said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or
>> violation occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to
>> punishment for such a violation of the AIM. This is true.
>>
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but you say "punishment for such a violation of the
> AIM". Earlier, you said that, "the AIM is not regulatory in nature."
>
> How can you be punished for something that isn't a regulation?
>
> (Aaaaah, shucks!! Now I'm gonna have to go off and study something
> else... 'cause it won't leave me alone until I know.)
>
>
>> 3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half
>> the price, only
>> lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
>>
>
>
>> why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
>> pre-requisite homework, after all?"
>>
>> If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
>> equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only
>>
>
>
>> be performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking
>>
>
>
>> a risk. His risk could result in:
>>
>> a) No harm.
>>
>> b) Embarrassment.
>>
>> c) A fine.
>>
>> d) Loss of certificate
>>
>> e) Injury to self or others.
>>
>> f) Death of self or others.
>>
>> g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding
>> community.
>>
>> Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
>>
>
>
>> effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
>>
>
>
> I don't mean to disparage you, because you have presented yourself very
> honorably in these many conversations, but this just sounds like
> complete FUD. Dont' use that non-TSOed stuff...you'll die. There is a
> way for the FAA to communicate their intentions...(F)ederal (A)viation
> (R)egulations. There is a process for the FAA to get a FAR in place
> that protects everyones rights. They can put anything they want into an
>
> AIM, without Congressional oversight, or public review. I do not know
> it for a fact, but I'll be dollars to donuts that no one has ever been
> convicted for an "AIM violation". . . but I'll have to study up some to
> be sure.
>
>
>
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! --
|