---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 01/09/07: 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:37:16 AM PST US From: "JOHN TIPTON" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:31:52 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe and other wireing At 10:34 AM 1/9/2007 +0000, you wrote: > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:48 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:25:52 AM PST US From: "George, Neal E Capt MIL USAF 605TES/TSI" Subject: AeroElectric-List: test Do not archive neal ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:37:41 AM PST US From: "John Richardson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:54:53 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transpo V1200 Voltage Regulator At 07:36 PM 1/8/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:17:56 AM PST US From: "Eric Parlow" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:50:06 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GRT GPS TSO 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:50:10 AM PST US From: DeWitt Whittington Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:52:02 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: GRT GPS TSO 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:57:00 AM PST US From: "JOHN TIPTON" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe and other wireing Bob Thank you John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:28 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe and other wireing > > > At 10:34 AM 1/9/2007 +0000, you wrote: > >> >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:41:37 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:59:06 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:32:14 PM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:04 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage regulator failure >From: "McFarland, Randy" >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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:05:52 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's From: "Chuck Jensen" 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 --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:07:58 PM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:14:37 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GRT GPS TSO 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:16:17 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transpo V1200 Voltage Regulator (EXCELLENT!) >From: Bill Bradburry >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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:57:58 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: So Cal Seminar? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:04:54 PM PST US From: Bill Settle Subject: Re: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" > 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: > > > > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:06:08 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: GRT GPS TSO On 9 Jan 2007, at 17:10, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:14:37 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's On 8 Jan 2007, at 13:52, Ernest Christley 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? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:22:06 PM PST US From: "glaesers" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:25:57 PM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 > > > --> > > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.