Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:48 AM - Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (Robert Feldtman)
2. 05:48 AM - Re: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (Robert Feldtman)
3. 05:49 AM - Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (Mike)
4. 05:54 AM - Re: Comm antenna share-box (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 05:56 AM - Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (Mike)
6. 06:04 AM - Re: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (Mike)
7. 06:12 AM - Re: intercom & headset kits (Ken)
8. 06:12 AM - Re: intercom & headset kits (Ken)
9. 06:17 AM - Re: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (C Smith)
10. 06:56 AM - Re: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (Bill Denton)
11. 07:10 AM - Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (David M.)
12. 07:22 AM - Re: FAA woes . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 07:32 AM - Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 07:35 AM - Re: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (Chuck Jensen)
15. 07:47 AM - Re: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (David M.)
16. 09:16 AM - Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (Richard Girard)
17. 09:20 AM - Re: Re: Circuit needed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 09:21 AM - Re: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 09:33 AM - Re: PS6000/UPS AT Audio Panel wiring (ECLarsen81@aol.com)
20. 09:34 AM - Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (Charlie England)
21. 10:30 AM - Your 2 cents' worth (Fergus Kyle)
22. 11:39 AM - Re: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (C Smith)
23. 11:45 AM - Re: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (C Smith)
24. 01:39 PM - Re: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 01:41 PM - Re: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 02:42 PM - TurboCad question (kesleyelectric)
27. 03:03 PM - Re: Re: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (Bill Settle)
28. 03:05 PM - Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (C Smith)
29. 04:12 PM - Re: TurboCad question (LarryMcFarland)
30. 04:14 PM - Re: TurboCad question (Ken)
31. 04:26 PM - Garmin 430: Nav 1 audio hum (Mitchell Faatz)
32. 04:40 PM - Re: Re: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed (C Smith)
33. 04:46 PM - Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
34. 07:55 PM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (John Burnaby)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR |
PORTABLE GPS
6440 Auto Parts wrote:
> <sales@6440autoparts.com>
>
> Dave I think you may be preaching to the choir, but the the
> choir needs it too. I think most of us send in our AOPA dues in hopes
> that they will solve all of our woes. And they do a good job. Since
> this was started by the AOPA article I'll bet they will fight it very
> well. Much better than we as individuals could ever think of doing. So
> those that are not a member should become one. And those that are can
> send an email supporting them on this issue.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave N6030X" <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION
> FOR PORTABLE GPS
>
>
>> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>>
>> The problem is that 1/2 to 3/4 of the pilots are too intimidated by
>> the FAA to do any jumping up and down or screaming. If they weren't,
>> we would not have ever allowed the situation to become this out of
>> control to begin with. These are little flying machines, for god's
>> sake, not weapons of mass destruction!
>>
>> For instance, did you know that the ranking member of the US senate
>> subcommittee on aviation has just asked the head of the TSA to become
>> more focused on security IN GENERAL AVIATION? That would mean not
>> just spam cans, but ALL of your airplanes. Can you imagine metal
>> detectors at your airport? Confiscating your swiss army knives?
>> Background checks for everybody who goes on a joy ride in your RV-10?
>>
>> How much worse is an accident in a Cessna 172 than in a Ford Taurus?
>> How many more people can a Cherokee kill in one flight accident than
>> a school bus? Are the electrical systems on school buses regulated
>> as intensely as those on a Cessna 152?
>>
>> I suggest the reason the FAA keeps getting away with taking away more
>> and more of our freedoms is that pilots in general are such patriots
>> that we've always felt the government was benevolent, and so we've
>> cut them more slack. It's time to start looking at these
>> infringements on our liberties with a bit more suspicion. PMA for a
>> piece of plastic to mount my GPS in the panel? Give me a frigging
>> break. I'm writing ALL my congresspeople on this one.
>>
>> Dave Morris
>
>
NEVER assume that someone else is fighting your battle. Call you
senator. We should start with Inhofe, OK - he's a pilot
bobf
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: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE |
GPS
Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Not everyone who drives an automobile faster than the speed limit dies.
>
> But they are breaking rules, nonetheless...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of 6440
> Auto Parts
> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 2:13 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION
> FOR PORTABLE GPS
>
>
> <sales@6440autoparts.com>
>
> One would think that if such rule benders exist they would be
> mentioned in the ntsb reports as the cause of their demise. Are there any
> such reports ?
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:34 PM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
> PORTABLE GPS
>
>
>
>> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>> Course, there is another issue involved...
>>
>> To my knowledge, all of the hand-held GPS units are "VFR only".
>>
>> But you don't have to do much web surfing to find a lot of "suggestions"
>> about how to file an IFR flight plan "direct to" based on an "iffy" flight
>> for 80 miles or so along a VOR radial, then actually flying it using a
>> hand-held GPS unit.
>>
>> So, is it not possible that, as is often the case, a bunch of "rule
>> benders"
>> are screwing things up for everybody else?
>>
>
>
>
Ja Whol mein Herr -aber --
interresant that this all happens after the you know who's take back
control of the House and Senate. Like um now?
bobf
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: | FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE |
GPS
Rick,
You shouldn=92t throw stones unless you willing to take a few hits:
First, the FAA is doing a great job of ending general aviation as we
know it, we lost two airplane companies last week, we now have less then
600,000 total pilots in the US, most new pilots are going to the
airlines and not to GA, and most importantly you can=92t save people
hell
bent on killing themselves.
Go look at aviation anywhere around the country that is not near a big
city, or in Florida, Arizona, or southern California. If you look long
enough you will surmise that general aviation it is getting smaller,
soon this will begin to feed on itself. At the current rate of loss of
flight schools and actively flown certified airplanes, general aviation
for the average person will soon be gone. My opinion for what it=92s
worth is that the FAA and you folks worrying about saving the stupid are
mostly to blame for this loss. Rick, don=92t be so dense!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Girard
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
PORTABLE GPS
Given that there are folks out there who shouldn't be trusted to plug a
toaster into a wall socket, why in God's name do you want them futzing
about with the electrical system of a TC aircraft.
Like it or not there's a trail of dead bodies going back to 1909 of
people who just knew better and no one could tell them different. Take a
look at what happened in ultralights. I still remember Dennis telling
all within earshot that he didn't think there was a way to break his
aircraft, then proceeded to go up and prove how wrong he was. His reward
for his innovation was a 1500 foot vertical ride, followed a few days
later by a much slower 6 foot descent.
The FAA owns TC aircraft, and they're within their rights to make this
ruling.
What happens to the guy or gal who buys that aircraft somewhere down the
road? Who will step up and look out for them, the fine innovative
manufacturer who sold the product in the first place? Don't be so dense.
The FAA does a pretty good job of managing an extremely complex
activity. All this argument does is prove the adage that, "nothing is
impossible to the man who doesn't have to."
Rick
--
12/12/2006
--
12/12/2006
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Comm antenna share-box |
At 02:35 PM 2/2/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>I think you're on the right track here, Bob. Anything that prevents that
>connection from being exceedingly clean will cause a diode effect, and
>rectification in an RF circuit can cause really nasty intermittent
>problems.. The kind of problem you take to your avionics guy and say "this
>squealing only happens when it is raining outside", and he laughs at you.
>
>Also the insertion of things into RF transmission lines is not something
>to be taken lightly. You are changing the impedance at that point, and
>that will cause some amount of loss. Jim Weir says the amount of loss is
>insignificant in the case of the IC-ANT-SB, but a poorly constructed
>switchbox might introduce just enough loss to interfere with one's ability
>to contact ATC at a distance when it's needed most.
>
>Dave Morris
Yup. Jim's right. The SWR "bump" inserted by
such 'non-feedline' accessories is insignificant in
terms of observable performance . . . but that little
hunk of brass bugs me. There is a better way and
this is just the group to give some new ideas a
try.
Bob . . .
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: | FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE |
GPS
Bevan,
Remember, if it looks like your having to much fun in your experimental
plane, they just might change the rules.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of B
Tomm
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
PORTABLE GPS
Another reason to stay away from "certified" aircraft.
Bevan
RV7A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
N6030X
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
PORTABLE GPS
--> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances in
safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of, by,
and
for the people"?
Dave Morris
At 10:14 AM 2/2/2007, you wrote:
>Looks like Big Brother is trying to help again.
>
>
>----------
>
>----------
>FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS Think your
>portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna 172's
>instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to mount
>it. The parts-panel dock and connective wiring-needed to mount your
>portable GPS would either no longer be available or be too expensive to
>buy. The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to
>produce a replacement or modification part if they know (or should
>know) the part would end up installed in a certified aircraft-that is
>unless they obtain production approval from the agency. But that costs
>tens of thousands of dollars, something many companies can't afford.
>While AOPA agrees production approval is necessary for critical parts
>like connecting rods and cylinders, it isn't needed for non-critical
>parts like a portable GPS panel dock or traffic detector that enhance
>pilot safety. See
><http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070201parts.html>AOPA
Online.
>
--
12/12/2006
--
12/12/2006
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: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE |
GPS
Bevin,
You're right on the money. Keep flying and enjoying the freedom it
brings. That way you can tell you grand kid what it use to be like in
the old days. On a very serious note, the only way to save general
aviation is to get more people doing it while at the same time reducing
cost and improving training.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of B
Tomm
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION
FOR PORTABLE GPS
I agree, but what to do? Do we as a group embark on mass disobedience
with
solidarity? Fly our aircraft by the thousands in massive formations
over
the state Capitol? Or do we continue what we've been doing by just
building
and flying and gathering at Oshkosh, Sun-n-fun, and so many other shows
as a
public showing of the size of our numbers. I think so. But surely as
we
enjoy ourselves, we must be aware of the ground-bound bureaucrats and
those
they wish to influence below us as they look up with some degree of
jealousy. Get out there, build, fly, vote and "talk-up" aviation with
all
who will listen. Having fun and having the sense of freedom that flying
brings is very contagious. Spread it and support those who are spreading
it.
Bevan
RV7A
Egg H6 on order
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
PORTABLE GPS
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:51 AM 2/2/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>--> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
>The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances
>in safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of,
>by, and for the people"?
This is pretty consistent with past policies. You
don't need to make log entries for things that
are not physically attached . . . i.e., portable
personal accessories and piloting aids.
This is why my dual gps installation wedges between
the of the glare shield and windshield held in place
with small dollops of windshield sealant. No connections
to the aircraft's wiring. All goes back into the flight
bag when I park the airplane and leaves no tracks for
having been there.
This isn't going to get better folks. Look at it this
way:
Everyone has notions that what they do for a living
will produce an ever increasing flow of revenue and
greater stature amongst their peers. Suppose your
job right out of college was: "Here's the books
son. Read. Memorize. Go forth and make aviation
safer."
Given that the only tools of your craft are
crafting of rules, publishing of rules, policing
compliance with the rules and punishment of transgressors.
What are your options for working up the ladder in
the career of your choice?
Microsoft, Sony, Chrysler, and McDonalds MUST
drive up returns by judicious investments in activities
designed to increase CUSTOMER perceptions of value.
Their fortunes are driven by increasing gross sales
by offering more attractive product or increasing
numbers of customers for the current products.
The FAA has no customers. I.e, no consumer/supplier
relationship and therefore no accountability
or perception of value-received for their efforts.
Further, the only way a bureaucrat can move up in
the world is to either (1) be party to expansion of
the activity's operating horizons (more rules) or
(2) take over command of greater numbers of bureaucrats.
There are no other metrics by which an organization
chartered with "enhancement of public safety" can
grow professionally . . . public risks from the
presence of aviation are so small that ANY endeavor
to reduce them is exceedingly expensive, restrictive
of personal liberties and still more difficult to
demonstrate that any one effort has produced a useful
outcome.
When challenged on this perception by those who
like to believe in the value of this activity
I will ask, "How many lives did you save last year? Or
if your function ceased to be performed, how many
folks would die as a result next year? If you ceased
to do your job, how many individuals would go elsewhere
to find an alternate source for your services?" I've
yet to receive a cogent answer . . .
I've had a working relationship with this organization
for over 30 years. If I plot observed and demonstrated
present trends out to the future, our industry in its
present form is doomed.
20 years? 30 years? Impossible to predict with accuracy
but the TREND is relentlessly trudging on in the wrong
direction. Without a fundamental change in direction,
the outcome is as inevitable as the sun coming up
tomorrow morning.
Bob . . .
--
12/12/2006
--
12/12/2006
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: intercom & headset kits |
FWIW I have a flighttech intercom that uses a hot mic and electronic
speech noise filter chip. No squelch controls, no background noise of
any kind while talking or when not talking, no missed syllables when you
start to talk and it works fine with mismatched headsets from different
manufacturers. Best darn intercom I've ever used and I'd never be happy
with a VOX unit or a PTT intercom again.
Ken
Bob Verwey wrote:
>
>Paul,
>I'm particularly interested in the functionality of the 4 place intercom and
>the squelch settings. What has been your experience with this aspect?
>
>Bob Verwey
>A35 Bonanza
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: intercom & headset kits |
Good company with good products and documentation but be cautious of
purchasing second hand old stuff unless you try it first. For example I
have a tested and calibrated but never installed or used early model (at
least 10 or 12 years old) audio panel here that must be manually
switched between intercom and radio to transmit. That is just too
awkward and the design has been updated I think a couple of times since
then as you'd expect from a good company. Similarly I was never happy
with the audio quality from the mic amplifier in my older headset (8 or
10 years) but I switched to his later transistorized design and am happy
with it now. In fact I also put that amplifier in another manufacturer's
headset to improve it as well!
Ken
paul wilson wrote:
>
>I am interested in any evaluation of the Jim Wier kits. www.rst-engr.com. Has anybody used them?
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
Not sure what other type your referring to, electret seems to be the most
common type employed in headsets. I remember doing a little research into
the microphone issue to try to figure out why mine weren't working, but it
would take a bit of time to dig it all out. If you have a name for the type
you are thinking of let me know what and I'll try to help.
Craig Smith
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
The repair processes that have been put forward, such as tapping the mic or
slamming it against a brick wall ;-) could lead one to believe that what is
being referred to is an old "carbon" mic.
This type of mic used granules of carbon, which could become stuck together.
Sharply tapping the mic would often free up the granules and restore the
mics performance.
Back in the day, Ma Bell's headsets used carbon mics, and you'd be amazed at
how much of an improvement in voice quality a few taps could give you.
But while I'm no longer really "in" any type of electronics field, it's been
years since I've heard of carbon mics being used for anything...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C
Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2007 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
<pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
Not sure what other type your referring to, electret seems to be the most
common type employed in headsets. I remember doing a little research into
the microphone issue to try to figure out why mine weren't working, but it
would take a bit of time to dig it all out. If you have a name for the type
you are thinking of let me know what and I'll try to help.
Craig Smith
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: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE |
GPS
It's past time to start firing those who endanger our safety with their
meddling.
David M.
Dave N6030X wrote:
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances
> in safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of,
> by, and for the people"?
>
> Dave Morris
>
> At 10:14 AM 2/2/2007, you wrote:
>
>> Looks like Big Brother is trying to help again.
>>
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> ----------
>> FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
>> Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna
>> 172's instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to
>> mount it. The partspanel dock and connective wiringneeded to mount
>> your portable GPS would either no longer be available or be too
>> expensive to buy. The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for
>> manufacturers to produce a replacement or modification part if they
>> know (or should know) the part would end up installed in a certified
>> aircraftthat is unless they obtain production approval from the
>> agency. But that costs tens of thousands of dollars, something many
>> companies can't afford. While AOPA agrees production approval is
>> necessary for critical parts like connecting rods and cylinders, it
>> isn't needed for non-critical parts like a portable GPS panel dock or
>> traffic detector that enhance pilot safety. See
>> <http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070201parts.html>AOPA
>> Online.
>>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA woes . . . |
At 03:38 PM 2/2/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Yes indeed. And then spend a few minutes at www.Senate.gov and
>www.House.gov and let your elected officials know you are unhappy. If all
>they ever hear is bland, politically correct official statements from
>AOPA, they won't know how pissed we are.
>:)
>
>Dave Morris
>Rebel with a vote
Always an good place to start . . .
But understand too that 'government' (just WHO is
that anyway?) has us just where they want us. We're
a small fraction (600K) of the whole (130 millions)
of eligible voters.
This is a situation shared with EVERY other special
interest group in the US. The folks in Congress are
delighted that we've all found niche causes to champion
because it distracts us from the fundamental cause that
every voting citizen should be pulling for.
Our plight as an 'abused' minority is shared with every
other 'abused' minority and there's not a thing we can
do about it because we continue to act as minorities
i.e., not enough votes in the block to be a real threat
to those who 'abuse' us.
To explore how these losses to liberty came to pass
one needs to study and understand the simple-ideas
upon which the government was originally formed and
then study the history that brought us to where we
are. For those interested, I'll suggest the following
resources.
Foundation for the original thoughts . . .
See:
http://12.164.81.10/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm
or get the free audio book at:
http://www.freeaudio.org/tpaine/commonsense.html
This famous document "Common Sense" was penned
by Thomas Paine. Yea, we all probably heard about it
in high school . . . but I heard it from some
very unimaginative teachers who were unable or
unwilling to get me engaged in the significance.
Then see:
http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/main.htm
There are audio books on this too . . . but I've
not yet located a downloadable copy.
I keep copies of both these documents in .mp3 format
to listen too on long drives. I've listened to both
perhaps three times each and try to renew my acquaintance
with their wisdom regularly. Got a driving trip to
Little Rock coming up next week.
To recap the major thoughts brought forth by these
two teachers: (1) the primary purpose of law is to
protect liberty. Liberty being a condition that
allows one to traverse life free of force or fraud
against their person or property. (2) the role of
government should be clearly and simply defined and
those definitions kept in mind when sending
representation to Washington.
Of course, there is this docoument:
http://tinyurl.com/2mukgm
Reall that the Constitution was written by
ordinary citizens who where farmers and merchants.
None were professional legislators. None believed they
were undertaking a task to lay the foundations for what
passes for government today. The document is only
24 pages long and 90% of it has to do with organizational
housekeeping. Take a highligher and mark those passages
that speak to governmental operations that affect you
personally . . . and you'll find that it's not much
and the meanings are quite clear without benefit of
a constitutional law student from Harvard to
interpret for you.
The point of this exercise is to offer some insight
as to how we find ourselves commiserating over the
latest perceived injustice in aviation while every
other minority special interest group commiserates
over their particular perceptions.
The next time your prospective representative appears
at a town hall meeting or campaign rally, the questions
to ask should not be based on what you want from
Washington. For myself, I would ask that every candidate
seeking my vote be cloistered in a quiet room with
their favorite music, a handful of pencils and one of
those theme books we used in school to craft an
example of our knowledge and understanding for the
purpose of receiving a grade.
Writing task for the prospective legislator:
Define liberty
Define honorable behavior
Define dishonorable behavior
Is it possible to be neither dishonorable or honorable? -
explain
What are the guiding principals which you call upon
while considering legislation? List and explain
what you consider to be the three most important.
Do you believe in prime-directives? I.e, are there
some lines that the legislature should never cross?
Explain.
What in your opinion are the three most powerful ideas
in the Constitution. Explain. (no "right" answer for
this - I just want to see how well the candidate
understands the document . . . or even if he/she has
read the thing).
What are the constitutional roles of the House, the
Senate and the President?
Is it the roll of the courts to judge actions of citizens
against the meaning your legislation or against their
interpretations of the Constitution?
Cite words from the Constitution that justifies
government notice that I am anyone but a citizen of
voting age? Where does government receive the charter to
know how old I am, my sex, my job, my income, etc.
Press buzzer for drinks, sandwiches or potty break.
Now, the unfortunate part is that very few if any
folks we've sent to Washington could produce a cogent
document answering those questions. The saddest part yet
is that should a candidate demonstrate an exemplary
understanding of the role of government in a
democratic republic, few of our fellow citizens are
sufficiently cognizant of the topic to accurately
judge the candidate's qualification to office.
Bottom line is, yes write your Congressfolks and do
it regularly. It's easy. See:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/orgs/
This is an interesting site for it not only provides
a conduit into which you can place your own thoughts
but it highlights the thoughts of your fellow citizens
on matters of legislation and citizen expectations of
Congress. Try not to get too depressed when you read them.
Yes, write about specific issues of interest to your
particular abused minority . . . but include words
in EVERY letter that indicates your understanding of
how Congress ignores their sworn duty under the
Constitution. Touch also on how any particular action
of Congress has attacked the liberty of yourself or
fellow citizens. It doesn't hurt to quote Paine or
Bastiat from time to time (But I'll bet very few
legislators know who these fellows were or have
read what they wrote).
As a member of an abused minority focused on the
complaint du jour, you don't represent much of a threat
to your representative's generous salary and spectacular
retirement package. But as a member of the cognizant majority
who correctly identifies and spotlights their dishonor, THAT
they will find worrisome.
Will this 'fix' any of the current complaints? Probably
not. In fact, I cannot imagine what it would be like
to recover from an event that suddenly restricts government
to its constituted constraints. For one thing, we would
immediately have millions of unemployed workers from no-value-
added careers who would suddenly have to find useful jobs like
the rest of us. It wouldn't be easy but I'd welcome the
short term chaos with open arms. Flying our airplanes in
the future could be a whole new world! But it's a sure bet
that as a minority complainer, our pleas are summarily
ignored beyond, "Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
I will keep them in mind as I deliberate the next attack on
the liberty of you or some of your fellow citizens".
Yeah, right.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
At 01:52 PM 2/2/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Folks,
>the tower's been telling me that I am barely readable - and I was blaming
>my radio. However, I've been flying another plane lately, and today my
>mike quit working. I now think that my radio is not bad, but the headset is.
>
>Anyone here have a quick and dirty ground test for a mike?
>I'll be trying a different brand in my plane tonite, but kinda want to
>double check before springing for a new headset.
>TimE
Sure. Plug it into an intercom. You should be able to
"talk to yourself" . . . wiggle the plugs, flex the
wires. It MIGHT be that your ship's jacks are suffering
from old age.
Get a hand held. Leave the antenna off. Tune ship's radio
and hand held to some locally unused frequency. Plug mic
into ship's transceiver, headphones into the hand-held.
Listen to yourself while wiggling the jacks and wires.
Bob . . .
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: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE |
GPS
BobF wrote, regarding the FAA proposal to restrict portable GPS....
interresant that this all happens after the you know who's take back
control of the House and Senate. Like um now?
Whoaaaa, I have no interest in starting a political free-for-all, but
lets keep it accurate. The persons managing the FAA are political
appointees of the current administration, not the new congress. Those
same people are proposing to smack GA with user fees. These actions
have NOTHING to do with the new people in control of the House and
Senate.
Now, with new people in charge of the House and Senate, we can hope they
will not rubber stamp these poorly concieved ideas proferred by
appointees of the current administation. There's always plenty of
political shame and blame to go around, but let's keep them sorted out
correctly on the score board. When the new congress approves these
shameful changes, then we can give 'em hell. :-)
Chuck
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: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE |
GPS
lawsuits.
David M.
B Tomm wrote:
>
>I agree, but what to do? Do we as a group embark on mass disobedience with
>solidarity? Fly our aircraft by the thousands in massive formations over
>the state Capitol? Or do we continue what we've been doing by just building
>and flying and gathering at Oshkosh, Sun-n-fun, and so many other shows as a
>public showing of the size of our numbers. I think so. But surely as we
>enjoy ourselves, we must be aware of the ground-bound bureaucrats and those
>they wish to influence below us as they look up with some degree of
>jealousy. Get out there, build, fly, vote and "talk-up" aviation with all
>who will listen. Having fun and having the sense of freedom that flying
>brings is very contagious. Spread it and support those who are spreading it.
>
>Bevan
>RV7A
>Egg H6 on order
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
>Nuckolls, III
>Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:54 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
>PORTABLE GPS
>
>--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 10:51 AM 2/2/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>>
>>The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances
>>in safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of,
>>by, and for the people"?
>>
>>
>
> This is pretty consistent with past policies. You
> don't need to make log entries for things that
> are not physically attached . . . i.e., portable
> personal accessories and piloting aids.
>
> This is why my dual gps installation wedges between
> the of the glare shield and windshield held in place
> with small dollops of windshield sealant. No connections
> to the aircraft's wiring. All goes back into the flight
> bag when I park the airplane and leaves no tracks for
> having been there.
>
> This isn't going to get better folks. Look at it this
> way:
>
> Everyone has notions that what they do for a living
> will produce an ever increasing flow of revenue and
> greater stature amongst their peers. Suppose your
> job right out of college was: "Here's the books
> son. Read. Memorize. Go forth and make aviation
> safer."
>
> Given that the only tools of your craft are
> crafting of rules, publishing of rules, policing
> compliance with the rules and punishment of transgressors.
> What are your options for working up the ladder in
> the career of your choice?
>
> Microsoft, Sony, Chrysler, and McDonalds MUST
> drive up returns by judicious investments in activities
> designed to increase CUSTOMER perceptions of value.
> Their fortunes are driven by increasing gross sales
> by offering more attractive product or increasing
> numbers of customers for the current products.
>
> The FAA has no customers. I.e, no consumer/supplier
> relationship and therefore no accountability
> or perception of value-received for their efforts.
> Further, the only way a bureaucrat can move up in
> the world is to either (1) be party to expansion of
> the activity's operating horizons (more rules) or
> (2) take over command of greater numbers of bureaucrats.
>
> There are no other metrics by which an organization
> chartered with "enhancement of public safety" can
> grow professionally . . . public risks from the
> presence of aviation are so small that ANY endeavor
> to reduce them is exceedingly expensive, restrictive
> of personal liberties and still more difficult to
> demonstrate that any one effort has produced a useful
> outcome.
>
> When challenged on this perception by those who
> like to believe in the value of this activity
> I will ask, "How many lives did you save last year? Or
> if your function ceased to be performed, how many
> folks would die as a result next year? If you ceased
> to do your job, how many individuals would go elsewhere
> to find an alternate source for your services?" I've
> yet to receive a cogent answer . . .
>
> I've had a working relationship with this organization
> for over 30 years. If I plot observed and demonstrated
> present trends out to the future, our industry in its
> present form is doomed.
>
> 20 years? 30 years? Impossible to predict with accuracy
> but the TREND is relentlessly trudging on in the wrong
> direction. Without a fundamental change in direction,
> the outcome is as inevitable as the sun coming up
> tomorrow morning.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE |
GPS
This will be my last comment as I have airplanes to work on and, frankly
it's more fun and much more productive.
Have any of you heard of the Sport Pilot Rule? If the FAA is sooooo bad, how
do you explain what is arguably the most progressive movement in flying?
Along with my LSA repairman maintenance ticket, I was given the phone number
of Edsel Ford, the administrator in charge of Sport Pilot, and told if I had
any questions or concerns, please, call him direct, he wants to keep track
of "his guys". Hell, he even came and audited the first class. Seen anybody
from the bureaucracy working that hard for you lately?
Every barrel has a few bad apples, look at the fine time we have here with
GMCjetpilot. The trick is to get rid of the bad apples and keep the rest of
the barrel.
As for FAA causing the demise of GA, I'd argue that cost has a lot more to
do with it than anything else. Just eight years ago, when I finally got
around to finishing my PPL, a 172 was $60 an hour, wet. What is it now? When
I worked for Cessna in the mid seventies a new 172 was in the low $20K
range. All the cost of TC had been amortised long before that and look what
a 172 costs today. When you're paying a disproportionate amount of your hard
earned income for catastrophic health care extortion, er insurance, where do
you find the money for an activity like flying UNLESS it is directed toward
your economic improvement?
A fair amount of blame can be trowled on to school systems more interested
in training children to take meaningless tests than in actual learning, too.
Flying takes hard work and a dedication to continued learning. Our school
boards seem to be more interested in finding out how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin, than in giving kids a good grounding in science. I've
done presentations at elementary and high schools to kids who have never
heard much of anything about aviation except that it is used by vacationers
and terrorists.
And as for my wanting to save the stupid from themselves, I believe the
adage that aviation is like a self cleaning oven. When my oven is cleaned,
the nightly news doesn't find much interest, unlike the Cessna 150 hanging
upside down from the power lines.
Rick
On 2/3/07, Mike <mlas@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
>
> You shouldn't throw stones unless you willing to take a few hits: First,
> the FAA is doing a great job of ending general aviation as we know it, we
> lost two airplane companies last week, we now have less then 600,000 total
> pilots in the US, most new pilots are going to the airlines and not to GA,
> and most importantly you can't save people hell bent on killing themselves.
>
>
> Go look at aviation anywhere around the country that is not near a big
> city, or in Florida, Arizona, or southern California. If you look long
> enough you will surmise that general aviation it is getting smaller, soon
> this will begin to feed on itself. At the current rate of loss of flight
> schools and actively flown certified airplanes, general aviation for the
> average person will soon be gone. My opinion for what it's worth is that
> the FAA and you folks worrying about saving the stupid are mostly to blame
> for this loss. Rick, don't be so dense!
>
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Girard
> *Sent:* Friday, February 02, 2007 11:17 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
> PORTABLE GPS
>
>
> Given that there are folks out there who shouldn't be trusted to plug a
> toaster into a wall socket, why in God's name do you want them futzing about
> with the electrical system of a TC aircraft.
> Like it or not there's a trail of dead bodies going back to 1909 of people
> who just knew better and no one could tell them different. Take a look at
> what happened in ultralights. I still remember Dennis telling all within
> earshot that he didn't think there was a way to break his aircraft, then
> proceeded to go up and prove how wrong he was. His reward for his innovation
> was a 1500 foot vertical ride, followed a few days later by a much slower 6
> foot descent.
> The FAA owns TC aircraft, and they're within their rights to make this
> ruling.
> What happens to the guy or gal who buys that aircraft somewhere down the
> road? Who will step up and look out for them, the fine innovative
> manufacturer who sold the product in the first place? Don't be so dense.
> The FAA does a pretty good job of managing an extremely complex activity.
> All this argument does is prove the adage that, "nothing is impossible to
> the man who doesn't have to."
>
> Rick
>
>
> --
> 12/12/2006
>
> --
> 12/12/2006
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Circuit needed |
At 10:09 PM 2/2/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>The aux pump pushes fuel into an EFI return line, open to the header tank,
>via a check valve. The pressure switch that I have is
>
>a one psi oil pressure switch, hence NC.
Against what resistance to flow is the 1 psi expected to
develop? Is the cracking pressure of the check valve
greater than 1 psi?
>It seems to me that it's necessary to not have a null between
>On and (On) so that pressure is maintained to keep the P-switch open as
>that open switch is what should
>keep the pump energized.
Switches come in a host of characteristics that
can define operating pressures +/- errors and
drift, hysteresis, transfer times, etc.
>So what does a "good, good" switch cost? or who makes one?
>If having the NC switch is causing grief, I could buy a NO switch. Upon first
>search, I was so happy with finding a one psi switch that I didn't think
>about it being an Oil Press.
>switch which would be normally closed to light the idiot light. The idiot
>light went on when I realized
>what I had done.
Hmmmm . . . let me see if I really understand. You
want a switch to operate when a pump develops a pressure
against the back side of a check valve. Is it the
purpose of this switch do de-energize the pump when
the pressure drops below the desired switch point
(i.e. is no longer moving fluid)?.
Know that off-the-shelf oil pressure switches can have
very wide tolerances to setpoint. Their purpose is
to annunciate gross failures of oil pressure, not to
warn of impending failure due to some reduction in
oil pressure.
There are some alternatives to oil pressure switches
but I need to fully understand the task.
Bob . . .
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
At 07:34 PM 2/2/2007 -0500, you wrote:
><pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Those are exactly the conditions that caused the mike on my "guest' headset
>to solidify. It sat in the cold hangar all winter. I was miffed when it
>wouldn't work on the first time it was used. After giving it a good snap
>they stared working again. I'm guessing a bit of condensation, and cold gets
>the carbon stuck together. It's the vibrations of the carbon that generates
>the signal.
I don't think anyone has manufactured a new aviation microphone
using carbon granule technology in 30-40 years. Electret and dynamic
have been the technologies of choice for many a moon.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
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: PS6000/UPS AT Audio Panel wiring |
Not to justify it or condone the wiring method but the reasoning as I was
told....
Actually, the messy wiring was developed by King on the KMA24, PS
Engineering utilized the same design so the you could pull the block off the KMA
(bottom block on the PMA) and build the new intercom block (top) to easily upgrade
from the King to a PS6000.
Because of the short runs of wire in the radio stack, a lot of the
installers did not use shielded wire in the audio links and did the daisy chain
between the low pins, using the ground bar attached to the back of the KMA tray
for all the Lo attachments.
I like to add a .032 flap off the back of the tray to mount strain reliefs
making it similar to the KMA 26 arraingement.
My 2 cents.
Ed Larsen
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR |
PORTABLE GPS
6440 Auto Parts wrote:
> <sales@6440autoparts.com>
>
> Thanks Dave I will send my congressman an email on the
> matter too. Even though I suspect it will go to their "deleted items"
> folder. Or I may even send a letter but also suspect it will be filed by
> one of their aids under "T" for trash can. Sad but probably true.
>
> Randy
snipped
I'd like to offer a personal experience related to 'calling your
congressman'.
Several years ago there was a bill in committee to fund cancer research.
Since my family has a very personal interest in cancer research, we
began a letter writing campaign to influence our congressman.
When my wife 1st contacted a staffer in DC about the bill, they weren't
even aware that it existed. Within a few weeks we had generated around
500 letters from friends & neighbors, *faxed* to the congressman's DC
office. (This was shortly after the 9/11 / anthrax hysteria & we were
informed that mailed letters took months to clear security & emails were
easily deleted.)
The receipt of around 500 faxes resulted in our congressman moving from
being unaware of the legislation to being a co-sponsor of the bill. The
staffer who spoke with my wife later told her that the bill had received
one of the strongest responses ever recorded in their office.
When you call or write (especially when you write & fax it in) the
staffers record your opinion basically with a check mark in the
'support' or 'oppose' column. With literally 99% of the population
totally unaware of this pending regulation & virtually all pilots
opposed to further regulation, a fax campaign of just a few hundred
letters from your state almost certainly would have a huge effect on how
your congressman votes.
Whenever I contact our congressmen/senators I make sure to tell them
that their vote influences my vote. After last November's elections,
you'd better believe they are paying more attention to the voters.
Charlie
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: | Your 2 cents' worth |
John,
you sent:
"my $.02
-John
www.ballofshame.com"
That 2 cents' worth came to over 500 lines.
That's 25000 lines per buck ($1.16 Canadian).
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064 914 Classic
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
Gosh Bob, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. The headset I have that gave me
the trouble is branded flightline. They are low price economy stereo
headsets purchased new 3 yrs ago. When the mike crapped out, I tried to find
out how it worked. Can't remember exactly where the info came from but
that's what I was told. The mike capsule is a cylinder roughly 1/4" dia.
metal sidewall, 2 leads on back side circuit board, looks black from front.
Tried googling flightline, and try to find manufacturers website not found.
The line is still carried by aircraft Spruce, but I don't think this model
is made any more. Sure wish I could find the original poop sheet. At any
rate they returned to function after giving them the finger snap,
electret/dynamic/condenser/carbon whatever.
Craig Smith
I don't think anyone has manufactured a new aviation microphone
using carbon granule technology in 30-40 years. Electret and dynamic
have been the technologies of choice for many a moon.
Bob . . .
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: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
For what it's worth I found this from David Clark on testing headsets.
http://www.davidclark.com/PDFfiles/AvHeadsetTestProc.pdf
Hope this helps someone.
Craig Smith
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
At 02:45 PM 2/3/2007 -0500, you wrote:
><pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
>
>For what it's worth I found this from David Clark on testing headsets.
>
>http://www.davidclark.com/PDFfiles/AvHeadsetTestProc.pdf
>
>Hope this helps someone.
Cool find sir! Thank you. I've archived and indexed a copy
on the website.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
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: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
I don't think it was you who mentioned carbon mics (it's true
that a standard 'fix' for those things was to bang them on
a bulkhead from time to time!). Obviously, any piece of electronics
can develop a quirk in connectivity that may be restored to
function by some shock. Didn't mean for it to look like
I was suggesting any understanding or misleading info on your
part.
Bob . . .
>Gosh Bob, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. The headset I have that gave me
>the trouble is branded flightline. They are low price economy stereo
>headsets purchased new 3 yrs ago. When the mike crapped out, I tried to find
>out how it worked. Can't remember exactly where the info came from but
>that's what I was told. The mike capsule is a cylinder roughly 1/4" dia.
>metal sidewall, 2 leads on back side circuit board, looks black from front.
>Tried googling flightline, and try to find manufacturers website not found.
>The line is still carried by aircraft Spruce, but I don't think this model
>is made any more. Sure wish I could find the original poop sheet. At any
>rate they returned to function after giving them the finger snap,
>electret/dynamic/condenser/carbon whatever.
>Craig Smith
>
>
> I don't think anyone has manufactured a new aviation microphone
> using carbon granule technology in 30-40 years. Electret and dynamic
> have been the technologies of choice for many a moon.
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | TurboCad question |
Looking through the archives, it seems that quite a number of people use
TurboCad. I am in the market for a CAD program for my aircraft project and
other uses. My question is this: will the earlier versions of the program
(lots of ver. 10 for sale) available on Ebay function properly on the Win 98
machine that I have in the airplane shop at home? I would like to install
the program on both the Win98 machine at home and the newer XP machine here
at the business. I currently do not have internet access at home. The
materials on the various Turbocad websites deal with far more in depth
issues than basic compatibility.
Any help from the List much appreciated.
Regards,
Tom Barter
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
Speaking of David Clark.....
I used to have a Luscombe that I flew with a Garmin GPSCOM 190 handheld. When
I bought the Luscombe about ten years ago, I bought a new David Clark H10-20 headset
to go with the H10-30 that I already had. I had purchased the 10-30 2nd
hand from a friend who went to the airlines and no longer needed it. My intention
was to use both headsets with an intercom when someone flew with me...
I started having problems with my handheld-headset setup that I don't recall the
nature of now. I do remember sending my handheld back to Garmin to have them
check it out. When It came back with no problems found, I called David Clark
and explained my problem to them, whatever it was. I do remember that my David
Clark PTT would not always open my mic. The tech rep I spoke with asked me
to send both headsets and the PTT to them and he would check them out.
I got a call a week later from the same tech I had spoken with who said he could
find no problems with any of the stuff I sent him. He said that the mic on
the 10-20 might be a little hot for the Garmin handheld, so he said he was going
to send me a different one to try. He said they were going to go ahead and
replace the PTT for good measure as well. He then asked me how old the 10-30
was. I told him I did not know as I had bought it second hand about 8 years
prior. His response was, "Well we have made some improvements to these since
then, so I'm going to go ahead and replace it also..."
The next time I'm in the market for a headset, it will absolutely, positively,
without a doubt, be a David Clark.
The problem turned out not to have anything to do with the headsets or PTT. It
was the remote connection on the side of the Garmin which I had not sent back
to Garmin.
Bill Settle
RV-8 Wings
>
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> Date: 2007/02/03 Sat PM 04:38:01 EST
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
>
>
> At 02:45 PM 2/3/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
> ><pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> >For what it's worth I found this from David Clark on testing headsets.
> >
> >http://www.davidclark.com/PDFfiles/AvHeadsetTestProc.pdf
> >
> >Hope this helps someone.
>
> Cool find sir! Thank you. I've archived and indexed a copy
> on the website.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> ( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
> ( what ever you do must be exercised )
> ( EVERY day . . . )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE |
GPS
I think the FAA is just trying to clarify an existing rule. It means what it
says. If the dock is a permanent installation in the aircraft then the rule
applies.
My flight instructor tells me recently he read somewhere that 1/3 the cost
of TC aircraft is due to lawsuits and liability. Makes sense, when a jury
finds an avionics manufacturer liable for a fatal accident caused by a pilot
unable to use his backup instrument/partial panel skill because of the
failure of a vacuum pump.
Lots of other cases like it.
Craig Smith
Do not archive
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TurboCad question |
Hi Tom,
The answer to that question is yes. You have very good compatibility
from Win 98 and XP where TurboCAD is used.
I've had it from much earlier versions and have never had issues with it.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Do not archive
kesleyelectric wrote:
> Looking through the archives, it seems that quite a number of people
> use TurboCad. I am in the market for a CAD program for my aircraft
> project and other uses. My question is this: will the earlier
> versions of the program (lots of ver. 10 for sale) available on Ebay
> function properly on the Win 98 machine that I have in the airplane
> shop at home? I would like to install the program on both the Win98
> machine at home and the newer XP machine here at the business. I
> currently do not have internet access at home. The materials on the
> various Turbocad websites deal with far more in depth issues than
> basic compatibility.
> Any help from the List much appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Barter
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TurboCad question |
Yup 10.2 works just fine on windoze98SE for me Tom.
Ken
kesleyelectric wrote:
> Looking through the archives, it seems that quite a number of people
> use TurboCad. I am in the market for a CAD program for my aircraft
> project and other uses. My question is this: will the earlier
> versions of the program (lots of ver. 10 for sale) available on Ebay
> function properly on the Win 98 machine that I have in the airplane
> shop at home? I would like to install the program on both the Win98
> machine at home and the newer XP machine here at the business. I
> currently do not have internet access at home. The materials on the
> various Turbocad websites deal with far more in depth issues than
> basic compatibility.
> Any help from the List much appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Barter
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 430: Nav 1 audio hum |
Okay, I'm at whit's end. I've spend the last couple weeks trying to
track down a high pitched "hum" on the NAV 1 audio coming from my new
Garmin 430. I have the Approach Systems Pro-G hub and cable harnesses,
which they just replaced to see if that solves the hum (the hum would
cut in and out when I tugged on the harness so I suspected the
harness). Well, I just spent several more hours installing the new
harness to where I could test it, and the hum is now there all the
time. Wiggling the harness no longer makes the hum cut in and out :(
I've done further troubleshooting:
- all Circuit Breaks pulled except NAV (10amp) and COM (5 amp)
- all fuses pulled (everything off except Garmin 430)
- everything in hangar turned off (lights, heaters, etc)
- tried both switching power supply and aircraft battery.
- probed pin 23 on hub AUDIO PANEL HD44, hearing hum
- probed pin 10 on COMM 1 cable going to HD26, hearing hum
- pulled EVERY ground off forest-of-tabs grounding block except battery
contactor, still hearing hum
- swapped Garmin 430's with my hangar mate, still hearing hum.
SO, it seems like the radio is not the problem, and the only thing
between the radio and the headphones is the wire harness! Which is the
second one from Approach Systems, I can't imagine it also has a problem
but you never know. Here's another funny thing, even with all the
grounds pulled off the Garmin 430 it's still running, does it get
grounded through the case and/or plug shields?
P.S. Approach Systems gets an A+++ in my book, they have been extremely
responsive to my emails even on weekends.
Help!
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed |
Bill, you're right on with CD service. A couple years back, I was at
Sun-N-Fun with my wife. We'd flown down in our C172 for the whole show. My
wife complained of pain after a few hours of flight, and as we flew all the
way from MI, she'd logged some time under her DC H10-13s. By the time a day
of flying was done she needed to take something. I mentioned this when I was
at the DC booth and the gentleman gave me a set of the new undercut gel
seals for free.
DC is the best, for customer service.
Craig Smith
XX
On Behalf Of Bill Settle
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
<billsettle@bellsouth.net>
Speaking of David Clark.....
Snip----------
I told him I did not know as I had bought it second hand about 8 years
prior. His response was, "Well we have made some improvements to these
since then, so I'm going to go ahead and replace it also..."
The next time I'm in the market for a headset, it will absolutely,
positively, without a doubt, be a David Clark.
The problem turned out not to have anything to do with the headsets or PTT.
It was the remote connection on the side of the Garmin which I had not sent
back to Garmin.
Bill Settle
RV-8 Wings
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world. |
At 11:14 AM 2/3/2007 -0600, you wrote:
This will be my last comment as I have airplanes to work on and, frankly
it's more fun and much more productive.
Have any of you heard of the Sport Pilot Rule? If the FAA is sooooo bad,
how do you explain what is arguably the most progressive movement
in flying?
Yes, a step forward in one venue amongst
years of stepping backward in others. We
should take care lest our grateful reaction
to little tid-bits of 'progress' blind our
willingness to study or even be aware of
the big picture.
Along with my LSA repairman maintenance ticket, I was given the phone
number of Edsel Ford, the administrator in charge of Sport Pilot, and told
if I had any questions or concerns, please, call him direct, he wants to
keep track of "his guys". Hell, he even came and audited the first class.
Seen anybody from the bureaucracy working that hard for you lately?
I know lots of really good people who work
for the FAA too. Many are dedicated folks
who have reason to be proud of their personal
achievements and honorable behavior . . .
Every barrel has a few bad apples, look at the fine time we have here with
GMCjetpilot. The trick is to get rid of the bad apples and keep the rest of
the barrel.
This isn't about the people, it's about the whole
premise as to what we as responsible citizens of
a democratic republic should expect or even accept
from government. Are we NOT the consumers who
pay the tariffs for goods and services they offer?
As for FAA causing the demise of GA, I'd argue that cost has a lot more to
do with it than anything else. Just eight years ago, when I finally got
around to finishing my PPL, a 172 was $60 an hour, wet. What is it now?
When I worked for Cessna in the mid seventies a new 172 was in the low $20K
range. All the cost of TC had been amortised long before that and look what
a 172 costs today. When you're paying a disproportionate amount of your
hard earned income for catastrophic health care extortion, er insurance,
where do you find the money for an activity like flying UNLESS it is
directed toward your economic improvement?
True, costs have risen disproportionately to other
technology driven venues. When I worked at Cessna
in '63 I think a 150 cost about $5,000 and a 172 was
about $7,500. In 1963 you could buy a Ford Falcon
with all the goodies offered for $2,500.
According to the inflation calculator at . . .
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
. . . you have to spend about $15,000 to get the same
value for an entry level automobile today. Okay, go
out and see what you can buy for that kind of money
and compare it with the features offered cars sold
for $2500 in 1963. I'd say that cars, like MOST
products we buy today have improved tremendously in
value after considering inflation-adjusted, lower
out-of-pocket costs.
A piece-o-crap Firestone 500 (best-we-knew-how-to-do)
cost me about $40 in 1963. What kind of tires can I buy
for $240 each today? Shucks, my last set of top-o-the-
line tires for my van cost me about $500 for THE SET.
Now consider that C-172. The inflation calculator says
that machine should sell for $49,000 today. Hmmmm . . .
are the airplane companies reaping huge windfall profits?
Is somebody getting paid too much to build them? What's the
deal?
Aircraft manufacturing is exceedingly labor intensive. Because
of low volumes and high development costs, there has been
very little motion toward automated assembly . . . but there
are limits to what can be realized there as well. What I've
personally observed over the years is that we spend 2 to 3
times more person hours in shepherding a new product to the
airplane than we did 30 years ago. Further, all of that
increased labor did NOT go into improving on the-best-we-
know-how-to-do . . . to the contrary, we spend less effort
toward that goal. Unless you pull the wheels up, a C-172
doesn't perform any better today than in did in 1963.
According to the site at . . .
http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml
a Garmin GA Equipped Skyhawk 172R will set you back $219,500.
Take out all the avionics and I'll bet it's still about $180,000.
That's $30,000 in 1963 dollars!
I'm sad to report that we do less engineering and more
certification in the process of bringing new products to
aviation. Needless to say, all the extra labor adds to
out-the-door costs for the airplane while adding nothing
to its value.
A fair amount of blame can be trowled on to school systems more interested
in training children to take meaningless tests than in actual learning, too.
An interesting point . . . but consider the bureaucrat's
role in "managing" an educational system. Anybody outside
the classroom except for the janitor is a bureaucrat.
They do not teach, they can only make rules, police rules and
punish transgressors of the rules. Furthermore, they draw
salaries and benefits without adding to the task of
product delivery in the classroom. Sound like government?
Okay, government goes to the bureaucrats in charge of
schools and says, "you ain't cut'n it Jake. Shape up
or we'll punish you (cut off funds)." What tools do
bureaucrats have to guage performance? Of course -
standardized tests. All this posturing, rule making,
policing, test taking and threat of punishment totally
ignores the simple-ideas that govern the educational
process:
Teachers who possess a command of simple-ideas and
a willingness and talent for explaining how they are
used to do useful things like communicate, calculate,
bring new and beneficial ideas into a free-market
economy and to be responsible and honorable users of
those ideas. And most important - understand how we got
where we are and what duties the honorable citizen takes
on under a democratic republic.
This is best achieved when consumers (parents) have
absolute responsibility and control over the services
they're paying for (knowledge and talents of teachers).
When I was in grade school, the school board (5 citizens
at zero salary) hired one bureaucrat (a principal at
a salary about 1.5x that of a teacher), and the principal
hired teachers. The parents (through their fellow citizens
on the school board and an exceedingly small bureaucracy
of one) had short-coupled input to ALL the suppliers
of goods and services offered in the classroom. (Medicine
Lodge, KS circa 1949-1953.) Anyone from the state of Kansas
or Washington, DC who decided to dictate anything would have
been told to "take a hike." Our teachers goals were to
EXCEED what were then suggested 'standards' for education.
I suspect they met their own goals. It's a sad state of
affairs when schools today are struggling to even meet perfectly
reasonable minimums.
It was a certainty that I received a higher quality
of education then than anyone gets today where the
focus shifts from teaching to raising test scores
to forestall loss of funding (got to keep all those
bureaucrats employed and their pension fund contributions
flowing). I suspect that most school systems could get
along nicely without funds from Washington if they
operated with a truly utilitarian bureaucratic staff.
But there are other systems that would need to be tossed
out as well.
A study of the big picture reveals that it's not a
"breakdown of schools" but no-value added growth in
several systems that have been allowed to take over schools.
Systems where the consumer/supplier relationship has been
corrupted to benefit the systems and forsake a
responsibility to good teachers, willing students
and those parents who view schools as having duties
beyond that of keeping their kids off the streets a few
hours a day.
Flying takes hard work and a dedication to continued learning. Our school
boards seem to be more interested in finding out how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin, than in giving kids a good grounding in science. I've
done presentations at elementary and high schools to kids who have never
heard much of anything about aviation except that it is used by vacationers
and terrorists.
And as for my wanting to save the stupid from themselves, I believe the
adage that aviation is like a self cleaning oven. When my oven is cleaned,
the nightly news doesn't find much interest, unlike the Cessna 150 hanging
upside down from the power lines.
Your cynicism is well stroked by anecdotal observations
but I think the underlying cause for increases in the
price of airplanes AND the perceived reduction in
numbers of responsible and capable folks to use them
has roots that go right down to public perceptions
of the proper function of government. For every responsibility
we turn over to someone else, a bit of freedom
is lost. Further, a constant companion to loss of personal
freedom is loss of efficiency coupled with loss
of the consumer's choice to refuse to pay for an inferior
product and force a poor performing producer out of business.
The short answer is: Everything we allow government
to touch becomes more expensive and offers less value
than products which compete with each other in the
marketplace. Every service supplied by government is
non-competitive and what-you-see-is-what-you-get. In
the few cases where we're allowed to refuse a service,
we are compelled to pay for it anyhow. Therefore, producers
of poor product are not at risk for going under due
to lack of customer acceptance. Aviation, medicine and
schools are great demonstrations of how this phenomenon
works when compared to computers, automobiles, and
most consumer products.
Plotting present trends in aviation, medicine and
schools out into the future does not paint an attractive
picture in my mind. I'll leave it to you to paint your
own pictures. But if we're going to react to injustices
heaped upon us as a MINORITY of pilots, we'll have to
support those objections as a MAJORITY of honorable
citizens who expect better behavior from their government.
In the final analysis, if government adhered to the
Constitution, then there would be no special interest
groups prowling the halls of Congress or pitching their
complaint du jour to the world . . . that's because
government would not be making legislation that puts
one citizen or group of citizens above or below another.
I.e., if the only thing your legislators are chartered
to do is protect liberty, then it matters not who you
send. Further, there will be no troughs to fight over for
a great share of the public purse. Lobbyists would be
out of a job!
Bob . . .
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held |
Bob,
Re website with discussion on IC-ANT-SB
www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288
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! --
|