AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Mon 11/26/07


Total Messages Posted: 27



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     0. 12:06 AM - Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published Dec 1! (Matt Dralle)
     1. 04:53 AM - Re: Comm Radio Problem (Bob-tcw)
     2. 04:53 AM - Re: RV trim tab connector, was Tefzel cables and d-sub connectors (glen matejcek)
     3. 06:00 AM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     4. 06:09 AM - Re: What Are You Thankful For...? (Dave Henderson)
     5. 06:27 AM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Frank Stringham)
     6. 06:51 AM - Re: What Are You Thankful For...? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     7. 07:01 AM - Re: Comm Radio Problem (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     8. 07:03 AM - Re: HD pins for D-sub connectors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     9. 07:15 AM - Re: Re: Black and Decker VPX 7V LiIon Batteries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    10. 08:07 AM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Dj Merrill)
    11. 08:17 AM - Re: sweat soldering fast-on tabs (Ernest Christley)
    12. 09:08 AM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection ()
    13. 09:12 AM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA ()
    14. 09:34 AM - Re: sweat soldering fast-on tabs (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    15. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    16. 10:23 AM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection ()
    17. 01:06 PM - Re: Radio Static Help (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
    18. 03:32 PM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (The Kuffels)
    19. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Ernest Christley)
    20. 05:40 PM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Eric Newton)
    21. 07:26 PM - Re: Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Matt Prather)
    22. 07:44 PM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
    23. 07:57 PM - Re: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Richard Girard)
    24. 08:34 PM - Re: Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Bruce Gray)
    25. 08:38 PM - Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
    26. 10:55 PM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Michael D. Cencula)
 
 
 


Message 0


  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:06:16 AM PST US
    From: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
    Subject: Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published
    Dec 1! Dear Listers, The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! On December 1st I post a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. As a number of people have pointed out in their Contribution comments, these Lists seems at least as valuable of a building/flying/recreating tool as a typical your magazine subscription! And how interactive is a magazine, after all? Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 USA (Please include your email address on the check!) I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator


    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
    Time: 04:53:08 AM PST US
    From: "Bob-tcw" <rnewman@tcwtech.com>
    Subject: Re: Comm Radio Problem
    Bryan, I did battle with my Garmin 530 communications radio for months in my Glastar after an instrument panel re-do. It had been great for 7 years, after the panel overhaul. I had similar communications problems. At various times it worked great, other times not at all. Ultimately I found a bad coax connection. The shield of the coax was not making connection with connector at the radio end. It was one of those coax connectors that uses a set-screw to connect the shield to the connector body. It was not a crimp on style. I changed the connector to a crimp on type and the problem has been solved. We tried everything under the sun, including getting a loaner 530 from Garmin, but the smoking gun was in the connector. Bob Newman www.tcwtech.com


    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
    Time: 04:53:09 AM PST US
    From: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
    Subject: RE: RV trim tab connector, was Tefzel cables and d-sub
    connectors Hi Terry- I used an annular connector from RS, soldered and shoe gooed. It is heat shrunk and clamped in place on the deck under the emp fairing. Results in a smaller hole in the spars for pass through and more protection from wx for the connector. FWIW- glen matejcek aerobubba@earthlink.net


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:00:03 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    At 09:51 PM 11/25/2007 -0700, you wrote: > >I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George >(gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft needing a >"nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only needing a "Magnetic >Direction Indicator" But his statement "you can fly without a compass at >all in an experimental for VFR day. However for VFR night/IFR you do need >a compass" is in error. > >AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to any FAR >question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say." The vast majority of unhappy events in airplanes happen because somebody did something careless or stupid. The survival of the agencies that craft virtual libraries of "rules to make us safe" hinges upon the ignorance of both agency foot soldiers AND citizen subjects. Ignorance of all parties in the discussion obscures the great rules to make us safe hoax. The "real" problem is that like most no- value-added activities that government bestows upon the great numbers of ignorant and unwashed among us is that members of these august organizations are products of the same schools and lifestyles to which we subject our children today. When a group of individuals like those who choose to become competent builders and operators of airplanes begin to examine "the rules", they are confounded by the lack of clarity for what the rules are intended to accomplish exacerbated by lack of understanding and practical authority on the part of agency foot soldiers. The inevitable result of discussions intended to clarify the unclear is not unlike the Presbyterians debating the Baptists as to which of them is going to hell because he/she is not correctly interpreting and observing the "true and proper rule." Not once in my admittedly limited flying career have I found it necessary or even useful to refer to the magnetic heading indicator hanging from the windshield other than to set the DG before takeoff . . . and knowing the runway alignment gets one in the ballpark for DG settings anyhow. I fly with dual, hand-held, battery powered GPS as sole source of really useful navigation information. This makes stuff on the panel my multiply redundant backup for the hand-helds which (if blessed with well considered management of batteries) have never failed to offer data needed for competent navigation. Data with stability and quality that far exceeds anything the cork bobbling in the bottle or stuff on the panel can offer. But like TSA folks who "make us safe" from terrorism my frisking old ladies and babies for box cutters, crusaders against stupid behavior are obligated to enforce their (or their supervisor's) interpretation of the rules. Like the Presbyterians and Baptists, no matter how the discussion resolves, the participants remain just just as vulnerable to acts of stupid behavior as if the rules had never existed. If someone with the power to make your life miserable says "you gotta have a compass" then the really smart people click their heals, salute and say "SIR, YES SIR!" Once that little piece of paper is signed assuring one and all that stupid behavior is hereby and forever banished from your airplane's cockpit, take the thing out. Your successful recipe for mitigating risk has more to do with understanding design goals that go to assuring a long and prosperous life than will dutiful observance of "rules against stupid behavior". Yeah, there's always risk of crossing paths with the dreaded and sometimes dangerous predators known as ramp-checkers. Tell them the compass was pulled to go into a shop for re-juicing and a health checkup . . . then ask if you can buy them a cup of coffee. But try to avoid further debate about which of you is going to hell for failure to observe any particular rule. I am observing a slow but inexorable climb in "warranty expense" to manufacturers who have embraced the great "rules against stupid behavior" hoax (ISO9000 among others). The rise in cost of ownership for a contemporary production airplane continues to outpace inflation. Return on investment for both manufacturer and owner keeps getting worse because a penchant for crafting and enforcing rules has replaced the need for understanding and individual pride of competent craftsmanship. You folks here on the List may be among the last communities in aviation where relative safety happens because you're more focused on doing a competent job than upon "dancing to the music of the rule books." Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 06:09:57 AM PST US
    From: "Dave Henderson" <wf-k@mindspring.com>
    Subject: What Are You Thankful For...?
    Matt, Thank you for all your work. I wish to stay on the RV list but please rmove me from the AreoElectric-List. David Henderson RV-7 N925LW (Lord Willing) -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:13 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: What Are You Thankful For...? Dear Listers, Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving. Many of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in generous feasts of plenty and giving thanks for many blessings that have been bestowed upon us. Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they are for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all of the assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the Lists. One of my favorite kind of comments is when write to me and says something like, "Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my morning coffee!". That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of these Lists. Its always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out of bed each morning to check my List email!! Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and for their continued operation and upgrade? The List Contribution Site is: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance for your kind consideration, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator


    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
    Time: 06:27:23 AM PST US
    From: Frank Stringham <fstringham@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    Bob Thanks for stating my sentiments.........now back to fending off those that believe the letter of law (always) trumps common sense. Frank @ SGU RV7A 96% done 90% to go.....Z13/8


    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
    Time: 06:51:12 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: What Are You Thankful For...?
    David, You get off the List at the same place you got on the List . . . http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/ Bob . . . At 09:08 AM 11/26/2007 -0500, you wrote: ><wf-k@mindspring.com> > >Matt, > >Thank you for all your work. >I wish to stay on the RV list but please rmove me from the >AreoElectric-List. > >David Henderson RV-7 >N925LW (Lord Willing)


    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
    Time: 07:01:45 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Comm Radio Problem
    At 07:13 PM 11/25/2007 -0800, you wrote: >Need help from the RF guru's, > >I have been trying to resolve a problem with a friend's comm radio for >some time now with no success. > >Transmit is never a problem and reception is good most of the time. The >problem is local to some areas, frequencies and direction of flight. > >Specific example: Depart CNO talking to SoCal on 125.5, all is well when >flying westbound. On return leg (eastbound) to CNO, unable to receive >SoCal but the controller receives me perfect (this is evident by other >aircraft relaying messages from the controller and the fact that once I >can hear the controller he is not very happy). It does not appear to be >an issue with SoCal as I can hear them when flying eastbound with an Icom >handheld. > >This same problem occurs in other areas also but is very prominent in the >example given. > >The same problem remains after multiple changes: KX-170B, Garmin SL-30, >Stainless antenna, two different fiberglass whip antenna's and have tried >both top and bottom mounting. The only thing that has not (yet) changed >is the coax which is currently RG-58. > >I am at whit's end, any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Bob Newman has made an excellent suggestion that I can only echo. If your radio bench-checks okay, then something is amiss in the installation and the MOST likely culprit will be the antenna system. Since you can't do much to hose up a piece of steel once crafted into an antenna, this leaves the coax and connectors. See if you can get an SWR bridge to check your antenna's electrical performance and go over the connectors with a fine toothed comb. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 07:03:43 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: HD pins for D-sub connectors
    At 09:36 PM 11/25/2007 -0600, you wrote: > >Bob, > >Is it feasible to use a custom crimp tool positioner like >(http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/crmptool.pdf) to crimp the >high-density d-sub pins (such as Garmin) using an inexpensive (B&C) crimp tool? > >Jim Dabney I believe it is. I don't use the HD connectors in my practice so I don't have inventory on those materials to do any tests. I've used the $low$ crimp tool to install some 22AWG HD pins some years ago and the cursory test for pull-out resistance looked good. The pin-positioner is the wrong shape for HD pins so you have to manually position the pin in the tool jaws. Of course, if you can find a tool like that shown in the article you cited, it is adjustable for exactly the right crimp. However, I think the tool sold by B&C will work. Bob . . .


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:15:04 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Black and Decker VPX 7V LiIon Batteries
    At 04:30 AM 11/26/2007 +0000, you wrote: > >Hi Bob > >"Yeah, found those at Wally-World a few hours ago myself. Home Depot was >$20 a battery too. I picked up a battery + charger for $39. So, looks like >the 1VPX battery is the "magic bullet" to be explored." > >When you are testing this "magic bullet", please explore and share at what >amperage drain is needed to shatter this bullet and burst into flames (if >it will in fact do so), and if it is somehow protected to prevent this. No >matter, a nice number to know and fuse or fusible link short of that >'short' number if no internal protection provided. Sure. After I've fully explored the chemistry I'll take one apart and see what fusible links, over-temp switches, etc have been included in fabricating the device. I'll also do a dead-short test on one to see how it behaves. >Another concern is bursting into flames during charging if overcharged. >Worth it to have a good look at charger, and see just how robust circuit >is to failing in overcharge mode. > >Also is there protection to prevent discharge to point it will damage >cells? > >On purpose discharge only 1 cell of the 2 cell pack to lets say 1.75 >volts. Then go charge and see if charger is smart enough to not burn the >house down. > >When you are on purpose testing, not a bad idea to do so over an area that >will not catch fire, and hang a plastic bag with sand in it over battery. >This way "when" it catches fire it will melt bag and extinguish. Given the recent events on battery fires (limited to certain combinations of chemistry) there is increased focus on LiIon battery battery safety. I would be surprised if B&D hasn't covered all the bases here. While LiIon may be the acknowledged wave of the future, a company with pockets as deep as B&D is going to do everything they can to keep cash-diggers at arms length. Besides, it's really bad for business if the peddlers of crisis du jour point their fingers at you an scream "Fire Bug". I think we're on pretty good ground for safety. The issues to be resolved will probably hinge on performance. UL is going to do the beat-n-bash on this product. I suspect my friends a the Crane Navel Battery Testing Labs will get their hands on them too. I'll make some phone calls. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 08:07:09 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    From: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
    The Kuffels wrote: > > By reference, we do have to comply with 91.205 which covers required > equipment for day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other > conditions. As far as I can tell, experimental aircraft flying day VFR do not have to comply with 91.205. Your Operating Limitations on your experimental aircraft generally say something like "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". 91.205 itself says " Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.", which does not apply to experimental aircraft on its own, but only by reference to the above statement in your Operating Limitations. It would appear that experimental aircraft only have to follow 91.205 if flying at night or IFR. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ http://deej.net/sportsman/ "Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005


    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
    Time: 08:17:44 AM PST US
    From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
    Subject: Re: sweat soldering fast-on tabs
    sam ray wrote: > > Bob > I'm curious how you sweat soldered the fast-on tabs > to the bronze substrate- did you use electrical rosin > core or solid along with some flux? > > Thank you, > Sam Ray > I used standard electrical rosin cored solder. Lined the tabs up on the strip, and heated from the bottom with a pencil torch. Touch the hole in the center of each tab till it fills with solder. Takes less time to set up and solder a strip than it does to type this email. If I had to do it over again, I'd just order from StenAir. At a buck for a 10-gang unit, it's not worth the hassle of chasing down the materials and getting set up for the job to do my own.


    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
    Time: 09:08:23 AM PST US
    From: <brinker@suddenlinkmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing". This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy. Randy ---- The Kuffels <kuffel@cyberport.net> wrote: > > I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George > (gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft > needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only > needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you > can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day. > However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error. > > AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to > any FAR question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say." > > Parts 23 (General Aviation and Commuter) and 25 (Transport) cover > certification of aircraft. They contain the only reference in > the FARs to a compass equipment requirement. And they don't > apply to homebuilt experimental aircraft. By reference, we do > have to comply with 91.205 which covers required equipment for > day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other conditions. > > 91.205(b) is day VFR. 91.205(b)(3) requires a "Magnetic > Direction Indicator" without any other qualification. This is > the legal authority to use a Dynon in lieu of a wet compass. > > 91.205(c) covers night VFR. It says you must have the stuff in > 91.205(b) and then some other stuff (lights, etc.) but no other > reference to direction. But we have already established > 91.205(b) doesn't require a compass. Thus neither does 91.205(c) > for night VFR. > > 91.205(d) is for IFR. Same story. It requires the stuff in > 91.205(b) and, for night, the stuff in 91.205(c) and then a lot > of other stuff without reference to any compass. 91.205(d)(9) > does require a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro > or equivalent)". The "or equivalent" is what lets the Dynon also > be acceptable for IFR. > > Bottom line there is no *legal* requirement for a homebuilt > experimental aircraft to have a compass for day, night or IFR. > But I still have one to avoid hassles (and as a backup). > > The idea of temporarily mounting a cheap compass might put you in > a gray area. It can be argued if your plane was certified with a > compass then it must always have a compass. Removal might give > an out to an insurance company or a justification to a "helpful" > FAA ramp or accident inspector. > > Tom Kuffel > > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 09:12:19 AM PST US
    From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA
    >From: The Kuffels kuffel@cyberport.net >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA >Inspection > >I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George >(gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft >needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only >needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you >can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day. >However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error. Tom I hesitate to discuss on AeroElectic as well but the reason is below. If you don't believe me call EAA legal. (see the table below) I agree good practice and what you can get away with are not the same. It comes down to FAA Order 8130.2F, which omits Day VFR. However ELT and transponder may still be needed. According to the EAA you can fly with out ANY instruments in an experimental DAY VFR, ANY!. See the list below. Not sure if the pagination will display properly. I think your logic is GOOD but the FAR's are legal documents don't always make sense, aka legal loop-holes. The FAA must follow the law. However they have these "positions" that get inertia and become de facto law. I am talking legal not practical or de facto positions. Fact is the FAR's are struggling to keep up with modern EFIS GA planes. You can lean and recive your pvt, inst ratings 100% in a Garmin 1000 airplane and its legal to fly IFR the day after your check ride in a 1978 steam gauge Cessna, or vise a verse. There is a need to rewrite the FAR's. MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT Introduction: The table below is intended to give the builder of amateur built experimental aircraft a ready reference for the instrument and equipment requirements for his aircraft. The builder should note that some items required by the FARs are described in the FARs as needing to be approved, but since there are no certification standards established for amateur built experimental aircraft no formal individual item approval, such as meeting a TSO (Technical Standard Order) or FAR Part 23, is required. However certain items must interface properly with ATC (Air Traffic Control), other aircraft, or other entities external to the aircraft. Transponders, communication radios, exterior lighting and ELTs (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are examples of such equipment. Therefore, the builder can expect that the initial airworthiness inspection of his aircraft will require evidence that this type of equipment in the aircraft is acceptable to the FAA. The Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for each amateur built experimental aircraft includes specific Operating Limitations. Per FAA Order 8130.2F the Operating Limitations state: 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. The FARs, FAA Order 8130.2F, and current FAA policy have been used in constructing the below amateur built experimental aircraft configuration requirements table. THIS TABLE DOES NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BEST PRACTICES. INSTALLING ONLY THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ITEMS MAY NOT BE PRUDENT OR SAFE. By Owen C. Baker with appreciation to Richard E. Koehler. MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT DAY NIGHT DAY OR FAR & ITEM DESCRIPTION (See Notes Below Table) VFR VFR NIGHT IFR 1. 91.205 (b) (1) Airspeed Indicator NR R R 2. 91.205 (b) (2) Altimeter NR R R 3. 91.205 (b) (3) Magnetic Direction Indicator NR R R 4. 91.205 (b) (4) Tachometer for Each Engine NR R R 5. 91.205 (b) (5) Oil Pressure Gauge for Each Engine Using a Pressure System NR R R 6. 91.205 (b) (6) Temperature Gauge for Each Liquid Cooled Engine NR R R 7. 91.205 (b) (7) Oil Temperature Gauge for Each Air Cooled Engine NR R R 8. 91.205 (b) (8) Manifold Pressure Gauge for Each Altitude Engine NR R R 9. 91.205 (b) (9) Fuel Gauge Indicating Quantity of Fuel In Each Tank NR R R 10. 91.205 (b) (10) Landing Gear Position Indicator, If Retractable NR R R 11. 91.205 (b) (11) Anti-Collision Light System - (Small civil airplanes certified after 3/11/96) NR R R 12. 91.205 (b) (13) Approved Safety Belts With Metal to Metal Buckles for Each Occupant (2 yrs or older) NR R R 13. 91.205 (b) (14) Approved Shoulder Harness for Each Front Seat - For Small Civil Airplanes Manufactured After 7/18/78 NR R R 14. 91.205 (b) (15) ELT (If required by Sec. 91.207, i.e. >one seat and >50 miles) AR AR AR 15. 91.205 (b) (16) Approved Shoulder Harness for Each Seat Airplanes With 9 or Less Seats Manufactured After 12/12/86 NR R R 16. 91.205 (b) (17) Shoulder Harness for Each Seat For Rotorcraft Manufactured After 9/16/92 NR R R 17. 91.205 (c) (2) Approved Position (navigation) Lights NR R R 18. 91.205 (c) (3) Anti-Collision Light System (Systems installed after 8/11/71- see reference) NR R R 19. 91.205 (c) (5) Adequate Source of Electrical Energy for Installed Equipment NR R R 20. 91.205 (c) (6) One Spare Set of Fuses or Three Fuses of Each Kind Required, Must be Accessible to Pilot In Flight NR R R 21. 91.205 (d) (2) Two-Way Radio Communication System and Navigational Equipment Appropriate to Ground Facilities Used NR NR R 22. 91.205 (d) (3) Gyroscopic Rate of Turn Indicator (Some Exceptions, See Reference) NR NR R 23. 91.205 (d) (4) Slip-Skid Indicator NR NR R 24. 91.205 (d) (5) Sensitive Altimeter Adjustable for Barometric Pressure, (See FAR 91.411, Altimeter System Inspection Required Every 24 Calendar Months) NR NR R 25. 91.205 (d) (6) Clock Displaying Hours, Minutes, and Seconds Sweep Second Pointer or Digital NR NR R 26. 91.205 (d) (7) Electrical Generator or Alternator of Adequate Capacity NR NR R 27. 91.205 (d) (8) Gyroscopic Bank and Pitch Indicator (Artificial Horizon) NR NR R 28. 91.205 (d) (9) Gyroscopic Direction Indicator (Directional Gyro or Equivalent) NR NR R 29. 91.205 (e) DME Above FL 240 N/A N/A AR 30. 91.215, Transponder in Certain Airspace, (See FAR 91.413, Inspection Required Every 24 Calendar Months) AR AR AR Notes: (1) AR = As Required, NR = Not Required, N/A = Not Applicable, R = Required (2) A fourth flight operation category, Day (only) Instruments, is not included above. ABEA Minimum Inst Requirements 7.doc 11/17/2005 --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.


    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
    Time: 09:34:12 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: sweat soldering fast-on tabs
    At 10:51 AM 11/26/2007 -0500, you wrote: ><echristley@nc.rr.com> > >sam ray wrote: >> >>Bob >> I'm curious how you sweat soldered the fast-on tabs >>to the bronze substrate- did you use electrical rosin >>core or solid along with some flux? >> >>Thank you, >>Sam Ray >> >I used standard electrical rosin cored solder. Lined the tabs up on the >strip, and heated from the bottom with a pencil torch. Touch the hole in >the center of each tab till it fills with solder. Takes less time to set >up and solder a strip than it does to type this email. > >If I had to do it over again, I'd just order from StenAir. At a buck for >a 10-gang unit, it's not worth the hassle of chasing down the materials >and getting set up for the job to do my own. Interesting observation sir! I've always encouraged builders to be aware of the economics of their use of $time$. If the goal is to minimize the total cost of $time$ to get an airplane licensed and flying, then it makes sense to consider the make/buy decision when it comes to acquiring all the goodies needed to finish the project. I think I recall an gentleman at OSH telling me years ago that he would have been $time$ ahead to get a second job and pay a "pro" to build his airplane. Of course, he would would run the risk of knowing no more about the airplane than if he were flying a spam-can. Bottom line is that education is always expensive so the expenditure of $time$ has to be weighed against the perceived value of education and the pleasure of doing it yourself. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 09:58:44 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    At 11:02 AM 11/26/2007 -0600, you wrote: > > The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most > experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one > that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could > just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I > don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass > to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse > something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing". > This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy. Sounds good to me. Cuts way down on the need for "A glass of Jack and an aspirin sandwich." 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
    Time: 10:23:45 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    From: <longg@pjm.com>
    I completely agree. Why do some fret over such trivial bs when there are much bigger problems behind your panel? If you want to be a real cheapo, just borrow one from your neighbor. For the price of my 330 transponder I could decorate the hanger with compasses. Next topic please -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of brinker@suddenlinkmail.com Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing". This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy. Randy ---- The Kuffels <kuffel@cyberport.net> wrote: > --> <kuffel@cyberport.net> > > I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George > (gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft > needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only > needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you > can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day. > However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error. > > AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to > any FAR question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say." > > Parts 23 (General Aviation and Commuter) and 25 (Transport) cover > certification of aircraft. They contain the only reference in > the FARs to a compass equipment requirement. And they don't > apply to homebuilt experimental aircraft. By reference, we do > have to comply with 91.205 which covers required equipment for > day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other conditions. > > 91.205(b) is day VFR. 91.205(b)(3) requires a "Magnetic > Direction Indicator" without any other qualification. This is > the legal authority to use a Dynon in lieu of a wet compass. > > 91.205(c) covers night VFR. It says you must have the stuff in > 91.205(b) and then some other stuff (lights, etc.) but no other > reference to direction. But we have already established > 91.205(b) doesn't require a compass. Thus neither does 91.205(c) > for night VFR. > > 91.205(d) is for IFR. Same story. It requires the stuff in > 91.205(b) and, for night, the stuff in 91.205(c) and then a lot > of other stuff without reference to any compass. 91.205(d)(9) > does require a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro > or equivalent)". The "or equivalent" is what lets the Dynon also > be acceptable for IFR. > > Bottom line there is no *legal* requirement for a homebuilt > experimental aircraft to have a compass for day, night or IFR. > But I still have one to avoid hassles (and as a backup). > > The idea of temporarily mounting a cheap compass might put you in > a gray area. It can be argued if your plane was certified with a > compass then it must always have a compass. Removal might give > an out to an insurance company or a justification to a "helpful" > FAA ramp or accident inspector. > > Tom Kuffel > > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 01:06:35 PM PST US
    From: JSMcGrew@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Radio Static Help
    Hi, I appreciate all the suggestions regarding my radio static problems. I finally got my hands on another SL-30 unit and slid it into the tray... problem solved. Turns out my brand new SL-30 radio was the culprit. I sent it back for repair and just got word from Garmin that there was a bad solder joint inside my radio. -Jim RV-10 N312JE In a message dated 10/29/2007 6:10:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, frank.hinde@hp.com writes: -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ScooterF15 Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 1:33 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio Static Help Hi, I've been on the RV-10 list for a few years, but I've never posted to AeroElectric. I've searched the list and haven't found anything that helped to solve my problem. I'd appreciate any suggestions that you can offer: I've spent the last few weeks trying to track down a problem with radio static on my Garmin SL-30 Nav/Comm in my Vans RV-10. The SL-30 is attached to a Garmin GMA-340 Audio panel. The static itself sounds random (i.e. not obviously uniform like I would expect from an ignition system), however, it is somehow associated with engine throttle setting. The static starts around 2000 RPM and gets progressively worse as throttle increases. On takeoff, it is so bad you can not comprehend any received transmissions. During cruise it appears to be somehow associated with manifold pressure (i.e. throttle setting, not RPM). It makes listening to ATC difficult to impossible. I also think it may be affecting my radio transmissions as well, because when I have a hard time comprehending ATC, they also have a hard time understanding me. This static appears to be only affecting the Comm audio, there is no static on NAV audio reception. I have a belly mounted bent whip VHF antenna and a wingtip! VOR antenna. My handheld ICOM VHF radio does not have any static when used inside the cockpit. Also, I have a Lycoming IO-540 with one mag and one LightSpeed Plasma II+ ignition. I have searched various lists for ideas and tried to solve this problem, but I have had no success in changing it at all (for better or worse). Any suggestions for what to try or where to look will be welcome. Below is a list of some things I have tried with no luck. General -Shut off all avionics (except SL-30) and both ignition systems (not both at the same time) --So it doesn't appear to be interference from other electronics Antenna/Coaxial cable -Added ferrite signal filters at various locations along comm coax. -Connected SL-30 to a different comm antenna using a piece of RG-400 (tried various routings to antennas) -Connected SL-30 Comm to VOR antenna (great reception, still static) --So it doesn't appear to be antenna related Power/ground -Ensured engine grounding cables have good contacts on both ends -Apparently new Slick Magnetos have internal suppression and do not need a filter -Separated SL-30 power/ground leads from bundle to reduce potential interference from other wires -Ran SL-30 +12V and ground leads directly to battery -Disconnected serial connection between my SL-30 and EFIS indicator -Connected SL-30 to separate 12V battery sitting on floor of aircraft, disconnected power/ground to GMA-340. Attached ICOM handheld antenna directly to unit (SL-30 completely isolated from aircraft)-reception still has static -Ran ground wire from battery to SL-30 tray -Checked to ensure headseat jacks were isolated from aircraft ground. -Checked the shield connections for tachometer and fuel flow sensor wires I can't think of anything else to try. Again, I'd be happy to hear any suggestions. Thanks. -Jim N312JE Jim "Scooter" McGrew http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=142588#142588 Jim "Scooter" McGrew _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


    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
    Time: 03:32:22 PM PST US
    From: The Kuffels <kuffel@cyberport.net>
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    Dj and others say: << experimental aircraft flying day VFR do not have to comply with 91.205. Your Operating Limitations on your experimental aircraft generally say something like "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". >> My operating limitations say: "The aircraft shall contain .. equipment as required for type of flight, in accordance with FAR # 91.205." No exceptions for me. The moral here is better check your own specific operating limitations before thinking a generalized table is valid for you. But remember, the question was what is legal not reasonable. My planes always have a compass even if it's not "required". Tom Kuffel


    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
    Time: 05:25:45 PM PST US
    From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    brinker@suddenlinkmail.com wrote: > > The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing". This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy. > The hassle isn't having it on the panel, I would think. It is having to install it in the first place. If you've already gone through the fabrication to have a place for it, why would you store it in the baggage compartment 8*) I'm going to use a marine type compass on my project. One like http://www.fishreports.net/fishing-gear/images/marine-compass.jpg I'll cut a hole in the top of my dash that the compass will recess down into, right even with the bottom of the globe part. Just a half ball above the dash. It is just an ornamental piece in this day'n'age, so might as well make it an ornament.


    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
    Time: 05:40:01 PM PST US
    From: "Eric Newton" <enewton57@cableone.net>
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    I'm NOT "fretting" over the money - I'm fretting over cluttering up my glareshield with something I don't really need. Sorry if I irritated you. "Next topic" is fine with me. Eric Newton ----- Original Message ----- From: <longg@pjm.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:09 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection > > I completely agree. Why do some fret over such trivial bs when there are > much bigger problems behind your panel? If you want to be a real cheapo, > just borrow one from your neighbor. For the price of my 330 transponder > I could decorate the hanger with compasses. > > Next topic please > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > brinker@suddenlinkmail.com > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:03 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA > Inspection > > > > The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most > experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one > that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could > just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I > don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass > to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse > something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing". > This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy. > > Randy > > > ---- The Kuffels <kuffel@cyberport.net> wrote: >> --> <kuffel@cyberport.net> >> >> I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George >> (gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft >> needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only >> needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you >> can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day. >> However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error. >> >> AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to >> any FAR question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say." >> >> Parts 23 (General Aviation and Commuter) and 25 (Transport) cover >> certification of aircraft. They contain the only reference in >> the FARs to a compass equipment requirement. And they don't >> apply to homebuilt experimental aircraft. By reference, we do >> have to comply with 91.205 which covers required equipment for >> day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other conditions. >> >> 91.205(b) is day VFR. 91.205(b)(3) requires a "Magnetic >> Direction Indicator" without any other qualification. This is >> the legal authority to use a Dynon in lieu of a wet compass. >> >> 91.205(c) covers night VFR. It says you must have the stuff in >> 91.205(b) and then some other stuff (lights, etc.) but no other >> reference to direction. But we have already established >> 91.205(b) doesn't require a compass. Thus neither does 91.205(c) >> for night VFR. >> >> 91.205(d) is for IFR. Same story. It requires the stuff in >> 91.205(b) and, for night, the stuff in 91.205(c) and then a lot >> of other stuff without reference to any compass. 91.205(d)(9) >> does require a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro >> or equivalent)". The "or equivalent" is what lets the Dynon also >> be acceptable for IFR. >> >> Bottom line there is no *legal* requirement for a homebuilt >> experimental aircraft to have a compass for day, night or IFR. >> But I still have one to avoid hassles (and as a backup). >> >> The idea of temporarily mounting a cheap compass might put you in >> a gray area. It can be argued if your plane was certified with a >> compass then it must always have a compass. Removal might give >> an out to an insurance company or a justification to a "helpful" >> FAA ramp or accident inspector. >> >> Tom Kuffel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >


    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
    Time: 07:26:31 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
    Has anyone tried to have the wording of their op-lims changed (or customized) before they were issues (when it might arguably be easier to accomplish)? Maybe even talk to the DAR before he comes out and ask him how they are going to be worded.. Regards, Matt- > <kuffel@cyberport.net> > > Dj and others say: > > << experimental aircraft flying day VFR do not have to comply > with 91.205. Your Operating Limitations on your > experimental aircraft generally say something like "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". >> > > My operating limitations say: > > "The aircraft shall contain .. equipment as required for type of > flight, in accordance with FAR # 91.205." No exceptions for me. > > The moral here is better check your own specific operating > limitations before thinking a generalized table is valid for you. > > But remember, the question was what is legal not reasonable. My > planes always have a compass even if it's not "required". > > Tom Kuffel > >


    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
    Time: 07:44:43 PM PST US
    From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    In a message dated 11/25/2007 5:05:29 PM Central Standard Time, gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes: Call the EAA legal department. They don't work in a vacuum, they work with the FAA. >>> Debate this all you want- bottom line is that when the DAR is standing in front of you, inspection done and paperwork sitting on the desk awaiting a signature and he/she sez "I'm sorry, but you don't have (blahblahblahblah) so I can't issue your certificate- but get into compliance and make another appointment (and bring a check for another $100 for my trouble) and I'll slip you the pink... You folks know your airplanes inside & out- does it make any sense to NOT get to know your DAR and what he/she expects to see on the appointed day beforehand? Avoid surprises- preflight your DAR... Mark **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


    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
    Time: 07:57:44 PM PST US
    From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    Since I will soon be spending a lot of time with my DAR, I took a lot of interest in this discussion and I think I learned something out of it. Thanks to all of you, especially Ron Parigor. The more I learn about the FAR's the better off I am, in my opinion, and this group is a wealth of knowledge on the subject. I will be very careful when I read my op limits. Rick Girard On Nov 26, 2007 7:26 PM, Eric Newton <enewton57@cableone.net> wrote: > enewton57@cableone.net> > > I'm NOT "fretting" over the money - I'm fretting over cluttering up my > glareshield with something I don't really need. Sorry if I irritated you. > > "Next topic" is fine with me. > > Eric Newton > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <longg@pjm.com> > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:09 PM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA > Inspection > > > > > > I completely agree. Why do some fret over such trivial bs when there are > > much bigger problems behind your panel? If you want to be a real cheapo, > > just borrow one from your neighbor. For the price of my 330 transponder > > I could decorate the hanger with compasses. > > > > Next topic please > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > > brinker@suddenlinkmail.com > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:03 PM > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA > > Inspection > > > > > > > > The cost of a Whisky compass compared to other instruments most > > experimental builders purchase is rather moot. Why not just install one > > that can be removed and installed in seconds. If ramp checked one could > > just reach to the readilly available compass and slide it into place. I > > don't think there is anything stated in the FAR's requiring the compass > > to be permanently mounted. If ramp checked one could use an excuse > > something like "I dismounted it for better visability while landing". > > This is what I plan to do. Hopefully it will keep everyone happy. > > > > Randy > > > > > > ---- The Kuffels <kuffel@cyberport.net> wrote: > >> --> <kuffel@cyberport.net> > >> > >> I hesitate to get involved in a "discussion" with George > >> (gmcjetpilot). He is correct about type certified aircraft > >> needing a "nonstabilized magnetic compass" but homebuilts only > >> needing a "Magnetic Direction Indicator" But his statement "you > >> can fly without a compass at all in an experimental for VFR day. > >> However for VFR night/IFR you do need a compass" is in error. > >> > >> AOPA always advises in their CFI refresher clinics to reply to > >> any FAR question with "I don't know. Let's read what they say." > >> > >> Parts 23 (General Aviation and Commuter) and 25 (Transport) cover > >> certification of aircraft. They contain the only reference in > >> the FARs to a compass equipment requirement. And they don't > >> apply to homebuilt experimental aircraft. By reference, we do > >> have to comply with 91.205 which covers required equipment for > >> day VFR, night VFR and IFR (day or night) among other conditions. > >> > >> 91.205(b) is day VFR. 91.205(b)(3) requires a "Magnetic > >> Direction Indicator" without any other qualification. This is > >> the legal authority to use a Dynon in lieu of a wet compass. > >> > >> 91.205(c) covers night VFR. It says you must have the stuff in > >> 91.205(b) and then some other stuff (lights, etc.) but no other > >> reference to direction. But we have already established > >> 91.205(b) doesn't require a compass. Thus neither does 91.205(c) > >> for night VFR. > >> > >> 91.205(d) is for IFR. Same story. It requires the stuff in > >> 91.205(b) and, for night, the stuff in 91.205(c) and then a lot > >> of other stuff without reference to any compass. 91.205(d)(9) > >> does require a "Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro > >> or equivalent)". The "or equivalent" is what lets the Dynon also > >> be acceptable for IFR. > >> > >> Bottom line there is no *legal* requirement for a homebuilt > >> experimental aircraft to have a compass for day, night or IFR. > >> But I still have one to avoid hassles (and as a backup). > >> > >> The idea of temporarily mounting a cheap compass might put you in > >> a gray area. It can be argued if your plane was certified with a > >> compass then it must always have a compass. Removal might give > >> an out to an insurance company or a justification to a "helpful" > >> FAA ramp or accident inspector. > >> > >> Tom Kuffel > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 08:34:47 PM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    The contents of the OP Limits are dictated by the local FSDO, and except for some minor points cannot be changed by the ABDAR without approval from the FSDO. Bruce www.Glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Prather Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:14 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Was Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection Has anyone tried to have the wording of their op-lims changed (or customized) before they were issues (when it might arguably be easier to accomplish)? Maybe even talk to the DAR before he comes out and ask him how they are going to be worded.. Regards, Matt- > <kuffel@cyberport.net> > > Dj and others say: > > << experimental aircraft flying day VFR do not have to comply > with 91.205. Your Operating Limitations on your > experimental aircraft generally say something like "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". >> > > My operating limitations say: > > "The aircraft shall contain .. equipment as required for type of > flight, in accordance with FAR # 91.205." No exceptions for me. > > The moral here is better check your own specific operating > limitations before thinking a generalized table is valid for you. > > But remember, the question was what is legal not reasonable. My > planes always have a compass even if it's not "required". > > Tom Kuffel > >


    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
    Time: 08:38:33 PM PST US
    From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
    In a message dated 11/25/2007 2:34:20 PM Central Standard Time, echristley@nc.rr.com writes: I've heard rumors that a $2, suction-cup base, water-filled compass from the dollar stare is sufficient to satisfy the bean counters. >>> Correctamundo- just don't forget a correction card (or reasonable facsimile thereof) as some DARs sweat the details... *-) Mark do not archive ps- what're you staring at? <G>! **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


    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
    Time: 10:55:32 PM PST US
    From: "Michael D. Cencula" <matronics@cencula.com>
    Subject: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not)
    I'm way late to the party, but if anyone that's running an e-mail server can do it, turn on greylisting. For my humble postfix server here at home, greylisting alone reduced my personal spams from >400/day to <10/day. It definitely has a downside, though, in the form of some delivery delay for the first sender-recipient match in the list. Mike Cencula do not archive RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote: > > I realize that this thread is a bit stale but hey, what else is there to do while loosening the belt on Thanksgiving other than checking email lists that you are behind on. :-) > > Ernest I know you are a geek like many of us but you are a bit behind in the economics of email nowadays. I do large scale email systems design (20k to 100k+ users and 3-4 in a year) and I can tell you for a fact the infrastructure to do this isn't cheap. While you may think email is multicast, and in a perfect world it would be, the reality is RFC's aren't always followed as intended. In many cases only the connection may be constant assuming the emails are queued up in order, and each email to each user is sent individually. While not always CPU intensive (except for directory lookups and keeping a connection open), emails on this volume produce a crap load (technical term) of IO at the disks and it takes some serious hardware to keep from killing a disk subsystem or causing major queue backups. I believe this was the reason for the last couple of upgrades Matt completed. Spam has already been covered but I just wanted to add that any commercial service such as thi! > s is usually targeted heavier than a normal business. > <snip>




    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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --