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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | 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
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | 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 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: 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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
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! --
|