---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 12/07/07: 41 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:36 AM - IFR instrument check question () 2. 06:48 AM - Re: ANL 60 (Kevin Boddicker) 3. 07:10 AM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Bret Smith) 4. 07:50 AM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 5. 09:14 AM - Re: com antenna problem (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Th=E9o_Celis?=) 6. 09:45 AM - Radio question (Bert Murillo) 7. 10:13 AM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Robert Feldtman) 8. 10:31 AM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Buckaroo Banzai) 9. 10:46 AM - Re: Radio question (Bill Putney) 10. 10:52 AM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Dj Merrill) 11. 12:39 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 12. 12:55 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Dj Merrill) 13. 01:24 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Bruce Gray) 14. 01:39 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 15. 01:42 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 16. 01:53 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Bruce Gray) 17. 02:00 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Bruce Gray) 18. 02:03 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Bruce Gray) 19. 02:04 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 20. 02:09 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Kevin Horton) 21. 02:10 PM - "Sole Means" Navigation. Was: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 22. 02:11 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Dj Merrill) 23. 02:13 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 24. 02:21 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 25. 02:34 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 26. 02:38 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Bruce Gray) 27. 02:47 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 28. 03:00 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 29. 03:06 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 30. 03:15 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Kevin Horton) 31. 03:32 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 32. 03:34 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 33. 04:10 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Matt Prather) 34. 04:29 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 35. 04:56 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Bret Smith) 36. 05:05 PM - Re: ANL 60 (Ken) 37. 05:23 PM - Required VOR Check. Was: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 38. 06:21 PM - Re: Required VOR Check. Was: IFR instrument check question (Bret Smith) 39. 06:36 PM - Re: Required VOR Check. Was: IFR instrument check question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 40. 09:06 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Kelly McMullen) 41. 10:14 PM - Re: IFR instrument check question (Kelly McMullen) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:36:46 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question 12/7/2007 Hello Marty, You forwarded: "Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W navigators. I had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are now certified as a sole source navigation device....................skip..........." Can you please give us a little more information on this software update? 1) How is this software update identified? 2) How does one go about getting it installed in their 430W? 3) Where is there an explanation of the need for this update? Thanks, 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ----------------------------- Time: 07:38:27 PM PST US From: "Emrath" Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Here's a question from a fellow member in our local EAA Chapter. "Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W navigators. I had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are now certified as a sole source navigation device. One benefit of this is that my alternate airports can have only GPS approaches. A question I have is do I still need to do the 30-day accuracy checks on my VOR receivers? I assume the answer is no unless I plan to use my VOR receivers for navigation. I can't remember the last time I did that and have no plans to do so in the future. I've always used the GPS even when flying on airways. At Smyrna (MQY) it's not a big deal since there is a VOT on the field and it's usually working. There are lots of airports though that don't have a VOT and you can't receive the VOR on the ground. In that case you can't launch into IMC unless you have done an accuracy check. Presumably I'm now exempt from that if my GPS is functioning. Anyone know the answer?" Marty in Brentwood TN ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:48:28 AM PST US From: Kevin Boddicker Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ANL 60 Matt, I know there is plenty of room for the wire. I was just trying to make things look nice. I can rotate the termination 180=BA. I just need to angle it away from the FW. I also think I will apply another piece of shrink tube over the existing one. Thanks Again, Kevin Boddicker Tri Q 200 N7868B 79..6 hours Luana, IA. On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Matt Prather wrote: > > > Sounds like you might have it.. Can you grind the bolt down any > and still > get the not and lug on it? Or dent the firewall a bit with some > kind of > round tool (a socket of some sort). > > > Regards, > > Matt- > >> >> Kevin Boddicker >> Tri Q 200 N7868B hours >> Luana, IA. >> >> >> On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Matt Prather wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> It's an internally regulated alternator and you "excite the >>> field".. By >>> what means? Are you just connecting the sense line? >> >> I have a split rocker "ala Cessna". After start up I "turn on" excite >> the field. >>> >>> Do you know that the ANL is blown before turning on the >>> alternator? I >>> wonder if it's actually being blown out by a bad ground. I can't >>> visualize a conduction path at the moment, but possibly the b-lead >>> represents a ground path during starter operation? >>> >>> Another thought.. Are you sure it's actually a 55A alternator? >>> Would a >>> 110A unit blow an ANL60? Maybe not given the long time constant of >>> ANL's, >>> and assuming a charged battery. >> >> It is a 55A DN alt. converted from a Geo Metro. >> I "think I have it figured out. Not sure yet. I think the B-lead at >> the alt contactor is so close to the alum sheet that covers the >> firewall, or may be touching. If that is so the current could be able >> to go to ground via the firewall, forrest of tabs, ground lug to >> engine. I thought this last summer when I had the trouble, but could >> not find any sign of an arc. The termination is covered with black >> shrink tube, but it has some cracks in it. I do remember it getting >> close to the firewall as I tightened it last Sunday night. I also >> recall moving it away from the FW last summer and not letting it get >> close this fall after engine reinstall. I will check it out ASAP and >> let the group know. May be a while it is snowing here, and the >> forecast calls for more. >> The runway has been close since Saturday due to ice. >> Any comments are welcome. >> Thanks, >> Kevin >>> >>> >>> >>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator >>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using >>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect >>>>> scheme? >>>>> >>>>> Bob . . . >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60. >>>> I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened >>>> twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd. >>>> The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the >>>> engine >>>> back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he >>>> checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine. >>>> After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did >>>> have >>>> the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall >>>> when >>>> I fired it up. >>>> Not so this time. >>>> Thanks for your help, >>>> >>>> Kevin Boddicker >>>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours >>>> Luana, IA. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At 05:05 PM 12/5/2007 -0600, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bob, >>>>>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no >>>>>> idea why. >>>>>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put >>>>>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After >>>>>> start up >>>>>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the >>>>>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on. >>>>>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have >>>>>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not. >>>>>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old. >>>>>> Any suggestions? >>>>>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume >>>>> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of >>>>> the time without blowing the limiter? >>>>> >>>>> Normally, there's but two things that will open >>>>> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator >>>>> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in >>>>> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator >>>>> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards. >>>>> or external battery connected to system is >>>>> jumper cabled in backwards. >>>>> >>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator >>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using >>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect >>>>> scheme? >>>>> >>>>> Bob . . . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:10:40 AM PST US From: "Bret Smith" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Here you go OC... http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2007/071206garmin.html Bret Smith RV-9A "Fuselage" Blue Ridge, GA www.FlightInnovations.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 7:30 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question > > 12/7/2007 > > Hello Marty, You forwarded: "Garmin has finally released new software for > its 500W and 400W navigators. I had it installed today in my 430W and > 530W. With this release, my GPSs are > now certified as a sole source navigation > device....................skip..........." > > Can you please give us a little more information on this software update? > > 1) How is this software update identified? > > 2) How does one go about getting it installed in their 430W? > > 3) Where is there an explanation of the need for this update? > > Thanks, > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > ----------------------------- > > Time: 07:38:27 PM PST US > From: "Emrath" > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question > > > Here's a question from a fellow member in our local EAA Chapter. > > > "Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W > navigators. > I > had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are > now certified as a sole source navigation device. One benefit of this is > that my alternate airports can have only GPS approaches. > > A question I have is do I still need to do the 30-day accuracy checks on > my > VOR receivers? I assume the answer is no unless I plan to use my VOR > receivers for navigation. I can't remember the last time I did that and > have > no plans to do so in the future. I've always used the GPS even when flying > on airways. At Smyrna (MQY) it's not a big deal since there is a VOT on > the > field and it's usually working. There are lots of airports though that > don't > have a VOT and you can't receive the VOR on the ground. In that case you > can't launch into IMC unless you have done an accuracy check. Presumably > I'm > now exempt from that if my GPS is functioning. > > Anyone know the answer?" > > > Marty in Brentwood TN > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:50:02 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Morning OC, Since I have not yet seen an answer to your timely question, may I interject a bit? I have not yet had the update performed so what I do contribute will be from a rather faulty memory and hearsay. However I will try my best. Answers will be inserted in your text as best I can. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 6:38:43 A.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb@cox.net writes: Hello Marty, You forwarded: "Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W navigators. I had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are now certified as a sole source navigation device....................skip..........." Can you please give us a little more information on this software update? 1) How is this software update identified? Only a wild guess here, but I am reasonably confident you will be able to check it at the start up page. 2) How does one go about getting it installed in their 430W? Take it to your dealer and they will update it in place. My informant's tell me it takes about ten minutes to do the update and an hour or less for the paperwork. 3) Where is there an explanation of the need for this update? That's a bit tougher. My recollection is that there was a service letter, an AD, or both, which came out a year or two ago telling us that the Garmin 480 was no longer approved for sole source use, but that such use would be reinstated after an update was done. When the "W" versions were issued, they contained a similar statement within their paperwork. I don't have mine here just now, but it did mention the restriction. This software update does whatever it takes to bring the sets up to sole source standards. I read a blurb from Garmin a few weeks ago and it did mention other improvements as well. Any help at all? -- Old Bob Thanks, **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:14:41 AM PST US From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Th=E9o_Celis?= Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: com antenna problem Thank you Bob, Ralph & Bob F., A few tests confirmed exactly what you said, Bob. Just moving my body while txmitting resulted in large needle deflections. As somebody mentioned, the RV is full metal. The ammeter is one that Vans sells : a 40A shunt model, -40/0/+40 scale. The coil is housed in an aluminum cylinder, inside the plastic instrument. There is a PCB with some resistors, transistors etc. The instrument itself is located in a centre console under the main instr panel. The voltmeters we used to play with during elec lessons were far less complicated... We measured 7mV over the shunt with all avionics turned on and when pressing the PTT it shot up to 12mV. My friend brought a handheld RX and our tx tested fine. Thanks a million for yr help. Tho. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:42 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: com antenna problem > > > At 10:05 AM 12/6/2007 +0100, you wrote: > >> >> >>Good morning Bob, >> >>Our RV-7A is nearing completion here in Leuven (close to Brussels-Belgium) >>On checking the radios, 2 SL30 with the GMA340 ASP, our com 1 has a >>problem >>when transmitting: ammeter deflects full scale (towards the + side !?) >>when >>pushing the PTT - same on both sticks. The com2 shows a normal neg ammeter >>deflection when tx. >>Switching boxes in the rack: same result. (My knowledge of electronics is >>very >>limited; before becoming an airline pilot I was a chemical engeneer.) >>We then switched antennas behind the instr panel and now com2 had the >>problem. >>Maybe a bad crimp on the coax connector? So therefore we opened the >>baggage rear panel >>and connected coax com1 to the belly Comant antenna 2 (com1 ant is on top >>of the fuselage) >>and now the readings were normal: neg amm deflection. Bad Comant CI 121 >>antenna #1? >>Both ant are new ones, straight out of the box. >>Maybe irrelevant , but using the Fluke meter, there is no short between >>the base and center >>conductor and when testing capacity, the meter tests OL. >>Very probably you have seen this before? > > You don't mention the type of aircraft. Composite? > What kind of 'ammeter' . . . electronic? Digital > display? The list of observations you've cited > suggests an ammeter that is not designed to live > in the high radio frequency fields that exist in > and around the panels of composite aircraft. > > If you've checked out your antenna feedlines then > this hypothesis is more likely. It's not uncommon for > the interference condition to change markedly with > changes of configuration. I've seen a 'problem' that > went away when the mechanic was trying to demonstrate > it for me . . . but came back when I left the cockpit. > Seems that my body mass changed the radiation patterns > in the cockpit enough to shift the condition! > > What kind of ammeter display do you have? > > Bob . . . > > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:45:17 AM PST US From: "Bert Murillo" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio question Bob: I have tried to contact you thru this, but no luck. I guess i had the wrong e-mail? Some one fro the list gave me this one. Hope you receive it. I want to add a second radio to my rv6a, but because lack of space I cannot install an Audio panel. Question is, if I add another radio, I am thinking of the MicroAir...small and not too expensive) Is there any Switch or way that I cfould use both radios, that is switch from one to another, just as when you have the Audio Panel?? I have now the Kin's radio 125.. Thanks for your reply Bert ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:13:46 AM PST US From: "Robert Feldtman" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question I'm no expert, but I figure if you have a VOR, you'd have to do the checks as per FARs - whether you ever turn them on in flight or not - picky thing, but the ramp checkers are picky. bobf On 12/6/07, Emrath wrote: > > > Here's a question from a fellow member in our local EAA Chapter. > > > "Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W > navigators. > I > had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are > now certified as a sole source navigation device. One benefit of this is > that my alternate airports can have only GPS approaches. > > A question I have is do I still need to do the 30-day accuracy checks on > my > VOR receivers? I assume the answer is no unless I plan to use my VOR > receivers for navigation. I can't remember the last time I did that and > have > no plans to do so in the future. I've always used the GPS even when flying > on airways. At Smyrna (MQY) it's not a big deal since there is a VOT on > the > field and it's usually working. There are lots of airports though that > don't > have a VOT and you can't receive the VOR on the ground. In that case you > can't launch into IMC unless you have done an accuracy check. Presumably > I'm > now exempt from that if my GPS is functioning. > > Anyone know the answer?" > > > Marty in Brentwood TN > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:31:51 AM PST US From: Buckaroo Banzai Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Interesting question. SFAR 97 allows the exclusive use of GPS for IFR navigation in Alaska so if the person asking the question flies only in Alaska the answer would be obvious. You don't state if his airplane is certified or experimental. Most experimental aircraft come with operating limitations that specifically call out FAR 91.205 for IFR operations and FAR 91.205 requires navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be used. Many people read that as a requirement for VOR capability in the aircraft (including EAA, I believe). FAR 91.171 requires the VOR check every 30 days for "...aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation....". No indication what you have to do if you don't use the VOR system of radio navigation. This is a case where the regulations need to catch up with the state of the art. It would appear VOR equipment is required but you don't have to check it unless you're going to use it. One question. What are you going to do if you get a RAIM message from your GPS system that you can't shoot the approach and then have to use VOR to complete the flight? In my opinion it would be worthwhile to keep the VOR checks up to date until the regulations catch up. Greg Here's a question from a fellow member in our local EAA Chapter. "Garmin has finally released new software for its 500W and 400W navigators. I had it installed today in my 430W and 530W. With this release, my GPSs are now certified as a sole source navigation device. One benefit of this is that my alternate airports can have only GPS approaches. A question I have is do I still need to do the 30-day accuracy checks on my VOR receivers? I assume the answer is no unless I plan to use my VOR receivers for navigation. I can't remember the last time I did that and have no plans to do so in the future. I've always used the GPS even when flying on airways. At Smyrna (MQY) it's not a big deal since there is a VOT on the field and it's usually working. There are lots of airports though that don't have a VOT and you can't receive the VOR on the ground. In that case you can't launch into IMC unless you have done an accuracy check. Presumably I'm now exempt from that if my GPS is functioning. Anyone know the answer?" Marty in Brentwood TN --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:46:24 AM PST US From: Bill Putney Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio question Bert, The KX-125 has an audio mixer in it. You need to add a couple of Single Pole Single Throw switches to select which receive audio's you want to hear and a Double Pole Double Throw switch to select which radio the Mic and PTT is hooked up to. You don't need any electronics outside what the KX-125 already has. You need the KX-125 install manual to see all the wiring. - Bill Bert Murillo wrote: > > Bob: > > I have tried to contact you thru this, but no luck. I guess i had the wrong > e-mail? Some one fro the list gave me this one. Hope you receive it. > > I want to add a second radio to my rv6a, but because lack of space I cannot > install an Audio panel. > Question is, if I add another radio, I am thinking of the > MicroAir...small and not > too expensive) Is there any Switch or way that I cfould use both radios, that is > switch from one to another, just as when you have the Audio Panel?? > > I have now the Kin's radio 125.. > > Thanks for your reply > > Bert > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:52:23 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question From: Dj Merrill Buckaroo Banzai wrote: > You don't state if his airplane is certified or experimental. Most > experimental aircraft come with operating limitations that > specifically call out FAR 91.205 for IFR operations and FAR 91.205 > requires navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be > used. Many people read that as a requirement for VOR capability in > the aircraft (including EAA, I believe). Doesn't the WAAS system have ground based transmitters in addition to the satellite signal to give it the extra precision? If so, those may count for this requirement. -Dj do not archive -- 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:39:19 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Afternoon Dj, This will get us into semantics, but the WAAS equipped aircraft does not receive data directly from any ground station. There are stations on the ground that send corrections to the satellites for the WAAS receivers. Those corrections are then sent back to the airplane, but the airplane equipment gets all of it's signal from the satellite. Make any sense at all? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 12:54:30 P.M. Central Standard Time, deej@deej.net writes: Doesn't the WAAS system have ground based transmitters in addition to the satellite signal to give it the extra precision? If so, those may count for this requirement. -Dj **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:55:18 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question From: Dj Merrill BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > Good Afternoon Dj, > > This will get us into semantics, but the WAAS equipped aircraft does > not receive data directly from any ground station. There are stations > on the ground that send corrections to the satellites for the WAAS > receivers. Those corrections are then sent back to the airplane, but > the airplane equipment gets all of it's signal from the satellite. > > Make any sense at all? > Yes, that is how I thought it worked. I found this on the Garmin site: http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html and this on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-) -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 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:24:29 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question I don't see what the big deal is, if you have dual VOR receivers just run a cross check between the 2 and record it along with the date and your initials in a small note book you keep in the airplane. Something to occupy your time on those long cross country flights. Bruce www.Glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 3:54 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > Good Afternoon Dj, > > This will get us into semantics, but the WAAS equipped aircraft does > not receive data directly from any ground station. There are stations > on the ground that send corrections to the satellites for the WAAS > receivers. Those corrections are then sent back to the airplane, but > the airplane equipment gets all of it's signal from the satellite. > > Make any sense at all? > Yes, that is how I thought it worked. I found this on the Garmin site: http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html and this on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-) -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 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:39:48 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Hi Dj, Here is my take. As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is approved for sole means navigation. The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no ground facilities, we need no navigation equipment that uses it! Whadda Ya think? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, deej@deej.net writes: Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-) -Dj **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 01:42:24 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Afternoon Bruce, Did I miss something? I thought the question was whether or not we need to carry any VOR equipment. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 3:28:42 P.M. Central Standard Time, Bruce@glasair.org writes: I don't see what the big deal is, if you have dual VOR receivers just run a cross check between the 2 and record it along with the date and your initials in a small note book you keep in the airplane. Something to occupy your time on those long cross country flights. Bruce www.Glasair.org **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:19 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, don't want to get into that kind of pissing contest with the Feds. Bruce www.Glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:37 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Hi Dj, Here is my take. As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is approved for sole means navigation. The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no ground facilities, we need no navigation equipment that uses it! Whadda Ya think? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, deej@deej.net writes: Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-) -Dj hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 02:00:16 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question If it's in the airplane and you're on an IFR FP and are ramp checked, the FAA is going to ask for the VOR check log along with the other paperwork. Bruce www.Glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:41 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Afternoon Bruce, Did I miss something? I thought the question was whether or not we need to carry any VOR equipment. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 3:28:42 P.M. Central Standard Time, Bruce@glasair.org writes: I don't see what the big deal is, if you have dual VOR receivers just run a cross check between the 2 and record it along with the date and your initials in a small note book you keep in the airplane. Something to occupy your time on those long cross country flights. Bruce www.Glasair.org hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 02:03:20 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question One other thing, the FAR's specifically require the log to be 'in the airplane'. Bruce www.Glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:41 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Afternoon Bruce, Did I miss something? I thought the question was whether or not we need to carry any VOR equipment. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 3:28:42 P.M. Central Standard Time, Bruce@glasair.org writes: I don't see what the big deal is, if you have dual VOR receivers just run a cross check between the 2 and record it along with the date and your initials in a small note book you keep in the airplane. Something to occupy your time on those long cross country flights. Bruce www.Glasair.org hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 02:04:15 PM PST US From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Not even that. You can also use your W for en route flight with an expired database provid ed you have verified the en-route waypoints. I think that means you can use it but you can't shoot GPS approaches with a n expired database. presumably that means you can shppt VOR and ILS approaches with an expired 'base...But that is a little off topic to the original question. Either way if you are using GPS (with or without an expired database) only to navigate and you don't use VOR's then in theory you don't need to do the accuracy checks. For me personally I really can't justify the cost of the database upgrades and so I use my buddy's month old chip and we rotate...I just don't do GPS approaches with it. Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr ic-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:37 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Hi Dj, Here is my take. As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is approve d for sole means navigation. The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground faciliti es to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no ground facilities, w e need no navigation equipment that uses it! Whadda Ya think? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, deej@deej. net writes: Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-) -Dj hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 02:09:48 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question That is the way I read the regs. The wording is quite simple, and clear. If you don't plan to use VOR, then no cross check is required. But, just to play devil's advocate, even though there is no regulatory need to do this cross check, why not do it? That way, if the GPS ever craps out on you, or WAAS is not available for some reason (a single satellite failure could kill WAAS, depending on where you are), you can legally use the VOR to get back home under IFR. If you haven't done and logged the VOR checks, and the GPS dies, then you are grounded until the weather allows VFR. If the VOR was not working properly, I would want to know about it. Kevin Horton On 7-Dec-07, at 16:37 , BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > Hi Dj, > > Here is my take. > > As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is > approved for sole means navigation. > > The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground > facilities to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no > ground facilities, we need no navigation equipment that uses it! > > Whadda Ya think? > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 > > In a message dated 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, deej@deej.net > writes: > Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS > system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft > might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground > facilities > to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another > twist... :-) ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 02:10:10 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: "Sole Means" Navigation. Was: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Afternoon Again Bruce, Where is the conflict and what windmills are being tilted at? What do YOU think "sole means" refers to? The FAA has been defining "sole means" and requiring equipment other than GPS for about fifteen years telling us we need supplemental navigational equipment until a system of "sole means" navigation was developed. The FAA is now telling us that the WAAS corrected GPS is such a sole means system. Who is telling you that it is not? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 3:56:53 P.M. Central Standard Time, Bruce@glasair.org writes: I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, don=99t want to get int o that kind of pissing contest with the Feds. Bruce _www.Glasair.org_ (http://www.glasair.org/) **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 02:11:13 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question From: Dj Merrill Bruce Gray wrote: > > I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, dont want to get into > that kind of pissing contest with the Feds. > I'm merely interested because I am curious and want to learn. I really don't see where there is any sort of "pissing contest" going on... :-) As far as I can see we are just having a friendly discussion about the FARs and topics relating to navigation equipment that can be used in aircraft, and whether the rules would allow a WAAS GPS system to be used as a primary source of navigation without a NAV radio installed. -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 23 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:16 PM PST US From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Oh come on now, they write all the gargantuan rules and you don't want to h ave fun finding a loophole in them? Where's yer sense of adventure Bruce?...:) Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr ic-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, don't want to get into that k ind of pissing contest with the Feds. Bruce www.Glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr ic-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:37 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Hi Dj, Here is my take. As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is approve d for sole means navigation. The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground faciliti es to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no ground facilities, w e need no navigation equipment that uses it! Whadda Ya think? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, deej@deej. net writes: Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-) -Dj hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. http://www.matronics.com/contribution http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 02:21:04 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Bruce, However, if your are on an IFR flight Plan and do not have any VOR equipmen t on board or if the VOR equipment you have is suitably configured and placarded as in operative, you are still perfectly legal. I think you are fighting a battle that does not exist. If you really want to get into picking belly button lint, I don't think eve n an operative VOR has to have VOR check listed as long as you have not used it for IFR flight and can show that you do not intend it to be used it for I FR flight. I think doing so is about as dumb as getting into this argument, but if I somehow found myself at a hearing on the subject, I'll bet a milk shake I wo uld win! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 4:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time, Bruce@glasair.org writes: If it=99s in the airplane and you=99re on an IFR FP and are ram p checked, the FAA is going to ask for the VOR check log along with the other paperwork. Bruce _www.Glasair.org_ (http://www.glasair.org/) **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 02:34:05 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Frank, The method you are using is probably correct. I say probably because there is a chance that your individual FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement may say something different. If your's is a carbon copy of the 430W or 530W Supplement, what you say is absolutely correct. If you have had an approval via the local approval process, there could be, but probably isn't, a catch. Incidentally, there is a small possibility that you could use your out of date card for some approaches. The language for that interpretation is currently under a rewrite by the FAA so there really isn't much use of discussing it now. If you can catch me at a flyin, I would be happy to discuss it more thoroughly. In any case, it is primarily your individual Flight Manual Supplement that determines what you can and cannot do with your set. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 4:07:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, frank.hinde@hp.com writes: For me personally I really can't justify the cost of the database upgrades and so I use my buddy's month old chip and we rotate...I just don't do GPS approaches with it. Frank **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 02:38:56 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Dj, I have several friends at the local FSDO. They all tell me that if they do a ramp check and any paperwork is wrong or missing, they'll violate you. IIRC, one of them even said that the VOR check log was a favorite of his. I don't have any problem with discussing 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin', but I would advise anyone who flys IFR and has a VOR on board, even if it's a redundant part of a GPS, to keep a VOR check log in the airplane. Bruce www.Glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:11 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Bruce Gray wrote: > > I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, don't want to get into > that kind of pissing contest with the Feds. > I'm merely interested because I am curious and want to learn. I really don't see where there is any sort of "pissing contest" going on... :-) As far as I can see we are just having a friendly discussion about the FARs and topics relating to navigation equipment that can be used in aircraft, and whether the rules would allow a WAAS GPS system to be used as a primary source of navigation without a NAV radio installed. -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 27 ____________________________________ Time: 02:47:11 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Kevin. Without going back and reading all the garbage that I have already wasted on this discussion, I do not believe I ever suggested that it be done any way other than as you suggest. I keep my datacards up to date and I make sure my VORs are ready to use. I also properly maintain my ADF and DME even though I rarely, if ever, have any use for them. The question asked was as to the legality of not having a VOR. The new rule for the "W" receivers does allow flight using the "W" as the primary sole means source. No VOR needed. Incidentally, if you can find an airway that is based on NDB navigation, you can fly that airway without any VOR. The ADF is qualified as a "Sole Means" navigation source. Incidentally, there are many places you can get a suitable VOR check on the ground, so you would not necessarily be grounded until the weather got better. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 4:11:40 P.M. Central Standard Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: If you haven't done and logged the VOR checks, and the GPS dies, then you are grounded until the weather allows VFR. If the VOR was not working properly, I would want to know about it. Kevin Horton **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 03:00:28 PM PST US From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Thanks Bob..... I have to ask...What flight manual suppliment?.....I am experimental is thi s a document that is specific to certified birds, cus I'm not sure I have s een mine. I agree there is a question on some of the approaches, I mean even in a VOR /DME approach the GPS is being used in lieu of the DME so in theory that ma kes VOR/DME's illegal with an expried database. Mind you is it really unsafe?..I mean all the data is right there on the pl ate and the GPS is simply measuring the distance to the runway...So unless they moved the runway in the last month it would presumably get you on the ground in one piece..:) Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr ic-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:30 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Frank, The method you are using is probably correct. I say probably because there is a chance that your individual FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement may say something different. If your's is a carbon copy of the 430W or 530W Sup plement, what you say is absolutely correct. If you have had an approval vi a the local approval process, there could be, but probably isn't, a catch. Incidentally, there is a small possibility that you could use your out of d ate card for some approaches. The language for that interpretation is curre ntly under a rewrite by the FAA so there really isn't much use of discussin g it now. If you can catch me at a flyin, I would be happy to discuss it mo re thoroughly. In any case, it is primarily your individual Flight Manual S upplement that determines what you can and cannot do with your set. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 4:07:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, frank.hind e@hp.com writes: For me personally I really can't justify the cost of the database upgrades and so I use my buddy's month old chip and we rotate...I just don't do GPS approaches with it. Frank hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 03:06:39 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Bruce, That does bring up a whole 'nother subject! Most of the FAA inspectors that I have known were good guys and strong aviation enthusiasts. However, just like in any other group of individuals, there will always be a few bad apples. Your friend who delights in finding an out of date VOR check list and delights in filing a violation is a very sick individual. If I was hit by someone that stupid, I would gladly fight him or her to the full extent of the law so as be sure he/she learned his/her lesson. There is no room in this industry for such individuals. Now, that does not mean that I do not make mistakes, but if I were using a VOR for IFR navigation, you can be sure there will be suitable record of it having been checked as required. I doubt very much if your friend would actually be so stupid as to file a violation in a situation where the check was not required so I doubt if there is any problem. As long as we are within the rules, Stupid FED or Good FED, we do not need to be fearful of a ramp check. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 4:41:02 P.M. Central Standard Time, Bruce@glasair.org writes: Dj, I have several friends at the local FSDO. They all tell me that if they do a ramp check and any paperwork is wrong or missing, they'll violate you. IIRC, one of them even said that the VOR check log was a favorite of his. I don't have any problem with discussing 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin', but I would advise anyone who flys IFR and has a VOR on board, even if it's a redundant part of a GPS, to keep a VOR check log in the airplane. Bruce **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:11 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question And what do we do if we have an amateur-built aircraft, and thus do not have a flight manual supplement? It seems we fall back on the info in the AIM. Kevin Horton On 7-Dec-07, at 17:30 , BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > Good Evening Frank, > > The method you are using is probably correct. I say probably because > there is a chance that your individual FAA Approved Flight Manual > Supplement may say something different. If your's is a carbon copy > of the 430W or 530W Supplement, what you say is absolutely correct. > If you have had an approval via the local approval process, there > could be, but probably isn't, a catch. > > Incidentally, there is a small possibility that you could use your > out of date card for some approaches. The language for that > interpretation is currently under a rewrite by the FAA so there > really isn't much use of discussing it now. If you can catch me at a > flyin, I would be happy to discuss it more thoroughly. In any case, > it is primarily your individual Flight Manual Supplement that > determines what you can and cannot do with your set. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 > > In a message dated 12/7/2007 4:07:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, frank.hinde@hp.com > writes: > For me personally I really can't justify the cost of the database > upgrades and so I use my buddy's month old chip and we rotate...I > just don't do GPS approaches with it. > > Frank > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 03:32:59 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Frank, You have me there! I would have to research that a bit. I am reasonably confident that you do not need the flight manual supplement, but you may be required to operate via the language that has been suggested by the manufacturer for that equipment. My understanding is that experimental aircraft are required to be equipped for IFR flight in the same manner as are certified airplanes, but that they do not have to have as much documentation of the suitability of the equipment as do certified airplanes. I am confident of the legalities as I stated for certified airplanes and I am certain that if you meet those standards, you would have no problems with officialdom. However, exactly how much substantiation is required is something of which I have no knowledge. Off the top of my head, I would think you would be able to do a lot more self verification of data, but you would want to be sure enough of your position so that you would be comfortable substantiating your position at a hearing if it ever came to that. Interesting question. You ask: "Mind you, is it really unsafe?" I don't think so. Personally. I would like to see us be able to self load waypoints so that no datacard would be required. If we do a good job of self loading or data verification, there is absolutely no question it is safe. The problem is that everybody does make mistakes. I think you will find that anyone who has used flight management computers of the type used by Korean Airlines Flight 007 will admit to having made mistakes similar to the one they made, but that they caught it before the mistake became a problem. The current press of the FAA is to eliminate that sort of a mistake by requiring us to only be allowed to navigate via data that has been preloaded into our navigational equipment via a datacard. I don't like it, but it may be the better way, I really don't know! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 5:02:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, frank.hinde@hp.com writes: Thanks Bob..... I have to ask...What flight manual supplement?.....I am experimental is this a document that is specific to certified birds, cus I'm not sure I have seen mine. I agree there is a question on some of the approaches, I mean even in a VOR/DME approach the GPS is being used in lieu of the DME so in theory that makes VOR/DME's illegal with an expired database. Mind you is it really unsafe?..I mean all the data is right there on the plate and the GPS is simply measuring the distance to the runway...So unless they moved the runway in the last month it would presumably get you on the ground in one piece..:) Frank **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 03:34:50 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Kevin, Very true and that section is currently under a rewrite. It will be interesting to see what comes out! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 5:17:34 P.M. Central Standard Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: And what do we do if we have an amateur-built aircraft, and thus do not have a flight manual supplement? It seems we fall back on the info in the AIM. Kevin Horton **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 04:10:49 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question From: "Matt Prather" Another tangent: I think I could come up with a way to satisfy myself that my single VOR was accurate, even without tuning a VOT or going to a checkpoint - as long as my GPS was working and set to navigate to the location of the station and I could receive a solid VOR signal.. Would it satisfy the FAA? Can I gauge the accuracy of a CDI driven by the VOR with one driven by a GPS? Maybe the FAA hasn't approved this yet but I think it would be at least as rigorous as comparing one VOR receiver against another... Regards, Matt- > Good Evening Bruce, > > However, if your are on an IFR flight Plan and do not have any VOR > equipment > on board or if the VOR equipment you have is suitably configured and > placarded as in operative, you are still perfectly legal. > > I think you are fighting a battle that does not exist. > > If you really want to get into picking belly button lint, I don't think > even > an operative VOR has to have VOR check listed as long as you have not used > it for IFR flight and can show that you do not intend it to be used it for > IFR > flight. > > I think doing so is about as dumb as getting into this argument, but if I > somehow found myself at a hearing on the subject, I'll bet a milk shake I > would > win! > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Air Park LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8503 > > > In a message dated 12/7/2007 4:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time, > Bruce@glasair.org writes: > > If its in the airplane and youre on an IFR FP and are ramp checked, > the > FAA is going to ask for the VOR check log along with the other paperwork. > > Bruce > _www.Glasair.org_ (http://www.glasair.org/) > > > **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's > hottest > products. > (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 04:29:15 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Matt, I don't have my IFRs with me just now and my memory of the fine points of checking VORs is limited, but aren't we allowed to use a position over a known point to verify the accuracy? Since we have GPS signal that gives us a known position within about ten feet, I would think that would serve as the known point for a VOR check. What are your thoughts? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 6:13:24 P.M. Central Standard Time, mprather@spro.net writes: Another tangent: I think I could come up with a way to satisfy myself that my single VOR was accurate, even without tuning a VOT or going to a checkpoint - as long as my GPS was working and set to navigate to the location of the station and I could receive a solid VOR signal.. Would it satisfy the FAA? Can I gauge the accuracy of a CDI driven by the VOR with one driven by a GPS? Maybe the FAA hasn't approved this yet but I think it would be at least as rigorous as comparing one VOR receiver against another... **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 04:56:13 PM PST US From: "Bret Smith" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question I gotta side with Bruce on this one. Two years ago I was ramp checked after landing at CHA just after dark. I was in a rented C172 building CC time with an inoperative and placarded NAV radio. The inspector warned me that even with an INOP NAV I was required to have the VOR Check Log... He suggested removing the radio to avoid the violation. Lesson: If you got it, you gotta log it. Bret Smith RV-9A N16BL Blue Ridge, Ga www.FlightInnovations.com ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 05:05:14 PM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ANL 60 Hello Kevin As I understand it you have a 55 amp alternator and a 60 amp ANL. Yes the ANL is slow acting but I am not surprised that it would occasionally blow under the circumstances you describe. After startup the 55 amp nominal alternator could easilly be putting in excess of 60 amps when connected to a battery that has been sitting idle for several weeks. Personally I'd recommend the next size larger ANL. Ken Kevin Boddicker wrote: > > Kevin Boddicker > Tri Q 200 N7868B hours > Luana, IA. > > > On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Matt Prather wrote: > >> > >> >> It's an internally regulated alternator and you "excite the field".. By >> what means? Are you just connecting the sense line? > > > I have a split rocker "ala Cessna". After start up I "turn on" > excite the field. > >> >> Do you know that the ANL is blown before turning on the alternator? I >> wonder if it's actually being blown out by a bad ground. I can't >> visualize a conduction path at the moment, but possibly the b-lead >> represents a ground path during starter operation? >> >> Another thought.. Are you sure it's actually a 55A alternator? Would a >> 110A unit blow an ANL60? Maybe not given the long time constant of >> ANL's, >> and assuming a charged battery. > > > It is a 55A DN alt. converted from a Geo Metro. > I "think I have it figured out. Not sure yet. I think the B-lead at > the alt contactor is so close to the alum sheet that covers the > firewall, or may be touching. If that is so the current could be able > to go to ground via the firewall, forrest of tabs, ground lug to > engine. I thought this last summer when I had the trouble, but could > not find any sign of an arc. The termination is covered with black > shrink tube, but it has some cracks in it. I do remember it getting > close to the firewall as I tightened it last Sunday night. I also > recall moving it away from the FW last summer and not letting it get > close this fall after engine reinstall. I will check it out ASAP and > let the group know. May be a while it is snowing here, and the > forecast calls for more. > The runway has been close since Saturday due to ice. > Any comments are welcome. > Thanks, > Kevin > >> >> >> >>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator >>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using >>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect >>>> scheme? >>>> >>>> Bob . . . >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60. >>> I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened >>> twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd. >>> The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the engine >>> back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he >>> checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine. >>> After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did have >>> the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall when >>> I fired it up. >>> Not so this time. >>> Thanks for your help, >>> >>> Kevin Boddicker >>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours >>> Luana, IA. >>> >>> >>> On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> At 05:05 PM 12/5/2007 -0600, you wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bob, >>>>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no >>>>> idea why. >>>>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put >>>>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After start up >>>>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the >>>>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on. >>>>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have >>>>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not. >>>>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old. >>>>> Any suggestions? >>>>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume >>>> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of >>>> the time without blowing the limiter? >>>> >>>> Normally, there's but two things that will open >>>> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator >>>> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in >>>> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator >>>> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards. >>>> or external battery connected to system is >>>> jumper cabled in backwards. >>>> >>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator >>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using >>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect >>>> scheme? >>>> >>>> Bob . . . >>> > ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 05:23:04 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Required VOR Check. Was: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Bret, I would be happy to take that one to a hearing. There is nothing that says you have to have the VOR check if you are not using it for IFR flight. That is pretty well spelled put in the following: Sec. 91.171 - VOR equipment check for IFR operations. (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft -- (1) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or (2) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. Did the FAA person tell you what regulation required the check he/she wanted to see? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 6:58:26 P.M. Central Standard Time, smithhb@tds.net writes: I gotta side with Bruce on this one. Two years ago I was ramp checked after landing at CHA just after dark. I was in a rented C172 building CC time with an inoperative and placarded NAV radio. The inspector warned me that even with an INOP NAV I was required to have the VOR Check Log... He suggested removing the radio to avoid the violation. Lesson: If you got it, you gotta log it. **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 06:21:52 PM PST US From: "Bret Smith" Subject: RE: Required VOR Check. Was: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Old Bob, To be honest, it was a pretty rattling experience. We were in a rented aircraft 50 miles from home, the FBO we rented the aircraft from was closed and we were hustling to find the POH, W&B, etc. Heck, it took us a while to even find the Registration. The whole experience was really a blur. The only "violation" he discussed with me was the lack of the VOR Check Log and the missing W&B. I never questioned him on the VOR log but did challenge him that the W&B sheet did not need to be in the plane at all times. He did not cite me for anything but boy, was I glad to leave Chattanooga! Bret Smith RV-9A N16BL Blue Ridge, Ga www.FlightInnovations.com _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 8:19 PM Subject: Required VOR Check. Was: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Bret, I would be happy to take that one to a hearing. There is nothing that says you have to have the VOR check if you are not using it for IFR flight. That is pretty well spelled put in the following: Sec. 91.171 - VOR equipment check for IFR operations. (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft -- (1) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or (2) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. Did the FAA person tell you what regulation required the check he/she wanted to see? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 6:58:26 P.M. Central Standard Time, smithhb@tds.net writes: I gotta side with Bruce on this one. Two years ago I was ramp checked after landing at CHA just after dark. I was in a rented C172 building CC time with an inoperative and placarded NAV radio. The inspector warned me that even with an INOP NAV I was required to have the VOR Check Log... He suggested removing the radio to avoid the violation. Lesson: If you got it, you gotta log it. _____ hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:49 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: Required VOR Check. Was: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Good Evening Bret, Glad it all worked out OK.. The vast majority of the FEDs are real good folks. Once in a while they get a bit mixed up as to what they think should be the norm and what the regulations actually require. I can certainly understand the anxiety felt by young folks during their early contacts with a FED. It can be very unnerving. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 12/7/2007 8:23:56 P.M. Central Standard Time, smithhb@tds.net writes: The only "violation" he discussed with me was the lack of the VOR Check Log and the missing W&B. I never questioned him on the VOR log but did challenge him that the W&B sheet did not need to be in the plane at all times. He did not cite me for anything but boy, was I glad to leave Chattanooga! Bret Smith **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 09:06:07 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Your presumption is incorrect. VORs are only needed if you intend to use them. You can fly most anywhere in Alaska with a good ADF, places and airways that can't be flown with only VOR. Yes, they still have colored airways, although may be phasing out for GPS. VOR couldn't handle the distances and terrain in Alaska. Even some jet routes required ADF for some segments. Buckaroo Banzai wrote: > Interesting question. SFAR 97 allows the exclusive use of GPS for IFR > navigation in Alaska so if the person asking the question flies only > in Alaska the answer would be obvious. > > You don't state if his airplane is certified or experimental. Most > experimental aircraft come with operating limitations that > specifically call out FAR 91.205 for IFR operations and FAR 91.205 > requires navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be > used. Many people read that as a requirement for VOR capability in > the aircraft (including EAA, I believe). > > FAR 91.171 requires the VOR check every 30 days for "...aircraft under > IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation....". No indication what > you have to do if you don't use the VOR system of radio navigation. > > This is a case where the regulations need to catch up with the state > of the art. It would appear VOR equipment is required but you don't > have to check it unless you're going to use it. > > One question. What are you going to do if you get a RAIM message from > your GPS system that you can't shoot the approach and then have to use > VOR to complete the flight? In my opinion it would be worthwhile to > keep the VOR checks up to date until the regulations catch up. > > Greg > el ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:20 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question Hmm,. Which FAR would that be Bruce? I don't see that language in 91.171 that covers VOR checks, and it specifically says " shall enter the date, place, bearing error, and sign the aircraft log or other record" Now we all know that the aircraft log(s) specifically do NOT have to be kept in the plane, nor do other aircraft records besides the airworthiness, registration, (used to be radio license), operators manual (POH or equiv) and weight and balance. The old ARROW acronym. Perhaps there is some other FAR that I can't think of right now? Kelly Bruce Gray wrote: > > One other thing, the FARs specifically require the log to be in the > airplane. > > Bruce > > www.Glasair.org > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.