Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:03 AM - Problems with multiple emails (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_W?=)
2. 05:36 AM - connecting 2 wires (bob noffs)
3. 06:36 AM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (Steve Thomas)
4. 06:41 AM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (Tony Babb)
5. 06:54 AM - Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:56 AM - Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:04 AM - Re: connecting 2 wires (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:04 AM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:06 AM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:35 AM - Re: Over filling during flight? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
11. 07:49 AM - Re: Over filling during flight? (Jeff Page)
12. 09:36 AM - Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility (Jeff Davidson)
13. 09:38 AM - Fuel level sensors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 09:49 AM - Re: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 10:01 AM - Re: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
16. 10:13 AM - Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Speedy11@aol.com)
17. 10:44 AM - Re: Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (BobsV35B@aol.com)
18. 12:12 PM - Re: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility (Glaeser, Dennis A)
19. 12:38 PM - Re: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility (Greg Young)
20. 01:14 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
21. 01:18 PM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
22. 01:39 PM - Re: Re: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility (Matt Prather)
23. 02:41 PM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (Dale Ensing)
24. 03:07 PM - Re: Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Richard Tasker)
25. 04:58 PM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (Steve Thomas)
26. 05:04 PM - Plane Power (Dave Saylor)
27. 05:21 PM - Re: Re: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility (BobsV35B@aol.com)
28. 06:35 PM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
29. 07:27 PM - Re: Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (BobsV35B@aol.com)
30. 07:55 PM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (selwyn)
31. 08:10 PM - Re: Re: Problems with multiple emails (BobsV35B@aol.com)
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: | Problems with multiple emails |
Matte,
I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers. Some as
much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of getting 10
emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other matronics
lists.
Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit?
Michle
RV8 - engine/avionics
-----Message d'origine-----
De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de Terry
Watson
Envoy: mercredi 16 juillet 2008 21:49
: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Objet: RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake.
If your foresight was as good as your hindsight, you could have prevented
9-11 for us. Saddam Hussein's generals thought they had weapons of mass
destruction, as did the intelligence services of all civilized countries
that were interested enough to think about it. Where were you when we needed
you? Look at all the lives and dollars you could have saved if you would
have shown them they were wrong.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is
awake.
simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote:
>
> Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq
> because they invaded Kuwait.
>
Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had
Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to
help terrorists.
Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again?
-Dj
do not archive
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: | connecting 2 wires |
hi all, i am in the process of wiring right now. rather than try to
decide where to put knife splices for possible future use i have pretty
much wired everything permanent , leaving one less thing to waffle
about. my plan is to put in a knife splice in if i ever need to snip a
wire down the road.
bob noffs
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: Problems with multiple emails |
Michle,
This is not an unusual situation with Outlook. If you are getting
your mail from an Exchange server, the server is resending the
messages to your Outlook because, for some reason, it didn't think
that it was delivered correctly the last time. Talk to your system
administrator. If not Exchange, then the same situation is occurring
where Outlook is not correctly responding to the delivery of the
mail. Try using Thunderbird.
On Jul 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Michle W wrote:
> = <michele.delsol@microsigma.fr>
>
> Matte,
>
> I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers.
> Some as
> much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of
> getting 10
> emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other
> matronics
> lists.
>
> Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit?
>
> Michle
> RV8 - engine/avionics
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de
> Terry
> Watson
> Envoy : mercredi 16 juillet 2008 21:49
> : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Objet : RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government
> is awake.
>
> >
>
> If your foresight was as good as your hindsight, you could have
> prevented
> 9-11 for us. Saddam Hussein's generals thought they had weapons of
> mass
> destruction, as did the intelligence services of all civilized
> countries
> that were interested enough to think about it. Where were you when
> we needed
> you? Look at all the lives and dollars you could have saved if you
> would
> have shown them they were wrong.
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
> Merrill
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:27 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is
> awake.
>
>
> simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq
>> because they invaded Kuwait.
>>
>
> Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq
> had
> Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used
> to
> help terrorists.
> Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again?
>
> -Dj
> do not archive
>
>
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: | Problems with multiple emails |
It may be just you. I'm receiving normal e-mail from matronics lists.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michle W
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:53 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails
--> <michele.delsol@microsigma.fr>
Matte,
I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers. Some as
much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of getting 10
emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other matronics
lists.
Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit?
Michle
RV8 - engine/avionics
-----Message d'origine-----
De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de Terry
Watson Envoy: mercredi 16 juillet 2008 21:49 :
aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Objet: RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well
tonight, your government is awake.
--> <terry@tcwatson.com>
If your foresight was as good as your hindsight, you could have prevented
9-11 for us. Saddam Hussein's generals thought they had weapons of mass
destruction, as did the intelligence services of all civilized countries
that were interested enough to think about it. Where were you when we needed
you? Look at all the lives and dollars you could have saved if you would
have shown them they were wrong.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is
awake.
simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote:
>
> Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq
> because they invaded Kuwait.
>
Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had
Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to
help terrorists.
Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again?
-Dj
do not archive
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: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
At 05:22 PM 7/16/2008 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Hey Bob,
>
>It sounds like the AMOC might involve annual or hours checks - a breaker
>that's okay this year might not be okay after another year or 500 hours?
>Or, if a breaker's good after 20 years, it won't ever go bad? When's the
>crossover as far as cost - inspect again vs. replace?
Yeah, the task is to be a teacher first. Study the science
and get folks who control the situation to understand.
Naw, I take that back. They don't even need to understand
the significance of their earlier decisions as long as
someone else takes responsibility for the replacement
procedure . . . at least the first guys can say, "I
did my job".
It's certainly a time-in-service issue. I'm hoping I
can craft an in-situ test that discovers the majority
of broken strands before the conductor fails
completely. This would allow detection and replacement
hundreds of flying hours before the failure.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
At 06:04 PM 7/16/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Plus AMOC's are A/C specific. That is each and every aircraft will have
>to submit and obtain approval for the specific A/C (by S/N and or tail
>number) into which it will be installed prior to implementing the
>"fix". Not at all like a 337 that may, depending on the local FSDO, be
>used on other similar A/C with a simple sign-off.
>
>Doable, but what a PITA.
Yes . . . what we should really strive for is an amended
AD that calls out the new procedure. They HAVE done such
things in the past. Recall the diode across the starter
switch contacts that did nothing. That AD was amended to
move the diode to the coil.
Bob . . .
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: connecting 2 wires |
At 07:32 AM 7/17/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>hi all, i am in the process of wiring right now. rather than try to decide
>where to put knife splices for possible future use i have pretty much
>wired everything permanent , leaving one less thing to waffle about. my
>plan is to put in a knife splice in if i ever need to snip a wire down the
>road.
That's been the philosophy adopted by many others
before you. It works.
Bob . . .
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: Problems with multiple emails |
At 08:52 AM 7/17/2008 +0200, you wrote:
><michele.delsol@microsigma.fr>
>
>Matte,
>
>I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers. Some as
>much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of getting 10
>emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other matronics
>lists.
>
>Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit?
>
>Michle
>RV8 - engine/avionics
Not that I've heard of . . . and unless you're on
the list of subscribed readers, there's no way
the list server could be duplicating mails. I
think I'd call my ISP's email guy.
Does this happen with emails OTHER than those
from the list server?
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: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. |
At 12:40 AM 7/17/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Correct. Uranium also known as "Yellow Cake" enriched to make nuclear
>bombs. I guess the mass graves discovered while looking for the WMD's
>wouldn't have been worth the effort however and were none of the USA's
>business anyway. We should have just left Hussein alone, and not listened
>to Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Gore and the rest. Oh yeah, and a good chunk of
>the billions we spend on the war is going into the pockets of our soldiers
>and employees of manufacturers of the supplies they need.
>
>Dave
. . . having said that, let us concentrate on the near
future (get our machines flying) and the far future (the
800 pound gorilla that was only 700 pounds a few years
ago) that may ultimately find us unable to fly our
airplanes at all. ATC would LOVE it if the only airplanes
on their 'scopes were IFR.
Bob . . .
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: | Over filling during flight? |
Sure..In the airpane world this is done with a bulkhead AN fitting that is gooped
with proseal on the outside. This only gives you an AN flared fitting however.
Alternatively you can get a female pipe thread with a base flange that maybe rivetted
onto the tank with blind rivets..Once again the fitting is sealed with
Proseal (otherwise known as black death). These are usually used for fuel drains
and come with a female pipe thread.
Proseal is available is one ounce mini tubs from Vans aircraft.
Frank
601 HDS 400 hours
RV7a 300 Hours
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of paul wilson
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight?
This thread brings up an interesting question of how to make a penetration to a
tank or header.
Ideally I would like a fitting that could be snaked into the tank and into a drilled
hole in the tank, then a jam nut could be tightened from the outside to
compress a proper o-ring. The gadget should have female pipe threads to screw
the sender into. Not sure how this could be done but it sure beats welding on
a metal tank or gluing a plastic tank.
Anybody heard of such a gadget?
Thanks, Paul
========
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: Over filling during flight? |
Larry,
Visit Aircraft Spruce and check out product number 10-00399, which is
the AE Fuel Guardian. It consists of two optical fuel level sensors
that work by detecting the change in reflectance of the lens. I
bought some for my aircraft and was concerned that a drop of fuel
still on the lens might produce an incorrect reading. Nope, I played
around dipping them in and out of some water. They respond rapidly
and immediately, no matter how I tried to fool them. Not a cheap
product, but it seems a high quality one. Drill as small hole in your
tank. A threaded nut goes on the inside, trapping rubber washers.
(Note - this is an uncommon metric thread).
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> It's a minor modification to my header tank and electrical. I believe
> one sensor with a panel light to engage my attention
> at the header's 75% full mark and disengage the pump switch would be
> easiest to use.
>
> Thank you again for excellent guidance,
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
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: | Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the firewall.
It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to debug
electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly my craft
at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this subject
in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What fuses/breakers
control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down the
list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have provided
a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I can fly
without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with inoperative
navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right there?)
The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup,
and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night operating
limitations are concerned.
Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM given Night
VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers being
accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten answers
on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
Jeff Davidson
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: | Fuel level sensors |
At 10:46 AM 7/17/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Larry,
>
>Visit Aircraft Spruce and check out product number 10-00399, which is
>the AE Fuel Guardian. It consists of two optical fuel level sensors
>that work by detecting the change in reflectance of the lens. I
>bought some for my aircraft and was concerned that a drop of fuel
>still on the lens might produce an incorrect reading. Nope, I played
>around dipping them in and out of some water. They respond rapidly
>and immediately, no matter how I tried to fool them. Not a cheap
>product, but it seems a high quality one. Drill as small hole in your
>tank. A threaded nut goes on the inside, trapping rubber washers.
>(Note - this is an uncommon metric thread).
>
>Jeff Page
>Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Optical liquid level sensing is almost an ancient technology.
I first recall encountering this idea in the "Delco Eye" battery
caps of the 1960's that extended a plastic rod from the top of
a battery cap to the cell-filled point on the water-acid
mixture below. A explanation of how this works is offered
in the following patent:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Patents/Optical_Liquid_Level_4670660.pdf
In bright sun, an uncovered tip reflected a high percentage
of ambient light back up to the top causing the center of
the cap to glow green . . . indicating a need for water to
be added.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Batteries/Delco_Eye_R69_69.jpg
Years later, I crafted an array of 12 lamps and photocells into
a stack of 1/2" thick liquid level sensors that we installed
at the fuel strainer location on a Baron to explore the dynamics
of fuel slosh and outlet un-porting. A column of 12 lamps
on the panel gave instantaneous measurement of fuel level
at the outlet in 1/2" increments. Had the privilege and
pleasure of meeting and flying with Al White on that program!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_S._White
Some years later, I participated in a program that developed
a wide range of optical sensors for the local aircraft
industry. See:
http://www.electromech.com/liquidlevel3RED.html#
In years since, this technology has exploded into a
constellation of products. Generally speaking, the
technology has worked well on airplanes in jet A,
100LL, mogas, hydraulic oil, de-ice fluid, water
tanks, etc.
I can think of only one more user friendly way
to do this . . . and it may become a product. But
in the mean time choices for suitable products
are plentiful.
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
Good Morning Jeff,
No expert here, but this is my take!
There is no requirement for any sort of an approval for you to fly night, or
for that matter, IFR.
Your operating limitation should say something to the effect that the
airplane is supposed to be operated in day VFR unless it meets the appropriate
requirements of 91.205. It is up to you, the operator, to make that
determination. No other action is required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 7/17/2008 11:37:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net writes:
Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM given
Night VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any
fuses/breakers being accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I
have
gotten answers on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
Jeff Davidson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
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: | Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
Sure...Not only Night VFR but IFR as well...Actually all this is a bit of a misnomer
because its you the builder that determines whether the airplane is equipped
for Night VFR or IFR.
The DAR/FSDO is only approving for issueing a DAY VFR airworthiness certificate...I.e
for phase 1..After that its up to you to equip as necessary.
Either way none of my fuses are accessible in flight
Frank
601 HDS 400 hours
Rv 7a 300
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Davidson
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility
--> <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the firewall.
It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to debug
electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly my craft
at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this subject
in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What fuses/breakers
control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down the
list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have provided
a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I can fly
without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with inoperative
navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right there?)
The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup,
and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night operating
limitations are concerned.
Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM given Night
VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers being
accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten answers
on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
Jeff Davidson
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: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
Bob,
Apparently I'm ignorant of the problem you reference.
Have the Bonanza drivers been having problems with W31 switch-breakers?
Stan Sutterfield
Just got a call from folks at the American Bonanza Society
and will be meeting them for lunch tomorrow. From the
short conversations I had with them today, I perceive
them to be REALLY sharp. We're going to see if we can
craft an "AMOC", alternative method of compliance for
that "rip 'em all out and replace them" approach to
the breaker failures on the Beech products.
I've not heard whether or not similar AD's are in the
works for other OEMs. The W31 is remarked and fitted with
stylized handles for a number of folks including Cessna.
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
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: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
Good Afternoon Stan,
That depends on what you mean!
We Bonanza and the Baron pilots have had almost no problems at all with any
of the W31 series switches, but the FAA has perceived (falsely most of us
believe) that there is a problem with a very few of the switches.
It is not a problem that occurs due to use, but one that is a result of
thousands of hours of vibration. When (IF) the failure does occur, an electrical
load can be shunted to ground which will cause a bit of smoke. If something
ignitable is located in the way, I suppose a fire could ensue.
Most of us feel that the AD that has been issued by the FAA is not at all
needed. A simple service letter outlining the potential problem should be more
than sufficient. I haven't talked to Bob N. about it, but from what he has
written, I think he agrees with the assessment made by most of us who are
affected by the recently issued AD..
Any help at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 7/17/2008 12:19:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
Speedy11@aol.com writes:
Bob,
Apparently I'm ignorant of the problem you reference.
Have the Bonanza drivers been having problems with W31 switch-breakers?
Stan Sutterfield
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
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: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
Interestingly, the wording of FAR 91.205 says that spare fuses must be
accessible to the pilot in flight, but never states that the fuses must
be replicable in flight! I guess the reg writers just assumed that if
you have fuses, there would be access to them in flight :-)
My fuseblocks are not accessible in flight. The DAR asked if I had
spare fuses, and I showed him a zip-lock bag of spares I keep in the
pouch on the back of the pilot seat. That was fine with him (and he was
observed by an FAA Inspector for my inspection).
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the
firewall.
It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to
debug
electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly
my craft
at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this
subject
in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What
fuses/breakers
control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down
the
list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have
provided
a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I
can fly
without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with
inoperative
navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right
there?)
The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup,
and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night
operating
limitations are concerned.
Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM
given Night
VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers
being
accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten
answers
on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
Jeff Davidson
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: | Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
The standard Op Limitations wording has approval for day VFR and night or
IFR when equipped. If your concern is the FAR wording about replacement
fuses, read it carefully. It says, IF the fuses are accessible in flight,
then you need to carry spares. It does not say that the fuses MUST be
accessible in flight, only that if they are you need to carry spares.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Davidson
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:32 AM
> To: AeroElectric-List@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker
> Accessibility
>
> --> <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
>
> I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin
> side of the firewall. It is not accessible to the pilot in
> flight. I don't plan to try to debug electrical problems in
> the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly my craft at
> night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on
> this subject in the archives. All told, the crucial question
> seems to be "What fuses/breakers control a circuit that is
> critical to night flight?" I have gone down the list
> instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I
> have provided a backup power supply (battery) outside of the
> ship's power or that I can fly without the item in question.
> I understand flight can continue with inoperative navigation
> lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right
> there?) The transponder is the only item that doesn't have
> some sort of backup, and I can't find any applicable
> requirement for it as far as night operating limitations are
> concerned.
>
> Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting
> their OBAM given Night VFR operating priviledges by an FAA
> Inspector without any fuses/breakers being accessible in
> flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten
> answers on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
>
> Jeff Davidson
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: | Nippondenso alternator question |
HA! Best laugh I've had all week! Reminds me of elementary school "my dad can
beat up your dad". I prefer lead by example.
Do not archive this useless information
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Housman
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
First, please learn how to use a spell checker.
Second, your URL is obviously spelled wrong - it should be mtMIND.com
Third, neither you nor gmcjetpilot would recognize real research if it bit
you in the butt.
Finally, why don't you and your gmcjetpilot friend start you own raving
forum and spare the rest of from your diatribes.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, CA
Europa XS Tri-Gear
A070
Airframe complete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
Well (very sadly but it did seem too good to be true and I am not surprised)
I had hoped for mutual cooperation but I guess you want to do it all your
self. Good timing as I was just finishing the first part of the planned
discussion.
Be my guest, I had thought you had changed. Clearly you want yo frive the
discussion VS get the benefit of my extensive work.
Random comments as its not worth my time to put them in ordered sequence. I
have made some suggestions about how and what to test to avoid missing
information that is not gathered just using your sketched circuit.
You are incorrect about my approach and intent and about my past analysis
and testing which is in my opinion adequate to determine the problem and I
have "crafted" a proven solution. In my opinion there is ZERO need for more
testing other for self aggrandizement. I find this sad as you have not seen
any real results of my testing nor the scope of it. Reading your suggested
approach I find little to agree with so there is no point in my being a part
of your long promised study.
Further most of your below comments about my position are totally incorrect
assumptions which is not surprising as you have never spent the time to find
out what my approach is; the amount of analysis, investigation nor testing
setup and results. I will not tolerate testing as anything other as proof of
pre testing design analysis. I also simply will not design using assumptions
or unofficial verbal assurances from one manufacturer its safe to exceed the
specifications as that is simply a high risk approach no engineer will do.
My results are identical design solution for all reasonable alternator but
clearly its not reasonable to allow any alternator to be covered and that
position indicates to me a lack of modern alternator designs etc. Further
you seem fixated on maintaining several design flexibilities and pilot
control that I feel is not only not required but potentially dangerous.
Also your sketch does not reproduce the real world load dump conditions what
with fixed load and relay contact bounce in the real circuit. Finally it
appears you intend to have a constant string of load dumps which is very
likely to destroy the internal to the regulator load dump protection
components. Each single load dump needs time for the protection circuits to
cool down.
Hopefully you will end up with far more evaluation, studying, and testing
than what you listed below as its not adequate nor has it addressed ALL the
problems I have addressed. You really should test all the brands of
alternators you intend to approve of and in the several different types and
amps in each style. There are differences to consider. For example different
regulator transient response as well as the winding charactericts which will
determine the load dump information.
Further you should take note of the fact just how much (or more important,
how little) is replaced in rebuilt alternators as if you know what is
replaced you would never recommend a rebuilt alternator (rebuilt is a
misnomer minimal repair is what actually happens).Junk yard is not a source
for ANY aircraft as who knows how close to failure the parts are. In any
event testing alone, with out first doing an analysis and manufacturers
detailed data is NEVER sufficient. Both Myself and Jet Pilot found getting
more detailed information was not easy and getting past the sales staff if
difficult at best. However a lot of useful information was passed on and
po-poed on this groups list.
Also be sure to test with a full load current and zero fixed load. Note my
selected 50 amp rated alternator is specified to put out 70 amps at 13V and
more amps at lower voltages so a full output failure results in a much
higher current than your suggested testing which based on my testing is not
nearly worst case! Another comment about getting the real data first. My NEW
alternator came with a computer printout of the actual alternator during
final test prior to shipment. Note the full amp output is a lot higher than
past comments have been clearly assumed on this list in the past. 40% higher
is not small in my opinion and under load dump conditions the load being
dumped is much higher energy as well as the peak voltage. My testing was
based on a real duplication of a typical aircraft wiring including wire
gauge and lengths as well as flight batteries. It started with your OVP and
contactor with the diode on the contactor coil. Very different than what
your sketch shows. Also very long alternator failure point to final
contactor opening requiring voltage clamping during that time of a lot more
energy than what has been assumed in one of your tests from years ago.
But then we have a large and fundamental difference on how to design any
electrical (including aircraft) systems. My approach is to discard many of
the proven pilot opportunities to mess up that have been a reason for past
crashes and leap into the 21st century. Building on the past and not address
the fundamental cause of most accidents is not progress in my opinion. The
more pilot required actions greatly increases the pilots lack or incorrect
action. Today there is no need to do things manually in most cases. Every
manual control available to the pilot 's another opportunity to make a
mistake that can lead to a crash. Today we have Integrated Solid state
switches/circuit breakers. Schottly diodes are not really needed much less
silicon bridges which have no use in aircraft. Yes Solid state switching is
easy to make with full bi-directional isolation and ON resistance less that
of mechanical relays etc switching (as low as 0.002 ohms ON resistance). The
pilot needs to be notified of any CB failure not by finding out by failure
of the component to work for example.
The aircraft instruments have migrated from steam gauges to flat panels yet
we still find the old contactor relay// switch approach of 1950 etc and that
ignores the modern components available today that are far more reliable and
more pilot friendly.
Its a fact that pilot error is the major cause of accidents. Its pilot error
if you run out of fuel, deplete the battery based on an assumption of
battery condition and electrical load etc etc. The requirement to throw a
switch in an emergency is bad design if there is a reasonable solution that
eliminates the mechanical pilot action and its done automatically. Its sad
that there is no truly modern system available at a reasonable price on the
market today that automates the system and provides the pilot with useful
real time electrical system conditions. My designs have been peer reviewed
by my (multiple) peers and all have stated its both more reliable and a
great improvement to current 1950's parts and today's arrangements and
approaches. You have long promoted fly the airplane and trouble shoot back
on the ground which is not what your design requirement to turn on and off
the alternator in flight and a simple voltage check is enough for preflight.
Personal situation has delayed getting my system on the market.
The E bus is a good example where there is a design requirement to have a
group of avionics disabled during part of the flight and then guess about
how much battery life is left. A simple additional electrical instrument I
have designed allows the pilot to simply see the real flight time left and
change the load and have the flight time left update. It also determines the
true battery life dynamically. If I am IFR I may need a different set of
avionics than what is on the E bus for example depending on the actual
flight conditions. Or what if the battery power left at any point is less
that what was predicted or measured months ago?. I know of several off
field crashes due to the battery being depleted well before the expected
time. Another bad design to assume something in particular when it ns not
required to assume. Fuel tank gauges system when the only accurate
requirement is full and empty has been replaced with fuel flow measurement
and totalized as seen in modern automobiles. No reason the battery cannot be
treated the same way, sure its a little more complex but not hard to do with
reasonable accuracy.
There are many ways to make flying safer than having a check list of which
switches to throw under different failure modes and make assumptions of
flight time left for example. How about a warning and a count down display
that tells the time left to fly and updates as the pilot changes the
equipment powered on. No action is required if the time remaining is long
enough.
Your insistence of performing your own testing is fine but you are
discarding months of investigation as well as hundreds of hours of testing
and analysis. On the other hand it will save me a lot of time producing a
machine readable copy etc.
A lot of people blindly used your OVP crowbar until it was used with Vans
aircraft and had many reported failures. As far as I know there was never
and failure analysis to prove the true reason for the failures. My own
testing found fault at least two faults with the OVP design but they only
caused false tripping and the real reason appeared to be the use of the
contactor and perhaps rebuilt alternators with possible second rate (read
lower cost) regulators that could not stand up to the resulting load dump
voltage peaks. In any event the OVP design was not properly desinged in the
first place likely due to the test first and skip the analysis under
transient conditions.
It is true I had intended to produce an engineering document VS a
technicians experimental results
I have far too much to do, so its easy to simply bow out. Further I will not
comment on your results as I have better things to do. There is no need to
try to discuss your approach as your mind is seemingly always made up ahead
of time.
You win and I think the group looses. Jet Pilot tried with a lot of real
research and was not listened to either.
We have very very different backgrounds and approaches to design. I had
hoped we could work together but that is not to be. I simply do not have the
time, nor can I stand the frustration of writing one paragraph and getting a
response of several pages of comments which are mostly, to me, not to the
point.
Best wishes
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 10:28 AM 7/10/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>>THANK YOU for your very nice reply!!
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>In any event its now my turn to start one subject at a time in replying
>>>to your comments and questions.
>
> Paul, how about we avoid turning this into an unnecessary and/or
> unproductive research/science project . . . It would be useful to
> craft a sort of mission statement where goals, impediments to
> goals, questions and plans for acquiring data that go to aswering
> those questions are identified up front. To that effort I'll offer
> the following:
>
> 1) Since day-one, electrical systems in aircraft have offered
> a means by which engine driven power sources may be turned on
> and off at will of the pilot. This absolute ON/OFF control goes
> to a number of issues that include but are not limited to
> preflight testing, load management, ability to take a mis-behaving
> system off line, and plan-B activities crafted to mitigate
> effects of failure. I.e., failure tolerance.
>
> 2) The modern automotive alternator has a proven track record
> in ground based vehicles that eclipses anything flying
> by an order of 1000:1 or more. It's inarguable that sources
> of automotive components from salvage yards up through the
> chain to manufacturers of modern components offer the OBAM
> aircraft community a treasure-trove of choices.
>
> 3) The shear magnitude of choices can be a boon in terms
> of potential return on investment for performance and
> reliability . . . and a bane in terms of the complexity
> for choosing "suitable" hardware from an overwhelming
> universe of products and sources.
>
> 4) As knowledgeable and experienced practitioners of the
> art and sciences we can relieve OBAM aircraft owner/operator
> concern for making choices while minimizing risk for having made
> a "bad" choice? I'll have to qualify "bad" . . . EVERY
> piece of hardware we choose to bolt to an airplane will fail
> at some point in time irrespective of its source or perceived
> quality. Failure can be due to quality issues . . . operation
> outside design limits . . . or the thing simply wears out.
>
> 5) My personal preference for minimizing risk is to craft
> failure tolerant architectures . . . if we do
> that job well, then it doesn't matter if the platinum
> plated part fails because some kid didn't tighten a
> bolt (quality issue). . . or failed because the part is
> one step above junk (design or manufacturing issue).
> Failure tolerance is the most powerful tool for risk
> management we can bring to the table.
>
> 6) You appear to be crafting a risk mitigation
> approach along with relief of the decision making process
> in the form of specific architectures crafted from
> specific part numbers. You believe this approach
> is attractive to potential customers. This is the
> essence of entrepreneurial opportunity in what is
> still (unlike TC aviation) a relatively free marketplace.
> Your approach borrows from the legacies of TC aviation
> by specifying a design and more controlled suite of
> components. No doubt here are/will-be customers
> attracted to this approach and I'm sure we all wish
> you well in your endeavor. My entrepreneurial leanings
> go to system integration hardware, products that help
> the OBAM aircraft builder comfortably integrate a host
> of choices into the airplane. But first, I need to achieve
> an understanding of the simple-ideas that go into
> our respective inventions . . . ingredients that drive
> recipes for success.
>
> 7) We have a common need to exercise a solid grasp
> of the same simple-ideas even if our respective inventions
> have no competitive features. The most pressing question
> for me is understanding the load-dump characteristics
> of our favorite alternators under conditions likely to
> be encountered in a typical installation on a Lycoming -
> spinning like a whirling dervish and subject to
> unloading under any condition between zero and full
> output with normal regulation. This means knowing the magnitude,
> source impedance and timing of the transient that occurs
> after sudden load removal at all corners of the
> operating envelope.
>
> 8) The very first experiment I plan to conduct after
> the alternator drive stand is running is based on
> the sketch at:
>
> On a 60A machine with battery disconnected,
> I'd get data plots of load dumps at 4, 6, 8, 10
> and 12KRPM for fixed load of 50A with a 10A dump,
> fixed load of 40A with 10A and 20A dumps, fixed
> of 30A and 10, 20 30A dumps . . . I think you'll see
> the pattern here.
>
> The goal would be to calculate/measure the peak
> voltage, total energy and duration of each overshoot
> event (or series of overshoots assuming the regulator
> control loop is poorly damped). I would probably
> set up to run external regulators (of the type
> normally installed inside) so that I could explore
> the differences between various regulators while
> holding the alternator constant.
>
> Obviously a big task to gather enough data to
> be reasonably sure we understand the majority of
> the fleet . . . assuming we discover wide variances.
>
> (9) The next tests would involve system behavior under
> runaway conditions. Artificially fail a regulator
> and plot dv/dt at the bus and di/dt at the battery
> with various fixed loads . . . one suite of plots
> with a fresh battery, another with a battery that
> has fallen to 1/2 capacity or less.
>
> Having this data on only one combination of
> alternator/regulator would set the order of magnitude
> for energies involved. Once the equipment for the
> testing is in place and the procedure tuned, it would
> probably take less than a half hour to test any other
> combination.
>
> I ran all these tests that supported products I designed
> for Beech and others many moons ago. But the only
> data acquisition we had then were storage 'scopes and
> chart recorders. You could "eyeball" the data for gross
> suitability to task but real energy studies were exceedingly
> difficult . . . they were never done. We can do a much
> better job today.
>
> The task is to characterize the dynamic response to
> load change for a normally functioning as well as
> a runaway alternator. The data collected would allow
> a designer to craft systems that deal quietly and
> capably with the voltages, currents and energies that
> are present during recovery from both a load-dump
> and hard-failure conditions.
>
> This was the kind of data I was hoping to gather
> some years back when there was discussion about
> you and Eric teaming on some sort of activity. I
> wasn't sure exactly what equipment you were going to
> have access to . . . or what testing satisfied
> curiosities for your project . . . but I had hopes
> of piggy-backing studies above if you didn't already
> have similar data.
>
> Do I presume that for your needs, no further
> investigation is necessary/useful to your task?
> Know that all of my own test results will be published
> on aeroelectric.com and that my equipment will be available
> to you (or anyone else in the OBAM aviation community)
> should new questions arise.
>
> I'm going to have Zach start stripping out the automotive
> test setup wiring from the test stand next week. We'll
> leave only the 3-phase motor drive wiring intact. We'll
> Z-12 and Z-13/8 architectures in the stand. I already
> have a small drive stand for second alternators up to 20A.
>
> I have a static phase converter to install in the
> big stand. We'll see we can get the motor and variable
> speed drives to run. That will be a BIG step. Not sure
> if we'll be able to do real testing before we have to
> pack up and move to M.L. I have a contractor running
> a fat 240 feeder to the shop at the same time we excavate
> for a new retaining wall at the back of the yard. So the
> heavy/dirty/ugly work should be behind us at both
> locations this summer.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | Problems with multiple emails |
I always love it when people make assumptions. Because it's M$ it just couldn't
be a misconfiguration somewhere, it must be the software. Better solution,
unsubscribe and then resubscribe to this list. Odds are that will probably fix
it. If not email Matt directly at dralle@matronics.com.
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve Thomas
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails
Michle,
This is not an unusual situation with Outlook. If you are getting
your mail from an Exchange server, the server is resending the
messages to your Outlook because, for some reason, it didn't think
that it was delivered correctly the last time. Talk to your system
administrator. If not Exchange, then the same situation is occurring
where Outlook is not correctly responding to the delivery of the
mail. Try using Thunderbird.
On Jul 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Michle W wrote:
> = <michele.delsol@microsigma.fr>
>
> Matte,
>
> I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers.
> Some as
> much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of
> getting 10
> emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other
> matronics
> lists.
>
> Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit?
>
> Michle
> RV8 - engine/avionics
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de
> Terry
> Watson
> Envoy : mercredi 16 juillet 2008 21:49
> : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Objet : RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government
> is awake.
>
> >
>
> If your foresight was as good as your hindsight, you could have
> prevented
> 9-11 for us. Saddam Hussein's generals thought they had weapons of
> mass
> destruction, as did the intelligence services of all civilized
> countries
> that were interested enough to think about it. Where were you when
> we needed
> you? Look at all the lives and dollars you could have saved if you
> would
> have shown them they were wrong.
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
> Merrill
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:27 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is
> awake.
>
>
> simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq
>> because they invaded Kuwait.
>>
>
> Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq
> had
> Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used
> to
> help terrorists.
> Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again?
>
> -Dj
> do not archive
>
>
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: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
While experimentals generally don't have to comply with the normal
certification standards, I think it's useful to read what the normal
standards say. Here's FAR 23.1357:
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
(b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not
be used to protect any other circuit.
(c) Each resettable circuit protective device ("trip free" device in which
the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) must
be designed so that--
(1) A manual operation is required to restore service after tripping; and
(2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open the
circuit regardless of the position of the operating control.
(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight--
(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of
each rating, whichever is greater; and
(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot.
Item (d) seems most interesting to me. Only if the ability to
reset/replace the protection is required for safety of flight must the
protection be located to be easily accessible while in flight. All other
circuit protection can be located at the convenience of the designer.
Further, if a fault tolerant design is adopted, the failure of no single
item should put the outcome of the flight in jeopardy. That says that no
breakers or fuses need be accessible while in flight. A nice side benefit
of fault tolerant designs. Lots of airplanes have been built this way..
As far as paragraph (c) item (6) (from 91.205 that you mentioned):
"(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required,
that are accessible to the pilot in flight."
I take the important part of that to be "fuses of each kind required".
Since no circuit protection need be accessible according to our good and
proven design, no spare fuses are "required" to be accessible by the
pilot...
Regards,
Matt-
> <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
>
> Interestingly, the wording of FAR 91.205 says that spare fuses must be
> accessible to the pilot in flight, but never states that the fuses must
> be replicable in flight! I guess the reg writers just assumed that if
> you have fuses, there would be access to them in flight :-)
> My fuseblocks are not accessible in flight. The DAR asked if I had
> spare fuses, and I showed him a zip-lock bag of spares I keep in the
> pouch on the back of the pilot seat. That was fine with him (and he was
> observed by an FAA Inspector for my inspection).
>
> Dennis Glaeser
> RV7A
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the
> firewall.
> It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to
> debug
> electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly
> my craft
> at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this
> subject
> in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What
> fuses/breakers
> control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down
> the
> list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have
> provided
> a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I
> can fly
> without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with
> inoperative
> navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right
> there?)
> The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup,
> and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night
> operating
> limitations are concerned.
>
> Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM
> given Night
> VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers
> being
> accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten
> answers
> on both sides of this issue from those that should know.
>
> Jeff Davidson
>
>
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: Problems with multiple emails |
I experience the same thing as Steve describes below. It happens to me when
it 'times out' and not all of the emails are sent that are in the que.
Dale
do not achieve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Thomas" <lists@stevet.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails
> <lists@stevet.net>ppens
> Michle,
>
> This is not an unusual situation with Outlook. If you are getting your
> mail from an Exchange server, the server is resending the messages to
> your Outlook because, for some reason, it didn't think that it was
> delivered correctly the last time. Talk to your system administrator.
> If not Exchange, then the same situation is occurring where Outlook is
> not correctly responding to the delivery of the mail. Try using
> Thunderbird.
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Michle W wrote:
>
>> <michele.delsol@microsigma.fr>
>>
>> Matte,
>>
>> I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers.
>> Some as
>> much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of getting 10
>> emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other
>> matronics
>> lists.
>>
>> Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit?
>>
>> Michle
>> RV8 - engine/avionics
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de
>> Terry
>> Watson
>> Envoy : mercredi 16 juillet 2008 21:49
>> : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Objet : RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is
>> awake.
>>
>> <terry@tcwatson.com
>> >
>>
>> If your foresight was as good as your hindsight, you could have
>> prevented
>> 9-11 for us. Saddam Hussein's generals thought they had weapons of mass
>> destruction, as did the intelligence services of all civilized countries
>> that were interested enough to think about it. Where were you when we
>> needed
>> you? Look at all the lives and dollars you could have saved if you would
>> have shown them they were wrong.
>>
>> Terry
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
>> Merrill
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:27 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is
>> awake.
>>
>>
>> simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq
>>> because they invaded Kuwait.
>>>
>>
>> Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had
>> Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to
>> help terrorists.
>> Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again?
>>
>> -Dj
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
Actually, if it fails it does NOT short anything to ground, although
that is what the FAA dissertation says. What happens if the device
fails is that the current normally carried by large copper wires within
the breaker takes an alternate, higher resistance path to wherever it
would normally go. For relatively lower currents this really does
pretty much nothing. For high current loads, the parts in the path it
goes through heat up significantly and may generate some smoke - easily
remedied by switching the breaker off and then replacing it (on the ground).
While this is not to be construed to be a trivial problem, it is a
problem only if the part fails and then only in a few applications.
What is needed, rather than a wholesale replacement of all the
potentially affected breakers in all the affected airplanes is a simple
way to test them - which it seems that Bob is working on.
Dick Tasker
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Stan,
>
> That depends on what you mean!
>
> We Bonanza and the Baron pilots have had almost no problems at all
> with any of the W31 series switches, but the FAA has perceived
> (falsely most of us believe) that there is a problem with a very few
> of the switches.
>
> It is not a problem that occurs due to use, but one that is a result
> of thousands of hours of vibration. When (IF) the failure does occur,
> an electrical load can be shunted to ground which will cause a bit of
> smoke. If something ignitable is located in the way, I suppose a fire
> could ensue.
>
> Most of us feel that the AD that has been issued by the FAA is not at
> all needed. A simple service letter outlining the potential problem
> should be more than sufficient. I haven't talked to Bob N. about it,
> but from what he has written, I think he agrees with the assessment
> made by most of us who are affected by the recently issued AD..
>
> Any help at all?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
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: Problems with multiple emails |
Gee, Michael, what was the assumption? I've had this exact experience
with Exchange and was simply making a suggestion as a place to look.
Sorry that you are so sensitive on Microsoft's behalf, but there was
no attack or assumption. Chill out, dude.
Do not archive
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:15 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> I always love it when people make assumptions. Because it's M$ it
> just couldn't be a misconfiguration somewhere, it must be the
> software. Better solution, unsubscribe and then resubscribe to this
> list. Odds are that will probably fix it. If not email Matt
> directly at dralle@matronics.com.
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 |
|
Bob, can you contact me off line? I have a question about Plane Power.
Thanks,
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility |
Good Evening Dennis,
Jut as a point of interest, the later Bonanzas have a whole passel of fuses
on the forward side of the firewall, They are quite obviously not replaceable
in flight!
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 7/17/2008 2:14:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dennis.glaeser@eds.com writes:
Interestingly, the wording of FAR 91.205 says that spare fuses must be
accessible to the pilot in flight, but never states that the fuses must
be replicable in flight! I guess the reg writers just assumed that if
you have fuses, there would be access to them in flight :-)
My fuseblocks are not accessible in flight. The DAR asked if I had
spare fuses, and I showed him a zip-lock bag of spares I keep in the
pouch on the back of the pilot seat. That was fine with him (and he was
observed by an FAA Inspector for my inspection).
Dennis Glaeser
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Problems with multiple emails |
Yep and I've seen it before several times, usually from a variety of mail systems
and non client specific. Many times caused by flaky TCP sessions or bad
scripts. You didn't really offer troubleshooting advice as it was specific to
one vendor which is what prompted my response. I'm fairly vendor agnostic and
don't particularly care about M$ more than any other vendor, but in either case
your reaction says it all. The fact the problem as described was limited
to this one list and none of the others would seem to point to a problem with
the address in the listsrv rather than a client or local server problem. If I
recall correctly this has happened before to other people from time to time.
Could be a simple mail loop or just something horked up along the way but unsubscribe/resubscribe
is known to cure these types of problems. Chill out. HA!
Indeed. :D
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve Thomas
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails
Gee, Michael, what was the assumption? I've had this exact experience
with Exchange and was simply making a suggestion as a place to look.
Sorry that you are so sensitive on Microsoft's behalf, but there was
no attack or assumption. Chill out, dude.
Do not archive
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:15 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> I always love it when people make assumptions. Because it's M$ it
> just couldn't be a misconfiguration somewhere, it must be the
> software. Better solution, unsubscribe and then resubscribe to this
> list. Odds are that will probably fix it. If not email Matt
> directly at dralle@matronics.com.
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco |
Good Evening Dick.
I have no argument with your explanation other than it is my understanding
that it is possible that once the little spring has been fried, there will be
no way to positively shut off the power.
I doubt if either you or I know for sure, but it has been explained to me
that such is a possibility.
As you state, it is NOT a problem of the primary current carrying device
getting grounded. The trouble comes after the wire designed to carry the current
within the switch gets old, corroded, and weak which causes it to fall off
it's contacts. Then, when the switch is activated, the current travels through
the switch actuation spring and that little spring is what fails. Chances are
that no real damage will occur because the spring will fail long before very
much current is able to be run through it, but there is the possibility that
the pilot will not be able to deactivate the circuit by any method short of
turning off the master switch.
In any case, I think we can all agree that the FAA has once again fixed a
problem that is not at all likely to occur.
Chances are that the invasion of the wiring loom on the subject aircraft
will cause more problems than would the very unlikely occurrence of a failure of
the switch in question.
What a shame!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 7/17/2008 5:09:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
retasker@optonline.net writes:
Actually, if it fails it does NOT short anything to ground, although
that is what the FAA dissertation says. What happens if the device
fails is that the current normally carried by large copper wires within
the breaker takes an alternate, higher resistance path to wherever it
would normally go. For relatively lower currents this really does
pretty much nothing. For high current loads, the parts in the path it
goes through heat up significantly and may generate some smoke - easily
remedied by switching the breaker off and then replacing it (on the ground).
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Problems with multiple emails |
I'm not sure about your particular problem Michele, it could be due to a flaky
internet connection but if that was the case then it is likely to affect mail
from more than one source.
One thing that does clutter up this list (and many others) is entirely under user
control. This where people reply to the list and include the received message
in their reply. If several people do this then the emails sent out by the
list contain multiple repeats of the same original messages with a tidbit of
new information on the front. This creates a lot of repeated junk and makes the
digests just about unreadable.
I've quoted an example below. I picked this one because it was handy, this is
not a criticism of the person who made the post.
Personally I found the email service not worth the trouble because of this repeat posting and have switched to the web BBS interface. Much neater and more friendly. For anyone who wants to try, it is here http://forums.matronics.com. Just pick the aeroelectric list from the index.,
Cheers.
[quote="lists(at)stevet.net"]Michle,
This is not an unusual situation with Outlook. If you are getting
your mail from an Exchange server, the server is resending the
messages to your Outlook because, for some reason, it didn't think
that it was delivered correctly the last time. Talk to your system
administrator. If not Exchange, then the same situation is occurring
where Outlook is not correctly responding to the delivery of the
mail. Try using Thunderbird.
On Jul 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Michle W wrote:
>
> =
>
> Matte,
>
> I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers.
> Some as
> much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of
> getting 10
> emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other
> matronics
> lists.
>
> Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit?
>
> Michle
> RV8 - engine/avionics
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de
> Terry
> Watson
> Envoy : mercredi 16 juillet 2008 21:49
> : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Objet : RE: Sleep well tonight, your government
> is awake.
>
>
> >
>
> If your foresight was as good as your hindsight, you could have
> prevented
> 9-11 for us. Saddam Hussein's generals thought they had weapons of
> mass
> destruction, as did the intelligence services of all civilized
> countries
> that were interested enough to think about it. Where were you when
> we needed
> you? Look at all the lives and dollars you could have saved if you
> would
> have shown them they were wrong.
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> --
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193537#193537
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Problems with multiple emails |
Good Evening Selwyn,
I do not disagree with your post, but it also makes for tough interpretation
when NONE of the preceding message is included.
May I suggest that just enough be included so that the rest of us can tell
what subject is being discussed?
One other suggestion. I believe Matt has asked that we do sign our posts.
I did not see any signature on your post.
I believe he also suggests that we tell what we are working on and where we
are located in our signature. It does help many of us to know who we are
talking to, where they are located, and what they are flying. As long as Matt
does make that request, it seems we should provide such information.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 7/17/2008 9:56:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
selwyn@ellisworks.com.au writes:
One thing that does clutter up this list (and many others) is entirely under
user control. This where people reply to the list and include the received
message in their reply. If several people do this then the emails sent out
by the list contain multiple repeats of the same original messages with a
tidbit of new information on the front. This creates a lot of repeated junk and
makes the digests just about unreadable.
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
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! --
|