Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:26 AM - Molex Connector Pin Installation video - EAA (Sam Hoskins)
2. 05:34 AM - Re: The Obvious (N395V)
3. 08:10 AM - lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon ()
4. 09:09 AM - Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 11:05 AM - Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 02:14 PM - Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon (Radioflyer)
7. 07:42 PM - Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon (Jim Baker)
8. 09:09 PM - PS1000 II Prologue (DEAN PSIROPOULOS)
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: | Molex Connector Pin Installation video - EAA |
>From the EAA.. Nothing earth shattering, but a good illustration.
http://www.eaa.org/video/homebuilders.html?videoId=14725747001
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 |
|
When wiring my PS audio panel their tech rep spent about 45 minutes on the phone
with me until my problem was resolved. Friendly as could be and ended by saying
call me back for any further problems.
Much more pleasant than Garmin who, by the way, will void the warranty after an
owner install.
Would I buy another PS engineering product? Absolutely.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235346#235346
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: | lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
3/20/2009
Hello All: Old Bob wrote: "That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver,....."
I agree with Old Bob, but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the
magnitude of the decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver".
Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?
See:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/audio.shtml
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/audiopanel_garmin.html
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=10101&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&categoryId=10094&cursel=item7&sysId=item2&pCategoryId=10086&pcursel=item7&psysId=null
So a decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver" boils down to just
not installing an antenna and the cableing between the antenna and the audio
panel -- seems like a rather easy choice to make.
It is true that there are separate marker beacon receivers available for
installation. See:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/mb10_markerBeacon.php
http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/detail/4196/Avionics/Bendix_King/KR-22/
If one were to use an audio panel that did not already include a marker
beacon receiver and light indicators then the decision to install a separate
marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and cabling becomes a bit
more significant - and expensive.
Then the decision bias for an airplane operating primarily in the USA,
particularly one with an IFR capable GPS, would definitely lean towards not
installing a separate marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and
cabling -- also a rather easy decision.
As Old Bob wrote: "I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by
leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
===========================================
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon
Good Morning OC,
You asked: "Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are
inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?"
They sure do, but I think that will be changing relatively soon.
I can find no official policy from the FAA concerning the future of the
marker beacon, but I prefer to NOT spend any money, weight, space, power or
effort on having a marker beacon.
Our desires have been made known to PS Engineering and I will bet a milk
shake that you will see more products on the market that do not include a marker
receiver. I imagine the cost to add the marker is not great and I doubt that
eliminating it will lower the cost of the unit, but it will lower the cost of
the installation. No marker beacon means no antenna and no cabling. It also
means fewer switches and less space utilized on the face plate.
I have found PS Engineering to be the best manufacturer to work with in the
entire industry. Good folks there.
We are currently installing a 430W, 327 TXPDR, and PS Engineering PM3000
Intercomm in our Piper Pacer. I will not want a marker beacon at all. It will
be flown IFR extensively. I have found no approaches other than category II
and III that will not be usable to the lowest published minima with that radio
package.
As soon as the Pacer is finished, our J35 will get a similar package, but
with a King KX-155A added to the mix. I have not decided which PS Engineering
unit will be used for the J35, but think it might be the PMA4000-TSO.
Definitely no ADF, DME, or marker beacon!
Any other thoughts or ideas?
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 3/20/2009 10:13:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bakerocb@cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
3/20/2009
Hello All: Old Bob wrote: "That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver,....."
I agree with Old Bob, but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the
magnitude of the decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver".
Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?
See:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/audio.shtml
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/audiopanel_garmin.html
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?store
Id=10101&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&categoryId=10094&cursel=item7&sysId=item2&p
CategoryId=10086&pcursel=item7&psysId=null
So a decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver" boils down to just
not installing an antenna and the cableing between the antenna and the audio
panel -- seems like a rather easy choice to make.
It is true that there are separate marker beacon receivers available for
installation. See:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/mb10_markerBeacon.php
http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/detail/4196/Avionics/Bendix_King/KR-22/
If one were to use an audio panel that did not already include a marker
beacon receiver and light indicators then the decision to install a separate
marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and cabling becomes a bit
more significant - and expensive.
Then the decision bias for an airplane operating primarily in the USA,
particularly one with an IFR capable GPS, would definitely lean towards not
installing a separate marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and
cabling -- also a rather easy decision.
As Old Bob wrote: "I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by
leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
===========================================
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DMarchfooterNO62)
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: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon
Good Morning All,
I sent a message to an FAA friend (who is pretty high up on the food chain)
concerning the future of the marker beacons. Here is his answer with the name
removed.
------------- "We are attempting to eliminate as many as possible to include
OMs and MMs.
In most cases, they are not needed and they cost quite a bit to maintain
when other methods are available to mark these spots. We're also looking at
eliminating as many NDBs as possible. Users have to provide a need, then
we'll keep the procedures available." -------------------
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 3/20/2009 11:12:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
BobsV35B@aol.com writes:
Good Morning OC,
You asked: "Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are
inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?"
They sure do, but I think that will be changing relatively soon.
I can find no official policy from the FAA concerning the future of the
marker beacon, but I prefer to NOT spend any money, weight, space, power or
effort on having a marker beacon.
Our desires have been made known to PS Engineering and I will bet a milk
shake that you will see more products on the market that do not include a marker
receiver. I imagine the cost to add the marker is not great and I doubt that
eliminating it will lower the cost of the unit, but it will lower the cost
of the installation. No marker beacon means no antenna and no cabling. It also
means fewer switches and less space utilized on the face plate.
I have found PS Engineering to be the best manufacturer to work with in the
entire industry. Good folks there.
We are currently installing a 430W, 327 TXPDR, and PS Engineering PM3000
Intercomm in our Piper Pacer. I will not want a marker beacon at all. It will
be flown IFR extensively. I have found no approaches other than category II
and III that will not be usable to the lowest published minima with that radio
package.
As soon as the Pacer is finished, our J35 will get a similar package, but
with a King KX-155A added to the mix. I have not decided which PS Engineering
unit will be used for the J35, but think it might be the PMA4000-TSO.
Definitely no ADF, DME, or marker beacon!
Any other thoughts or ideas?
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 3/20/2009 10:13:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bakerocb@cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
3/20/2009
Hello All: Old Bob wrote: "That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver,....."
I agree with Old Bob, but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the
magnitude of the decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver".
Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?
See:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/audio.shtml
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/audiopanel_garmin.html
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?store
Id=10101&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&categoryId=10094&cursel=item7&sysId=item2&p
CategoryId=10086&pcursel=item7&psysId=null
So a decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver" boils down to just
not installing an antenna and the cableing between the antenna and the audio
panel -- seems like a rather easy choice to make.
It is true that there are separate marker beacon receivers available for
installation. See:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/mb10_markerBeacon.php
http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/detail/4196/Avionics/Bendix_King/KR-22/
If one were to use an audio panel that did not already include a marker
beacon receiver and light indicators then the decision to install a separate
marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and cabling becomes a bit
more significant - and expensive.
Then the decision bias for an airplane operating primarily in the USA,
particularly one with an IFR capable GPS, would definitely lean towards not
installing a separate marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and
cabling -- also a rather easy decision.
As Old Bob wrote: "I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by
leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==================
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator = Use lities y - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=========================< - List Contribution Web Site ; ========================
____________________________________
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. _See yours in just 2 easy steps!_
freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=MarchfooterNO62)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DMarchfooterNO62)
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: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon
Well, Old Bob, I guess the story is to keep the Marker Beacon receiver off the
panel. I asked one question and got a different answer. However, your input is
much appreciated. I guess I won't miss the receiver and it will simplify my panel.
(However, you are right that it was pleasant hearing the signal when you
overflew the airports.) Good Bye KR22.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235407#235407
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: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%:
> I sent a message to an FAA friend (who is pretty high up on the food chain)
> concerning the future of the marker beacons. Here is his answer with the name
> removed.
>
> ------------- "We are attempting to eliminate as many as possible to include
> OMs and MMs.
> In most cases, they are not needed and they cost quite a bit to maintain
> when other methods are available to mark these spots. We're also looking at
> eliminating as many NDBs as possible. Users have to provide a need, then
> we'll keep the procedures available." -------------------
I'm a Lockheed Martin contractor to the FAA in Oklahoma City, right
now involved in instument procedure's biennial review program ( each
procedure must be reviewed, essentially re-built, to evaluate new
criteria application or obstacle encroachment).
What Bob said is absolutrely true. RNAV fix substitution for NDBs and
markers makes them redundant, trims the associated maintenance
expense, eliminates the real estate maintenace costs, drops the
navaid's frequency management to nil, and provides a better up-time
rate.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
405. 426.5377 cell
Elmore City, OK
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: | PS1000 II Prologue |
After I mucked up the upper connector wiring harness on my PS1000 (mfg by PS
Engineering for UPS Aviation Technologies as the SL-10MS) I contacted PS
engineering to see if they could make a harness up for me (since they said
right on their website that they could do that for a price). I supplied a
PDFed diagram with what I needed and the wire lengths. They promptly
replied that they would only make the lower wiring harness (the one with all
the headphone and microphone connections) and that the upper harness would
have to be made by someone else!! Not very helpful and I was not impressed
with those folks, not to mention the way they designed the upper connector
grounding scheme (wiring all the grounds to one pin created a real "rats
nest" and was the reason I messed up the original). I finally procured some
solder sleeves to use with my Tefzel coax and was able to put together a
clean harness but I'm still not impressed with the folks at PS.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
16 hours
_______________________Original Message___________________________
From: "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere@comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: PS 1000II Prologue
Well it appears that PSE was willing to communicate back to me after
all. ...........
First impressions are hard to overcome. I hope that PSE "talks" to other
builders in the future without having to send their qualifications first
- or - perhaps it was just a timing issue.
.........
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! --
|