---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 03/20/09: 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:26:27 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Molex Connector Pin Installation video - EAA From: Sam Hoskins >From the EAA.. Nothing earth shattering, but a good illustration. http://www.eaa.org/video/homebuilders.html?videoId=14725747001 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:34:30 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: The Obvious From: "N395V" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:10:23 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:09:44 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:05:26 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:14:20 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon From: "Radioflyer" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:42:21 PM PST US From: "Jim Baker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:09:09 PM PST US From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.