---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 01/21/10: 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:21 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification (bobsv35b@aol.com) 2. 02:42 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification (jon@finleyweb.net) 3. 04:38 AM - Encoder Certification () 4. 04:51 AM - ONGOING DISCUSSION () 5. 05:35 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification (Kevin Klinefelter) 6. 05:49 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 07:33 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic (Ken) 8. 07:54 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic (Jared Yates) 9. 08:18 AM - Re: Z-13/20 questions (user9253) 10. 08:18 AM - Fuesable Link (PaulR) 11. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification (bobsv35b@aol.com) 12. 08:31 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification (bobsv35b@aol.com) 13. 08:35 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification (jon@finleyweb.net) 14. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic (bobsv35b@aol.com) 15. 08:47 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification (bobsv35b@aol.com) 16. 09:24 AM - Re: Z-13/20 questions (jonlaury) 17. 11:35 AM - Planning (Jesse Jenks) 18. 12:24 PM - E-bus load. (Tim Andres) 19. 02:53 PM - Encoder Certification () 20. 03:16 PM - Re: Encoder Certification (Jon Finley) 21. 04:07 PM - Re: Re: Encoder Certification (Kelly McMullen) 22. 05:33 PM - Re: Re: Encoder Certification (Jon Finley) 23. 05:35 PM - Re: Encoder Certification (bobsv35b@aol.com) 24. 05:37 PM - Re: Encoder Certification (Greg Young) 25. 07:42 PM - Re: E-bus load. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 26. 07:42 PM - Re: Planning (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:21:18 AM PST US From: bobsv35b@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification Good Morning Bill, I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified by a properly rated shop. However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy. Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder. This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something which is not required by the appropriate authority. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove, IL Stearman N3977A In a message dated 1/20/2010 10:07:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au Folks, Using the term "controlled airspace" is a bit of a misnomer. Airspace is categorized as A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Only F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, and very little G, outside Alaska. For those with a long memory, what is now E, in the US was once called "Controlled/VFR Exempt". In regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in US, as it is most common airspace below below A. Generally, B,C and D are terminal/tower airspace. Below 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder relates to the transponder veil withing 30 miles of the airfields on which Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/charted. In my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requirements for a Mode C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary initial/recurrent testing. How?? do you establish the 95% probability performance otherwise required in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation does not do that, it does not establish the in-service performance is maintained. Regards, Bill Hamilton > bakerocb@cox.net wrote: > > --> Avionics-List message posted by: > > 1/20/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more > with > your help? > > You write: > > 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are > huge > expanses of this country where this is true." > > {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam > the > wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the > uncontrolled > airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low > altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. > > There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can > you > please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area > and > confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt > them. > Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace > and > therefore is controlled. > > 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that > folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." > > {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of > the > surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i). See here: > > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no > person > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an > > operable coded radar beacon transponder....... > > (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of > Columbia > at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 > feet > above the surface; and....." > > 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or > without > it turned on." > > {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with > no > transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL > if > within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, > as > long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. > > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you > have > in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? > > Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or > not > is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather > the > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > airspace" > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 > CFR > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > transponder or not. > > Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a > set of > low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes > there > is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard > pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled > airspace) > unless a special navigation effort was made. > > ================================================== > > Time: 07:10:22 PM PST US > From: "Jon Finley" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification > > Bakerocb, > > Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If > I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. > No > doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment > (controlled airspace). > > If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), > does > not > apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled. > > So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without > it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is > true. > > If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing. > > Jon > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 02:42:42 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification From: jon@finleyweb.net =0AHi Bob,=0A =0AYour notes have not been ignored - I agree with your posit ion. =0A =0AThere are two issues being bantered about. =0A =0AThe first i s the requirement to have a transponder installed. As you have stated, you are not required to have one unless flying in the airspace that you listed. =0A =0AThe second is the USE of a transponder IF you have one installed (14 CFR 91.215 (c) at all times in any airspace other than Class G).=0A =0AIn my opinion, the FAA has complicated this by using non-descript language.=0A =0AJon=0A =0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: bobsv35b@aol.com=0ASent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:15am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0A Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification=0A =0A=0AGood Morning Bill,=0A =0AI do not have an opinion as to whether or no t a homebuilder can verify the accuracy of his installation and I would pro bably get mine certified by a properly rated shop. =0A =0AHowever, I am am azed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is required for most op erations. The vast majority of light plane flying is VFR and away from area s that require a transponder. It isn't just those few areas that are strict ly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT required unless you fly in an a irspace where it IS required. Stay away from class A, B, C, and below ten t housand feet MSL and it is easy. =0A =0AGet out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder.=0A =0AThis is the third message I have sent on this su bject and all of the previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I sho uld take the hint and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something which is not required by the appropriate authority.=0A =0AH appy Skies,=0A =0AOld Bob=0AAKA=0ABob Siegfried=0ADowners Grove, IL=0AStear man N3977A =0A =0A =0A=0AIn a message dated 1/20/2010 10:07:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes:--> AeroElectric-List me ssage posted by: wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au=0A=0A=0AFolks,=0AUsing the ter m "controlled airspace" is a bit of a misnomer.=0A=0AAirspace is categorize d as A, B, C, D, E, F and G.=0A=0AOnly F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, and very little G, outside Alaska.=0A=0AFor those with a l ong memory, what is now E, in the US was once called "Controlled/VFR Exempt ".=0AIn regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in U S, as it is most common airspace below below A.=0A=0AGenerally, B,C and D a re terminal/tower airspace.=0A=0ABelow 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder relates to the transponder veil withing 30 m iles of the airfields on which Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/c harted.=0A=0AIn my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requ irements for a Mode C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary ini tial/recurrent testing.=0A=0AHow?? do you establish the 95% probability per formance otherwise required in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation does not do that, it does not establish the in-service per formance is maintained.=0A=0ARegards,=0ABill Hamilton =0A=0A=0A> bakerocb@c ox.net wrote:=0A> =0A> --> Avionics-List message posted by: =0A> =0A> 1/20/2010=0A> =0A> Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more =0A> with =0A> your help?=0A> =0A> You write:=0A > =0A> 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There ar e =0A> huge =0A> expanses of this country where this is true."=0A> =0A> {Re sponse} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam =0A> the =0A> wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the =0A> u ncontrolled =0A> airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low =0A> altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance.=0A> =0A> There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can =0A> you =0A> please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart f or your area =0A> and =0A> confirm that the statements you made above are t rue? I tend to doubt =0A> them. =0A> Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace =0A> and =0A> therefore is controlled.=0A> =0A> 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find tha t =0A> folks=0A> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico ) can fly for=0A> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon A NY of the=0A> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)."=0A> =0A> {Response } If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of =0A> the =0A> surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b ) =0A> (5) =0A> (i). See here:=0A> =0A> "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no =0A> person =0A> may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) =0A> through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an =0A> =0A> operable coded radar beacon transponder.......=0A> =0A> (i) In all airspace of the 48 con tiguous states and the District of =0A> Columbia =0A> at and above 10,000 f eet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 =0A> feet =0A> above the surface; and....."=0A> =0A> 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly withou t a transponder and/or =0A> without =0A> it turned on."=0A> =0A> {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with =0A> no =0A> transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL =0A > if =0A> within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is contro lled, =0A> as =0A> long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with.=0A> =0A > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you =0A> have =0A> in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? =0A> =0A> Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transpond er or =0A> not =0A> is not the existence or not of generic controlled airsp ace, but rather =0A> the =0A> specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled =0A> airspace" =0A> is not used once in the entire 91. 215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 =0A> CFR =0A> paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a =0A> transponder or not.=0A> =0A> Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a =0A> set of =0A> low altitude IFR charts for the entire country.=0A> =0A> ' OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and =0A> understand knowledge."=0A> =0A> PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes =0A> there =0A> is some brown (uncontrolled ai rspace) out there, but one would be hard =0A> pressed to fly around and avo id all surrounding white (controlled =0A> airspace) =0A> unless a special n avigation effort was made.=0A> =0A> ============= ==============0A> =0A> Time: 07:10:22 PM PST US =0A> From: "Jon Finley" =0A> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-L ist: Encoder Certification=0A> =0A> Bakerocb,=0A> =0A> Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If=0A> I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. =0A> No=0A> doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment=0A> (controll ed airspace).=0A> =0A> If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks=0A> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in Ne w Mexico) can fly for=0A> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT com e upon ANY of the=0A> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additional ly, 91.215 (c), =0A> does =0A> not=0A> apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.=0A> =0A> So, given MY environment, I can fly without a tra nsponder and/or without=0A> it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is =0A> true.=0A> =0A> If someone can prove the above wr ong, I would be interested in hearing.=0A> =0A> Jon=0A> =0A> ==== ===================== Use utiliti es Day ====================== = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS =========== ============ - List Contribution Web Sit e sp; =============== .com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List] http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroEl === ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:38:28 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification 1/21/2010 Hello Bill Boyd, You wrote: 1) "OC, I'm pretty sure my experimental airworthiness certificate has a blank on it for "manufacturer."" {Response} That is correct. FAA Form 8130-7 SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE block B is entitled MANUFACTURER. This form is used for many different kinds of aircraft than just experimental amateur built. Some of these different kinds of aircraft could indeed have been created by an FAA recognized manufacturer such as Boeing, Piper, Cessna, etc. 2) "I've seen some builders put their last name there, while others put "Vans" or whatever." {Response} Not likely. That form is filled out and signed by the FAA Representative, either an FAA Employee or a DAR, who signs it in block E. 3) "I'm not looking at my cert right now it's in the plane), but I'm reasonably sure the box I'm referring to is not labeled "Fabricator."" {Response} I am looking at my SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE right now. Block B, MANUFACTURER has N/A as an entry. Block D, BUILDER has my name. I hope that every homebuilder who has read this thread is now convinced that they are not their aircraft's manufacturer, which is one of the qualifications listed in 14 CFR 91.411 as needed in order to perform the tests required by that paragraph (91.411 Atimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspection). 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." PS: I write not to pick on you Bill, but to encourage my fellow builders to move from the casual arena of "pretty sure" or "hearsay, gossip, and rumor" to the available facts (which are usually not that hard to come by) regarding our hobby. ========================================================== Time: 06:00:47 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification From: Bill Boyd OC, I'm pretty sure my experimental airworthiness certificate has a blank on it for "manufacturer." I've seen some builders put their last name there, while others put "Vans" or whatever. I'm not looking at my cert right now (it's in the plane), but I'm reasonably sure the box I'm referring to is not labeled "Fabricator." -Bill B ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:51:42 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: ONGOING DISCUSSION 1/21/2010 Hello Raymond, You wrote; "Q. Who can test and inspect to verify compliance with E and F of the chapter?" {Response} The entities qualified to perform the 14 CFR Part 43 Appendicies E and F tests required by 14 CFR paragraphs 91.411 and 91.413 are listed in those paragraphs. They can be readily accessed at this web site by clicking on Regulations & Policies: http://www.faa.gov/ 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ================================================= Time: 12:59:27 PM PST US From: ray Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ONGOING DISCUSSION Q. Who can test and inspect to verify compliance with E and F of the chapter? Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:35:16 AM PST US From: "Kevin Klinefelter" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification Old Bob, You have a way of simply stating the simple truth... Keep posting and keep flying! Kevin do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: bobsv35b@aol.com To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:15 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification Good Morning Bill, I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified by a properly rated shop. However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy. Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder. This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something which is not required by the appropriate authority. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove, IL Stearman N3977A In a message dated 1/20/2010 10:07:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes: Folks, Using the term "controlled airspace" is a bit of a misnomer. Airspace is categorized as A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Only F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, and very little G, outside Alaska. For those with a long memory, what is now E, in the US was once called "Controlled/VFR Exempt". In regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in US, as it is most common airspace below below A. Generally, B,C and D are terminal/tower airspace. Below 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder relates to the transponder veil withing 30 miles of the airfields on which Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/charted. In my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requirements for a Mode C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary initial/recurrent testing. How?? do you establish the 95% probability performance otherwise required in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation does not do that, it does not establish the in-service performance is maintained. Regards, Bill Hamilton > bakerocb@cox.net wrote: > > --> Avionics-List message posted by: > > 1/20/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more > with > your help? > > You write: > > 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are > huge > expanses of this country where this is true." > > {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam > the > wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the > uncontrolled > airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low > altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. > > There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can > you > please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area > and > confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt > them. > Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace > and > therefore is controlled. > > 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that > folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." > > {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of > the > surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i). See here: > > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no > person > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an > > operable coded radar beacon transponder....... > > (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of > Columbia > at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 > feet > above the surface; and....." > > 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or > without > it turned on." > > {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with > no > transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL > if > within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, > as > long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. > > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you > have > in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? > > Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or > not > is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather > the > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > airspace" > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 > CFR > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > transponder or not. > > Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a > set of > low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes > there > is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard > pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled > airspace) > unless a special navigation effort was made. > > > > Time: 07:10:22 PM PST US > From: "Jon Finley" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification > > Bakerocb, > > Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If > I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. > No > doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment > (controlled airspace). > > If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), > does > not > apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled. > > So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without > it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is > true. > > If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing. > > Jon > > Use utilities Day ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======================= - List Contribution Web Site sp; ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:49:11 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13/20 questions At 10:54 PM 1/20/2010, you wrote: > >Arrgh, Bob. > >After all my rumination to decide and you say "by the way that >system sucks"? You're killing me!(':)') Sorry 'bout that . . . but it was not well thought out. Shouldn't have published it without more thought. >As you probably gathered from the Silicone Goo post, I already have >the aux alternator. It's 40 amps, same basic unit as B&C. It's >overkill but the penalty is just 1.5 #'s and I do need some of the capacity. >I'm choosing Z-13 over Z-19 for 6#'s less weight and unlimited >electrical endurance at the expense of marginally less reliability >than 2 batteries. > >But I don't see an advantage to a cross-feed contactor in Z-13, or >where it would go. It seems that Z-13 has everything that I would >need. What did you have in mind? Only completely independent systems have/need cross-feed capability. If you have the ability to drive two alternators and get rated output from them and your second alternator is hefty, then perhaps Z-14 is a better bet with two smaller batteries. >I still don't understand the thinking of having a fuselink and >fuse/CB on the same circuit ala the battery bus to e bus run. >Otherwise I feel that Z-13/8(40) and I will get along fine. The only instance I recall using a fusible link in series with a breaker is on systems that feature fuse blocks AND crowbar OV protection. The only circuit protection on the panel is the 5A breaker made necessary by the crowbar ov system EXTENSION of the fuse bus up to the breaker calls for ROBUST circuit protection that won't open when the breaker trips. Where do you see a fusible link, fuse and cb on the same line in my drawings? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:33:09 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic Old Bob Be assured that many of us do read your comments! Starting to drift off topic (so I modified it) but I would encourage everyone to operate a transponder at all times even if you never talk to ATC or are always in remote areas. With $450. PCAS type anti collision units available it has to be safer to operate a transponder. Even in an airport traffic circuit I find the pcas sometimes has me straining to locate traffic when I haven't heard any radio calls but I know there is a transponder nearby. Anybody never had the wrong frequency tuned or forgot to make a transmission? If something like a pcas confirms that a transponder is reporting the same altitude as the altimeter, it has to be safer to have a transponder turned on. There is a risk that both encoder and altimeter are reporting the same erroneous altitude so certification does have safety value as well as legal value. Many of us fly enough formation or could do the manometer test to rule out that risk though. Much of the time and dollars spent chasing static system leaks is irrelevant in real world operation for non pressurized aircraft. A leak that makes the test impossible is usually insignificant in normal ops with an unpressurized aircraft. Small leak - hook test equipment directly to encoder and let the owner deal with the leak later. I suspect that the overall air traffic system safety risk from operating a transponder that is reporting accurate altitude but may fail other certification parameters is essentially nil. Anybody know different?? Would relaxed certification requirements reduce safety or would it make transponder ownership more affordable and actually increase safety? It is not the cost of a transponder (or 406 ELT) that keeps some of us from upgrading. It is the continuing cost of ownership (certification costs) that adds little value to us or other airspace users. Ken bobsv35b@aol.com wrote: > Good Morning Bill, > > I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify > the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified > by a properly rated shop. > > However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is > required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is > VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those > few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT > required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away > from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy. > > Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and > stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder. > > This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the > previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint > and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something > which is not required by the appropriate authority. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Downers Grove, IL > Stearman N3977A > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:54:01 AM PST US From: "Jared Yates" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic Likewise, TCAS systems that are in many larger airplanes will not "see" an airplane that doesn't have a transponder on. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:30 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic Old Bob Be assured that many of us do read your comments! Starting to drift off topic (so I modified it) but I would encourage everyone to operate a transponder at all times even if you never talk to ATC or are always in remote areas. With $450. PCAS type anti collision units available it has to be safer to operate a transponder. Even in an airport traffic circuit I find the pcas sometimes has me straining to locate traffic when I haven't heard any radio calls but I know there is a transponder nearby. Anybody never had the wrong frequency tuned or forgot to make a transmission? If something like a pcas confirms that a transponder is reporting the same altitude as the altimeter, it has to be safer to have a transponder turned on. There is a risk that both encoder and altimeter are reporting the same erroneous altitude so certification does have safety value as well as legal value. Many of us fly enough formation or could do the manometer test to rule out that risk though. Much of the time and dollars spent chasing static system leaks is irrelevant in real world operation for non pressurized aircraft. A leak that makes the test impossible is usually insignificant in normal ops with an unpressurized aircraft. Small leak - hook test equipment directly to encoder and let the owner deal with the leak later. I suspect that the overall air traffic system safety risk from operating a transponder that is reporting accurate altitude but may fail other certification parameters is essentially nil. Anybody know different?? Would relaxed certification requirements reduce safety or would it make transponder ownership more affordable and actually increase safety? It is not the cost of a transponder (or 406 ELT) that keeps some of us from upgrading. It is the continuing cost of ownership (certification costs) that adds little value to us or other airspace users. Ken bobsv35b@aol.com wrote: > Good Morning Bill, > > I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify > the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified > by a properly rated shop. > > However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is > required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is > VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those > few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT > required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away > from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy. > > Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and > stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder. > > This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the > previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint > and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something > which is not required by the appropriate authority. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Downers Grove, IL > Stearman N3977A > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:18:53 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13/20 questions From: "user9253" John, Here are some more AML rocker switches if you are interested: http://tinyurl.com/yzesmjo And the data sheet: http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/manual/catalog/c30030.pdf Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282724#282724 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:18:56 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fuesable Link From: "PaulR" I'm trying to find a place to purchase the silicone sleeving to make some fuse links out of. Anyone have any ideas? I'd buy the kits from B&C but I need some 26GA for the shunt. Thanks -------- Paul Rose N417PR (res) RV-9A Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282725#282725 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:42 AM PST US From: bobsv35b@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification Good Morning Jon, Thanks for the response, I was getting lonely! I don't think the guys that write this stuff want us to understand it. Maybe it makes for more business as they enforce the regs?!? Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 1/21/2010 4:43:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, jon@finleyweb.net writes: Hi Bob, Your notes have not been ignored - I agree with your position. There are two issues being bantered about. The first is the requirement to have a transponder installed. As you have stated, you are not required to have one unless flying in the airspace that you listed. The second is the USE of a transponder IF you have one installed (14 CFR 91.215 (c) at all times in any airspace other than Class G). In my opinion, the FAA has complicated this by using non-descript language. Jon -----Original Message----- From: bobsv35b@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:15am Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification Good Morning Bill, I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified by a properly rated shop. However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy. Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder. This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something which is not required by the appropriate authority. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove, IL Stearman N3977A In a message dated 1/20/2010 10:07:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au Folks, Using the term "controlled airspace" is a bit of a misnomer. Airspace is categorized as A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Only F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, and very little G, outside Alaska. For those with a long memory, what is now E, in the US was once called "Controlled/VFR Exempt". In regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in US, as it is most common airspace below below A. Generally, B,C and D are terminal/tower airspace. Below 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder relates to the transponder veil withing 30 miles of the airfields on which Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/charted. In my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requirements for a Mode C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary initial/recurrent testing. How?? do you establish the 95% probability performance otherwise required in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation does not do that, it does not establish the in-service performance is maintained. Regards, Bill Hamilton > bakerocb@cox.net wrote: > > --> Avionics-List message posted by: > > 1/20/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more > with > your help? > > You write: > > 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are > huge > expanses of this country where this is true." > > {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam > the > wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the > uncontrolled > airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low > altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. > > There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can > you > please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area > and > confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt > them. > Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace > and > therefore is controlled. > > 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that > folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." > > {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of > the > surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i). See here: > > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no > person > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an > > operable coded radar beacon transponder....... > > (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of > Columbia > at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 > feet > above the surface; and....." > > 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or > without > it turned on." > > {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with > no > transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL > if > within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, > as > long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. > > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you > have > in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? > > Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or > not > is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather > the > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > airspace" > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 > CFR > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > transponder or not. > > Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a > set of > low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes > there > is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard > pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled > airspace) > unless a special navigation effort was made. > > ========================= > > Time: 07:10:22 PM PST US > From: "Jon Finley" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification > > Bakerocb, > > Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If > I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. > No > doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment > (controlled airspace). > > If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), > does > not > apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled. > > So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without > it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is > true. > > If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing. > > Jon > > ========================= Use utilities Day ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ========================= http://forums.matroni--> _http://www.matroni==================== _ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) _http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List_ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:31:37 AM PST US From: bobsv35b@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification Thank You Kevin! Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 1/21/2010 7:36:37 A.M. Central Standard Time, kevann@gotsky.com writes: Old Bob, You have a way of simply stating the simple truth... Keep posting and keep flying! Kevin do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: _bobsv35b@aol.com_ (mailto:bobsv35b@aol.com) (mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com) Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:15 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification Good Morning Bill, I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified by a properly rated shop. However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy. Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder. This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something which is not required by the appropriate authority. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Downers Grove, IL Stearman N3977A In a message dated 1/20/2010 10:07:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes: Folks, Using the term "controlled airspace" is a bit of a misnomer. Airspace is categorized as A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Only F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, and very little G, outside Alaska. For those with a long memory, what is now E, in the US was once called "Controlled/VFR Exempt". In regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in US, as it is most common airspace below below A. Generally, B,C and D are terminal/tower airspace. Below 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder relates to the transponder veil withing 30 miles of the airfields on which Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/charted. In my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requirements for a Mode C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary initial/recurrent testing. How?? do you establish the 95% probability performance otherwise required in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation does not do that, it does not establish the in-service performance is maintained. Regards, Bill Hamilton > bakerocb@cox.net wrote: > > --> Avionics-List message posted by: > > 1/20/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more > with > your help? > > You write: > > 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are > huge > expanses of this country where this is true." > > {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam > the > wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the > uncontrolled > airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low > altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. > > There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can > you > please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area > and > confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt > them. > Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace > and > therefore is controlled. > > 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that > folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." > > {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of > the > surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i). See here: > > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no > person > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an > > operable coded radar beacon transponder....... > > (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of > Columbia > at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 > feet > above the surface; and....." > > 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or > without > it turned on." > > {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with > no > transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL > if > within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, > as > long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. > > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you > have > in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? > > Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or > not > is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather > the > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > airspace" > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 > CFR > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > transponder or not. > > Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a > set of > low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes > there > is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard > pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled > airspace) > unless a special navigation effort was made. > > > > Time: 07:10:22 PM PST US > From: "Jon Finley" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification > > Bakerocb, > > Everything noted so far in this thread assumes controlled airspace. If > I missed where that was stated in this thread then ignore my comments. > No > doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment > (controlled airspace). > > If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), > does > not > apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled. > > So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without > it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is > true. > > If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be interested in hearing. > > Jon > > Use utilities Day ======================= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======================= - List Contribution Web Site sp; href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:35:07 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification From: jon@finleyweb.net =0AI totally agree with you Bob!=0A =0AWe had an FAA inspector present at o ur EAA chapter meeting last night. After he said that "flying is a privile dge, not a right" I offered him some advice, stood up, and walked out. =0A =0AJon =0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: bobsv35b@aol.com=0ASent : Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:14am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com =0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification =0A=0A=0AGood Morning Jon,=0A =0AThanks for the response, I was getting lon ely!=0A =0AI don't think the guys that write this stuff want us to understa nd it. Maybe it makes for more business as they enforce the regs?!? =0A =0AHappy Skies,=0A =0AOld Bob=0A =0A=0AIn a message dated 1/21/2010 4:43:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, jon@finleyweb.net writes:=0AHi Bob,=0A =0AYour notes have not been ignored - I agree with your position. =0A =0AThere ar e two issues being bantered about. =0A =0AThe first is the requirement to have a transponder installed. As you have stated, you are not required to h ave one unless flying in the airspace that you listed.=0A =0AThe second is the USE of a transponder IF you have one installed (14 CFR 91.215 (c) at al l times in any airspace other than Class G).=0A =0AIn my opinion, the FAA h as complicated this by using non-descript language.=0A=0AJon=0A =0A=0A----- Original Message-----=0AFrom: bobsv35b@aol.com=0ASent: Thursday, January 21 , 2010 2:15am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElec tric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification=0A=0A=0AGood Morning Bi ll,=0A =0AI do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can v erify the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certif ied by a properly rated shop. =0A =0AHowever, I am amazed that everyone se ems to feel that a transponder is required for most operations. The vast ma jority of light plane flying is VFR and away from areas that require a tran sponder. It isn't just those few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS r equired. Stay away from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy. =0A =0AGet out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder. =0A =0AThis is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint an d quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something whic h is not required by the appropriate authority.=0A =0AHappy Skies,=0A =0AOl d Bob=0AAKA=0ABob Siegfried=0ADowners Grove, IL=0AStearman N3977A =0A =0A =0A=0AIn a message dated 1/20/2010 10:07:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, wjr rhamilton@optusnet.com.au=0A=0A=0AFolks,=0AUsing the term "controlled airsp ace" is a bit of a misnomer.=0A=0AAirspace is categorized as A, B, C, D, E, F and G.=0A=0AOnly F and G are "uncontrolled", there is no F in the US, an d very little G, outside Alaska.=0A=0AFor those with a long memory, what is now E, in the US was once called "Controlled/VFR Exempt".=0AIn regular day to day flying, it is very hard to dodge E airspace in US, as it is most co mmon airspace below below A.=0A=0AGenerally, B,C and D are terminal/tower a irspace.=0A=0ABelow 10,000', for Part 91 operations, the requirement for a transponder relates to the transponder veil withing 30 miles of the airfiel ds on which Class B is centered, or as otherwise noted/charted.=0A=0AIn my opinion, as an individual, you can only satisfy the requirements for a Mod e C encoder by having a TSO unit, with the necessary initial/recurrent test ing.=0A=0AHow?? do you establish the 95% probability performance otherwise required in Part 91, already mentioned, a simple test of an installation do es not do that, it does not establish the in-service performance is maintai ned.=0A=0ARegards,=0ABill Hamilton =0A=0A=0A> bakerocb@cox.net wrote:=0A> =0A> --> Avionics-List message posted by: =0A> =0A> 1/20/ 2010=0A> =0A> Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more =0A> with =0A> your help?=0A> =0A> You write:=0A> =0A> 1) "..... a lmost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are =0A> huge =0A> e xpanses of this country where this is true."=0A> =0A> {Response} I wonder i f this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam =0A> the =0A> wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the =0A> uncontrolled =0A> a irspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low =0A> al titude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance.=0A> =0A> There was da mn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can =0A> you =0A> please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area =0A> and =0A> confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to dou bt =0A> them. =0A> Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Cl ass E airspace =0A> and =0A> therefore is controlled.=0A> =0A> 2) "If you r ead the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that =0A> folks=0A> l iving in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for=0A> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the=0A> airs pace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)."=0A> =0A> {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of =0A> the =0A> surface you wil l definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) =0A> (5) =0A> (i). See here:=0A> =0A> "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or direc ted by ATC, no =0A> person =0A> may operate an aircraft in the airspace des cribed in paragraphs (b)(1) =0A> through (b)(5) of this section, unless tha t aircraft is equipped with an =0A> =0A> operable coded radar beacon transp onder.......=0A> =0A> (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and t he District of =0A> Columbia =0A> at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding t he airspace at and below 2,500 =0A> feet =0A> above the surface; and....." =0A> =0A> 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and /or =0A> without =0A> it turned on."=0A> =0A> {Response} Note that 91.215 ( b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with =0A> no =0A> transponders to ope rate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL =0A> if =0A> within 2, 500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, =0A> as =0A> long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with.=0A> =0A> Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you =0A> have =0A> in min d to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se?=0A> =0A> Anyway the r eal issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or =0A> not =0A> is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather =0A> t he =0A> specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled =0A> airspace" =0A> is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph an d this is the 14 =0A> CFR =0A> paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a =0A> transponder or not.=0A> =0A> Hoping to read ab out what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a =0A> set of =0A> low a ltitude IFR charts for the entire country.=0A> =0A> 'OC' Says: "The best in vestment we can make is the effort to gather and =0A> understand knowledge. "=0A> =0A> PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro N M. Yes =0A> there =0A> is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard =0A> pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding whi te (controlled =0A> airspace) =0A> unless a special navigation effort was m ade.=0A> =0A> ==================== =======0A> =0A> Time: 07:10:22 PM PST US=0A> From: "Jon Finley" =0A> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certificat ion=0A> =0A> Bakerocb,=0A> =0A> Everything noted so far in this thread assu mes controlled airspace. If=0A> I missed where that was stated in this thr ead then ignore my comments. =0A> No=0A> doubt that what has been said is applicable given the right environment=0A> (controlled airspace).=0A> =0A> If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks=0A > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for =0A> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the=0A> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5). Additionally, 91.215 (c), =0A> does =0A> not=0A> apply as almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled.=0A> =0A> So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or witho ut=0A> it turned on. There are huge expanses of this country where this is =0A> true.=0A> =0A> If someone can prove the above wrong, I would be inter ested in hearing.=0A> =0A> Jon=0A> =0A> =========== ============== Use utilities Day ==== =================== - MA TRONICS WEB FORUMS ================== ===== - List Contribution Web Site sp; ====================== =====0A=0A=0A http://forums.matroni--> [http://www.matronics.com/co ntribution] http://www.matroni=============== ====================== ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:44:35 AM PST US From: bobsv35b@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification - off topic Good Morning Ken, Thanks for the response. I agree, though I do worry a bit that when we have so much on board capability as is available today, some of us may be spending more time inside the cockpit than is prudent. I particularly like your comment about who has, or who has not, ever had the wrong frequency set in the radio. While I think the proper and judicious use of the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency has been a positive step. It bothers me that so few pilots seem to understand that there are a lot of No Radio Aircraft in our airspace. The most common NORDO is we who do not have our radios properly configured for the job at hand. Or, there may be some old guy like me who has not yet succumbed to installing a radio in his Stearman. (I finally bit the bullet and stuck one in about three years ago, primarily for use while flying in a flight demonstration group) Happy Skies, Old Bob Do Not Archive In a message dated 1/21/2010 9:34:29 A.M. Central Standard Time, klehman@albedo.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken Old Bob Be assured that many of us do read your comments! Starting to drift off topic (so I modified it) but I would encourage everyone to operate a transponder at all times even if you never talk to ATC or are always in remote areas. With $450. PCAS type anti collision units available it has to be safer to operate a transponder. Even in an airport traffic circuit I find the pcas sometimes has me straining to locate traffic when I haven't heard any radio calls but I know there is a transponder nearby. Anybody never had the wrong frequency tuned or forgot to make a transmission? If something like a pcas confirms that a transponder is reporting the same altitude as the altimeter, it has to be safer to have a transponder turned on. There is a risk that both encoder and altimeter are reporting the same erroneous altitude so certification does have safety value as well as legal value. Many of us fly enough formation or could do the manometer test to rule out that risk though. Much of the time and dollars spent chasing static system leaks is irrelevant in real world operation for non pressurized aircraft. A leak that makes the test impossible is usually insignificant in normal ops with an unpressurized aircraft. Small leak - hook test equipment directly to encoder and let the owner deal with the leak later. I suspect that the overall air traffic system safety risk from operating a transponder that is reporting accurate altitude but may fail other certification parameters is essentially nil. Anybody know different?? Would relaxed certification requirements reduce safety or would it make transponder ownership more affordable and actually increase safety? It is not the cost of a transponder (or 406 ELT) that keeps some of us from upgrading. It is the continuing cost of ownership (certification costs) that adds little value to us or other airspace users. Ken bobsv35b@aol.com wrote: > Good Morning Bill, > > I do not have an opinion as to whether or not a homebuilder can verify > the accuracy of his installation and I would probably get mine certified > by a properly rated shop. > > However, I am amazed that everyone seems to feel that a transponder is > required for most operations. The vast majority of light plane flying is > VFR and away from areas that require a transponder. It isn't just those > few areas that are strictly class G airspace. The transponder is NOT > required unless you fly in an airspace where it IS required. Stay away > from class A, B, C, and below ten thousand feet MSL and it is easy. > > Get out where you have to fly above ten to avoid hitting the ground and > stay below 2500 AG and you still don't need a transponder. > > This is the third message I have sent on this subject and all of the > previous ones have been totally ignored. I guess I should take the hint > and quit participating, but I hate to see folks told they need something > which is not required by the appropriate authority. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Downers Grove, IL > Stearman N3977A > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:33 AM PST US From: bobsv35b@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Encoder Certification Good Morning Jon, Good For You! Maybe we need some aviation oriented Tea Partys? Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 1/21/2010 10:36:14 A.M. Central Standard Time, jon@finleyweb.net writes: I totally agree with you Bob! We had an FAA inspector present at our EAA chapter meeting last night. After he said that "flying is a priviledge, not a right" I offered him some advice, stood up, and walked out. Jon ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:24:51 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13/20 questions From: "jonlaury" Bob, With silicone goo all over the 2nd alternator, 2 smaller batteries never crossed my mind. Looking forward to exploring that. Re fuselinks and fuses/cb's on same line, the Z-13/8 version that I have shows that condition on the battery bus feed to the E-bus alt feed switch to the Ebus. John ************* Joe, Thanks for the links. I'd looked at the AML 24 series , but dismissed them because the contact rating is for just 2 amps resistive @ 24vdc. http://sensing.honeywell.com/index.cfm/ci_id/141354/la_id/1/document/1/re_id/0 I'm not sure if this matters for operating contactors, or some of the other circuits in the Z architectures. I thought that I would have more flexibility with higher amp rated switches at the expense of an extra switch or two, because of single throw limitation. Thanks John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282742#282742 ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:40 AM PST US From: Jesse Jenks Subject: AeroElectric-List: Planning Hopefully this is a dumb question: With an aft battery installation=2C does the main bus feed wire come from t he starter? Also=2C does the crankcase ground strap connect to the firewall forest of t abs ground bus through bolt=2C or does it need its own more substantial bra cket to bolt to? Thanks. Jesse _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free=2C trusted and rich email service. ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 12:24:46 PM PST US From: Tim Andres Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-bus load. I'm having trouble getting my E bus load down to what I think are acceptable levels. So given the following avionics what would be the recommendation for the ones that should be feed by the E bus? It seems like they all should except for the second comm and one EFIS maybe. The EFIS panels will be switched separately. Also I have been planning on using the Z 10-8, partly because of brown out protection but also as an AUX power source. I once thought this would also protect the avionics during start but now I see it does not. (I dont mean to open this can of worms again, but most of the equipment I have recommends against starting with the equip. on and I'm going to follow that recommendation even though I believe Bob is right on this.) Comments are appreciated. 2 ea GRT EFIS panels: < 2 amps each. 1 ea GNS 430W < 2 amps / 8 on transmit 1 ea second comm < 2 amps on transmit 1 ea transponder 1~ 1.6 amp 1 ea Auto pilot 1 amp nominal, up to 3 in turbulence 1 ea Audio panel < .5 amp Panel lights 1 amp or so Eng info sys < .5 amp Ignition sys (batt bus) 1 amp ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 02:53:37 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification 1/21/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in your area. Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather the specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled airspace" is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 CFR paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a transponder or not." You wrote: 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare side by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the areas where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But this Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR charts. 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists." {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of controlled Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) or 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals show this same airspace? 3) "There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'." {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet above the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (5) (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) (5) (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the surface in order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in that uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning of controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an operable coded transponder. 4) "Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the repair shop is..).' {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 (b). 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ====================================================== Time: 09:08:18 AM PST US From: "Jon Finley" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification Bakerocb, SkyVector.com is an awesome resource. You can view any sectional or IFR chart in the US (maybe more, I haven't tried) with it and do some very neat trip planning. You are absolutely right, one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists. Said another way, one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists. I admit that I took some liberty with my previous statement to make a point. Obviously we have plenty of Class E space here. The Class E airspace where I live (E98) starts at 1200' AGL (about 6,000' MSL). That is true for most of the northern half of the state except where an airport with an approach exists (the Class E floor extends to 700'/ground at those locations). There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'. With that in mind, I do not have a good guess at how much of my actual flying is in uncontrolled airspace (i.e. beneath the floor of Class E) but I would guess about 40%. When going x-country (i.e. hundreds of miles), a higher altitude is typical which places me in Class E. Most of my flying is recreational (to from breakfast, sightseeing, having fun) and is fairly low - I do get above 1200' AGL but also spend a lot of time below 1200' AGL. Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the repair shop is..). Jon Finley =========================================================== > 1/20/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more > with > your help? > > You write: > > 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are > huge > expanses of this country where this is true." > > {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam > the > wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the > uncontrolled > airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low > altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. > > There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. > Can you > please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area > and > confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt > them. > Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace > and > therefore is controlled. > > 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that > folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." > > {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet > of the > surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i). See here: > > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no > person > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with > an > operable coded radar beacon transponder....... > > (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of > Columbia > at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 > feet > above the surface; and....." > > 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or > without > it turned on." > > {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with > no > transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL > if > within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, > as > long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. > > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you > have > in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? > > Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or > not > is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather > the > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > airspace" > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 > CFR > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > transponder or not. > > Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a > set of > low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes > there > is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard > pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled > airspace) > unless a special navigation effort was made. ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 03:16:02 PM PST US From: "Jon Finley" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Encoder Certification RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon > -----Original Message----- > From: bakerocb@cox.net [mailto:bakerocb@cox.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:37 PM > To: avionics-list@matronics.com; aeroelectric-list@matronics.com; > jon@finleyweb.net > Subject: Encoder Certification > > 1/21/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied > below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace > in > your area. > > Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting > regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the > non > relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining > whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded > transponder. > > I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a > transponder or > not is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but > rather > the > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > airspace" > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 > CFR > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > transponder or not." > > You wrote: > > 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR > chart) > to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." > > {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate > sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare > side > by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the > areas > where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going > from > the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But > this > Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the > airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR > charts. > > 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what > altitude > the floor of Class E > airspace exists." > > {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of > controlled > Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) > or > 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. > > But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G > airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low > altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals > show > this same airspace? > > 3) "There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where > Class > E starts > at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and > 12,000'." > > {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet > above > the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet > MSL > or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded > transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that > determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the > surface in > order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in > that > uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning > of > controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an > operable > coded transponder. > > 4) "Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the > transponder > (or > leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where > the > repair shop is..).' > > {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 > (b). > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > ====================================================== > > Time: 09:08:18 AM PST US > From: "Jon Finley" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification > > Bakerocb, > > SkyVector.com is an awesome resource. You can view any sectional or > IFR > chart in the US (maybe more, I haven't tried) with it and do some very > neat > trip planning. > > You are absolutely right, one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT > IFR > chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists. Said another > way, > one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of > Class E > airspace exists. > > I admit that I took some liberty with my previous statement to make a > point. > Obviously we have plenty of Class E space here. The Class E airspace > where > I live (E98) starts at 1200' AGL (about 6,000' MSL). That is true for > most > of the northern half of the state except where an airport with an > approach > exists (the Class E floor extends to 700'/ground at those locations). > There > is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E > starts > at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and > 12,000'. > > > With that in mind, I do not have a good guess at how much of my actual > flying is in uncontrolled airspace (i.e. beneath the floor of Class E) > but I > would guess about 40%. When going x-country (i.e. hundreds of miles), a > higher altitude is typical which places me in Class E. Most of my > flying is > recreational (to from breakfast, sightseeing, having fun) and is fairly > low > - I do get above 1200' AGL but also spend a lot of time below 1200' > AGL. > > > Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the > transponder (or > leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where > the > repair shop is..). > > > Jon Finley > > =========================================================== > > 1/20/2010 > > > > > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more > > > with > > > your help? > > > > > > You write: > > > > > > 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are > > > huge > > > expanses of this country where this is true." > > > > > > {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam > > > the > > > wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the > > > uncontrolled > > > airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low > > > altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. > > > > > > > There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. > > > Can you > > > please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area > > > and > > > confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt > > > them. > > > Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E > airspace > > > and > > > therefore is controlled. > > > > > > 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find > that > > > folks > > > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly > for > > > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > > > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." > > > > > > {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet > > > of the > > > surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 > (b) > > > (5) > > > (i). See here: > > > > > > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no > > > person > > > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs > (b)(1) > > > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with > > > an > > > operable coded radar beacon transponder....... > > > > > > (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of > > > Columbia > > > at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below > 2,500 > > > feet > > > above the surface; and....." > > > > > > 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or > > > without > > > it turned on." > > > > > > {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft > with > > > no > > > transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet > MSL > > > if > > > within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is > controlled, > > > as > > > long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. > > > > > > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that > you > > > have > > > in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? > > > > > > Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder > or > > > not > > > is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but > rather > > > the > > > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > > > airspace" > > > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the > 14 > > > CFR > > > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > > > transponder or not. > > > > > > Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a > > > set of > > > low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. > > > > > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather > and > > > understand knowledge." > > > > > > PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. > Yes > > > there > > > is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be > hard > > > pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled > > > airspace) > > > unless a special navigation effort was made. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > 01/20/10 19:18:00 ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 04:07:17 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Encoder Certification You are confused about transponder/encoder requirements for Class E and G. In the lower 48, if you are outside of A,B or C airspace you have to have a transponder if above 10,000 ft, unless within 2500 ft AGL, regardless of whether it is D, E or G. Just because it is G airspace does not mean you don't need a transponder.( also required under or above B&C regardless of altitude). If you want to go above 2500 agl and 10000msl without transponder, you will have to go to Alaska or Hawaii. Jon Finley wrote: > > RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: > http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm > > Jon > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bakerocb@cox.net [mailto:bakerocb@cox.net] >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:37 PM >> To: avionics-list@matronics.com; aeroelectric-list@matronics.com; >> jon@finleyweb.net >> Subject: Encoder Certification >> >> 1/21/2010 >> >> Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied >> below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace >> in >> your area. >> >> Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting >> regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the >> non >> relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining >> whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded >> transponder. >> >> I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a >> transponder or >> not is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but >> rather >> the >> specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled >> airspace" >> is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 >> CFR >> paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a >> transponder or not." >> >> You wrote: >> >> 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR >> chart) >> to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." >> >> {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate >> sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare >> side >> by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the >> areas >> where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going >> from >> the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But >> this >> Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the >> airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR >> charts. >> >> 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what >> altitude >> the floor of Class E >> airspace exists." >> >> {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of >> controlled >> Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) >> or >> 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. >> >> But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G >> airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low >> altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals >> show >> this same airspace? >> >> 3) "There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where >> Class >> E starts >> at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and >> 12,000'." >> >> {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet >> above >> the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet >> MSL >> or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded >> transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) >> (5) >> (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that >> determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) >> (5) >> (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the >> surface in >> order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in >> that >> uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning >> of >> controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an >> operable >> coded transponder. >> >> 4) "Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the >> transponder >> (or >> leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where >> the >> repair shop is..).' >> >> {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 >> (b). >> >> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and >> understand knowledge." >> >> ====================================================== >> >> Time: 09:08:18 AM PST US >> From: "Jon Finley" >> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification >> >> Bakerocb, >> >> SkyVector.com is an awesome resource. You can view any sectional or >> IFR >> chart in the US (maybe more, I haven't tried) with it and do some very >> neat >> trip planning. >> >> You are absolutely right, one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT >> IFR >> chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists. Said another >> way, >> one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of >> Class E >> airspace exists. >> >> I admit that I took some liberty with my previous statement to make a >> point. >> Obviously we have plenty of Class E space here. The Class E airspace >> where >> I live (E98) starts at 1200' AGL (about 6,000' MSL). That is true for >> most >> of the northern half of the state except where an airport with an >> approach >> exists (the Class E floor extends to 700'/ground at those locations). >> There >> is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E >> starts >> at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and >> 12,000'. >> >> >> With that in mind, I do not have a good guess at how much of my actual >> flying is in uncontrolled airspace (i.e. beneath the floor of Class E) >> but I >> would guess about 40%. When going x-country (i.e. hundreds of miles), a >> higher altitude is typical which places me in Class E. Most of my >> flying is >> recreational (to from breakfast, sightseeing, having fun) and is fairly >> low >> - I do get above 1200' AGL but also spend a lot of time below 1200' >> AGL. >> >> >> Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the >> transponder (or >> leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where >> the >> repair shop is..). >> >> >> Jon Finley >> >> =========================================================== >> >>> 1/20/2010 >>> >>> Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more >>> >>> with >>> >>> your help? >>> >>> You write: >>> >>> 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are >>> >>> huge >>> >>> expanses of this country where this is true." >>> >>> {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam >>> >>> the >>> >>> wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the >>> >>> uncontrolled >>> >>> airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low >>> >>> altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. >>> >> >>> There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. >>> >>> Can you >>> >>> please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area >>> >>> and >>> >>> confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt >>> >>> them. >>> >>> Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E >>> >> airspace >> >> >>> and >>> >>> therefore is controlled. >>> >>> 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find >>> >> that >> >> >>> folks >>> >>> living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly >>> >> for >> >> >>> hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the >>> >>> airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." >>> >>> {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet >>> >>> of the >>> >>> surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 >>> >> (b) >> >> >>> (5) >>> >>> (i). See here: >>> >>> "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no >>> >>> person >>> >>> may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs >>> >> (b)(1) >> >> >>> through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with >>> >>> an >>> >>> operable coded radar beacon transponder....... >>> >>> (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of >>> >>> Columbia >>> >>> at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below >>> >> 2,500 >> >> >>> feet >>> >>> above the surface; and....." >>> >>> 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or >>> >>> without >>> >>> it turned on." >>> >>> {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft >>> >> with >> >> >>> no >>> >>> transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet >>> >> MSL >> >> >>> if >>> >>> within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is >>> >> controlled, >> >> >>> as >>> >>> long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. >>> >>> Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that >>> >> you >> >> >>> have >>> >>> in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? >>> >>> Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder >>> >> or >> >> >>> not >>> >>> is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but >>> >> rather >> >> >>> the >>> >>> specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled >>> >>> airspace" >>> >>> is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the >>> >> 14 >> >> >>> CFR >>> >>> paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a >>> >>> transponder or not. >>> >>> Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a >>> >>> set of >>> >>> low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. >>> >>> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather >>> >> and >> >> >>> understand knowledge." >>> >>> PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. >>> >> Yes >> >> >>> there >>> >>> is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be >>> >> hard >> >> >>> pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled >>> >>> airspace) >>> >>> unless a special navigation effort was made. >>> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> 01/20/10 19:18:00 >> > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 05:33:57 PM PST US From: "Jon Finley" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Encoder Certification Oh brother.. Apparently this discussion has went around and around enough times that what is being said no longer makes sense to anyone. Next subject please! Jon From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:37 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Encoder Certification You are confused about transponder/encoder requirements for Class E and G. In the lower 48, if you are outside of A,B or C airspace you have to have a transponder if above 10,000 ft, unless within 2500 ft AGL, regardless of whether it is D, E or G. Just because it is G airspace does not mean you don't need a transponder.( also required under or above B&C regardless of altitude). If you want to go above 2500 agl and 10000msl without transponder, you will have to go to Alaska or Hawaii. Jon Finley wrote: RE: #2. Look at the Class E section of this page: http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm Jon -----Original Message----- From: bakerocb@cox.net [mailto:bakerocb@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:37 PM jon@finleyweb.net Subject: Encoder Certification 1/21/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in your area. Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather the specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled airspace" is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 CFR paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a transponder or not." You wrote: 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare side by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the areas where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But this Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR charts. 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists." {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of controlled Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) or 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals show this same airspace? 3) "There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'." {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet above the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (5) (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) (5) (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the surface in order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in that uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning of controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an operable coded transponder. 4) "Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the repair shop is..).' {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 (b). 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ====================================================== Time: 09:08:18 AM PST US From: "Jon Finley" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification Bakerocb, SkyVector.com is an awesome resource. You can view any sectional or IFR chart in the US (maybe more, I haven't tried) with it and do some very neat trip planning. You are absolutely right, one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists. Said another way, one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists. I admit that I took some liberty with my previous statement to make a point. Obviously we have plenty of Class E space here. The Class E airspace where I live (E98) starts at 1200' AGL (about 6,000' MSL). That is true for most of the northern half of the state except where an airport with an approach exists (the Class E floor extends to 700'/ground at those locations). There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'. With that in mind, I do not have a good guess at how much of my actual flying is in uncontrolled airspace (i.e. beneath the floor of Class E) but I would guess about 40%. When going x-country (i.e. hundreds of miles), a higher altitude is typical which places me in Class E. Most of my flying is recreational (to from breakfast, sightseeing, having fun) and is fairly low - I do get above 1200' AGL but also spend a lot of time below 1200' AGL. Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the repair shop is..). Jon Finley =========================================================== 1/20/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more with your help? You write: 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are huge expanses of this country where this is true." {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam the wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the uncontrolled airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. Can you please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area and confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt them. Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace and therefore is controlled. 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that folks living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet of the surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) (5) (i). See here: "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder....... (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and....." 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or without it turned on." {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with no transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL if within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, as long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you have in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather the specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled airspace" is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 CFR paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a transponder or not. Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a set of low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes there is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled airspace) unless a special navigation effort was made. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 01/20/10 19:18:00 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 19:34:00 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 05:35:08 PM PST US From: bobsv35b@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification And, to sum it up simply, stay out of class A, B, and C airspace. Fly only below 10,000 feet or closer to the ground than 2500 feet if you have to go above ten to avoid the terrain, and you have no need for, or requirement to have, a transponder. That leaves the vast majority of the United States Airspace available for flight by a non transponder equipped aircraft. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 1/21/2010 4:55:44 P.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb@cox.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 1/21/2010 Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled airspace in your area. Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that charting regard I would like to again remind all of the readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather the specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled airspace" is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 CFR paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a transponder or not." You wrote: 1) ".............. one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists." {Response} Is that really true? I don't have the current appropriate sectional and low altitude IFR charts of the areas out west to compare side by side, but the few sectional charts that I do have (outdated) of the areas where I think there should be some uncontrolled Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 MSL feet do not identify this airspace. But this Class G airspace going from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL is the airspace that I believe is shown in brown on the low altitude IFR charts. 2) "Said another way,one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists." {Response} I agree, the sectionals do show where the floor of controlled Class E airspace is at either 700 feet (using magenta colored shading) or 1,200 feet (using blue color shading) above the surface. But do the sectionals in your area also show the uncontrolled Class G airspace that goes from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL like the low altitude charts show with brown shading? If so how do the sectionals show this same airspace? 3) "There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'." {Response} And again it does not matter where Class E starts, 700 feet above the surface, 1,200 feet above the surface, 11,500 feet MSL, 12,000 feet MSL or 14,500 feet MSL when it comes to where one needs an operable coded transponder in an aircraft because it is paragraph 14 CFR 91.215 (b) (5) (i), (along with the other relevant paragraphs in 91.215 (b)), that determines transponder requirement. The relevant numbers in 91.215 (b) (5) (i) are to be below 10,000 feet MSL or within 2,500 feet of the surface in order to operate without a transponder. Even if one is operating in that uncontrolled Class G airspace between 10,000 feet MSL and the beginning of controlled Class E airspace at 14,500 feet MSL one must have an operable coded transponder. 4) "Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the repair shop is..).' {Response} Agreed, as long as one is in compliance with 14 CFR 91.215 (b). 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ====================================================== Time: 09:08:18 AM PST US From: "Jon Finley" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification Bakerocb, SkyVector.com is an awesome resource. You can view any sectional or IFR chart in the US (maybe more, I haven't tried) with it and do some very neat trip planning. You are absolutely right, one has to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true "uncontrolled airspace" exists. Said another way, one has to look at a sectional to see at what altitude the floor of Class E airspace exists. I admit that I took some liberty with my previous statement to make a point. Obviously we have plenty of Class E space here. The Class E airspace where I live (E98) starts at 1200' AGL (about 6,000' MSL). That is true for most of the northern half of the state except where an airport with an approach exists (the Class E floor extends to 700'/ground at those locations). There is quite a bit of area (many, many, many square miles) where Class E starts at 14,500' AGL and a few locations where it starts at 11,500' and 12,000'. With that in mind, I do not have a good guess at how much of my actual flying is in uncontrolled airspace (i.e. beneath the floor of Class E) but I would guess about 40%. When going x-country (i.e. hundreds of miles), a higher altitude is typical which places me in Class E. Most of my flying is recreational (to from breakfast, sightseeing, having fun) and is fairly low - I do get above 1200' AGL but also spend a lot of time below 1200' AGL. Here, it is possible/legal (due to the airspace) to pull the transponder (or leave it off) and fly to a repair shop (obviously depending on where the repair shop is..). Jon Finley =========================================================== > 1/20/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Can we please beat on this subject a bit more > with > your help? > > You write: > > 1) "..... almost all of our airspace is uncontrolled." and "There are > huge > expanses of this country where this is true." > > {Response} I wonder if this is so. Years ago when I would freely roam > the > wild west in my many different flying machines I would eye the > uncontrolled > airspace (delineated by brown shading as opposed to white on the low > altitude IFR charts) and wonder about its significance. > > There was damn little brown shading then and probably much less now. > Can you > please obtain a copy of a recent low altitude IFR chart for your area > and > confirm that the statements you made above are true? I tend to doubt > them. > Note that all airspace in our country above 14,500 is Class E airspace > and > therefore is controlled. > > 2) "If you read the full text of 14 CFR 91.215 (b), you will find that > folks > living in a place like me (middle of nowhere in New Mexico) can fly for > hours and hours in most any direction and NOT come upon ANY of the > airspace listed in (b)(1) through (b)(5)." > > {Response} If you get above 10,000 feet MSL and not within 2,500 feet > of the > surface you will definitely be in the airspace identified by 91.215 (b) > (5) > (i). See here: > > "(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no > person > may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) > through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with > an > operable coded radar beacon transponder....... > > (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of > Columbia > at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 > feet > above the surface; and....." > > 3) "So, given MY environment, I can fly without a transponder and/or > without > it turned on." > > {Response} Note that 91.215 (b) (5) (i) in effect permits aircraft with > no > transponders to operate below 10,000 feet MSL and above 10,000 feet MSL > if > within 2,500 feet of the surface, even if that airspace is controlled, > as > long as the rest of 91.215 (b) is complied with. > > Could it be that this vast amount of airspace is the airspace that you > have > in mind to operate in and not uncontrolled airspace per se? > > Anyway the real issue here when it comes to requiring a transponder or > not > is not the existence or not of generic controlled airspace, but rather > the > specific airspaces identified in 91.215 (b). The term "controlled > airspace" > is not used once in the entire 91.215 (b) parargraph and this is the 14 > CFR > paragaph that regulates whether an aircraft must be equipped with a > transponder or not. > > Hoping to read about what you find out -- sure wish I had access to a > set of > low altitude IFR charts for the entire country. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > PS: I just went on line and checked in the vicinity of Socorro NM. Yes > there > is some brown (uncontrolled airspace) out there, but one would be hard > pressed to fly around and avoid all surrounding white (controlled > airspace) > unless a special navigation effort was made. ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 05:37:33 PM PST US From: "Greg Young" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Encoder Certification Dude... Give it a rest. I've exercised the delete key way too often. I'm gone. > > 1/21/2010 > > Hello Again Jon Finley, Thank you for responding to my request (copied > below) to review the charting of controlled and uncontrolled > airspace in your area. > > Before I respond to the specific points that you made in that > charting regard I would like to again remind all of the > readers regarding the non relevance of generic controlled > airspace when it comes to determining whether or not an > aircraft must be equipped with an operable coded transponder. > > I repeat: "Anyway the real issue here when it comes to > requiring a transponder or not is not the existence or not of ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 07:42:46 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: E-bus load. At 02:20 PM 1/21/2010, you wrote: > >I'm having trouble getting my E bus load down to what I think are >acceptable levels. So given the following avionics what would be the >recommendation for the ones that should be feed by the E bus? It >seems like they all should except for the second comm and one EFIS >maybe. The EFIS panels will be switched separately. Keep in mind that the "e" in e-bus is ENDURANCE. Just because you don't have some piece of equipment available on the e-bus doesn't mean it's not available to you ever. You can always close the battery contactor and run any other accessory that's on the main bus. The only time you'd ever have to do this is if you had TWO failures (alternator + some electro-whizzy) on the same tank of fuel. Further, by keeping the endurance value at or below the capacity of the SD-8, the ENTIRE energy content of the battery is held in reserve for approach to landing. Suggest the list be pared down as follows >Comments are appreciated. > >1 ea GRT EFIS panels: < 2 amps each. 2.0 >1 ea GNS 430W < 2 amps / 8 on transmit 2.0 >1 ea transponder 1~ 1.6 amp 1.6 >1 ea Auto pilot 1 amp nominal, 1.0 >1 ea Audio panel < .5 amp 0.2 (0.5 amps is >VERY loud!) >Panel lights 0.1 (get this >down to a couple of led floods) > >Ignition sys (batt bus) 1 amp 1.0 This gets you down to under 8A continuous Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 07:42:46 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Planning At 01:32 PM 1/21/2010, you wrote: >Hopefully this is a dumb question: >With an aft battery installation, does the main bus feed wire come >from the starter? Battery side of the starter contactor. Or if the contactor is built into the starter, yes, right from the starter. >Also, does the crankcase ground strap connect to the firewall forest >of tabs ground bus through bolt, or does it need its own more >substantial bracket to bolt to? To the bolt. Bob . . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.