Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:24 AM - Re: Reliability of Un-certified Flight Instruments - Survey (Werner Schneider)
2. 03:56 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
3. 06:30 AM - Re: ADBS-B Out (William Greenley)
4. 07:34 AM - Re: Under control . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:43 AM - ADBS-B Out ()
6. 08:28 AM - Re: ADBS-B Out (Bruce)
7. 08:28 AM - ADBS-B Out ()
8. 08:52 AM - Re: Under control . . . (Richard Girard)
9. 08:52 AM - ADBS-Out B ()
10. 08:58 AM - New and Improved Low-Ohms Adapter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 09:39 AM - Re: Reliability of Un-certified Flight Instruments - Survey (Peter Pengilly)
12. 10:17 AM - Re: ADBS-Out B (Bruce)
13. 10:26 AM - Re: ADBS-Out B (DeWitt (Dee) Whittington)
14. 11:18 AM - Re: ADBS-B Out (Noel Loveys)
15. 12:03 PM - ADS-B TSO (Dave Saylor)
16. 12:08 PM - New to list (Keith Ward)
17. 12:29 PM - Re: New to list (B Tomm)
18. 02:20 PM - Re: Under control . . . (Mike Welch)
19. 07:57 PM - Re: New to list (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 08:24 PM - Re: New to list (Keith Ward)
21. 09:11 PM - Re: New to list (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 09:34 PM - Re: ADBS-B Out ()
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Reliability of Un-certified Flight Instruments |
- Survey
Peter,
you might ned to say, that you are just looking for data of
US/AUS/CAN/SA and UK pilots.
I did fill but could not choose my country I apologize to down under to
have seleceted AUS then :) still plan on a retirement there so not
totaly wrong.
Cheers
Werner
On 08.07.2011 00:08, Peter Pengilly wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Some of you may be aware that in the UK homebuilts are restricted to Day
> VMC operation only. A discussion has started with the regulator (the UK
> CAA) about extending the clearance for suitable airplanes to Night and
> IFR operations. One area where there is little data, and significant CAA
> interest, is the reliability of uncertified flight instruments.
>
> It is proving difficult to obtain any data on this subject. I would like
> to ask listers to help by providing some information based on your own
> experiences. The UK homebuilders' association - The Light Aircraft
> Association - has initiated a simple web based survey
> <http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_World> to collect data. I would be
> very grateful if you could spare the few minutes it will take to
> complete. Thanks very much for your support.
>
> Any UK pilots reading this are invited to use this version
> <http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_UK> of the survey.
>
> Best Regards,
> Peter
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
> This is not a meaningful test. A rubber duck is a
> RADIATING
> device that floods the wiring behind the panel with
> RF
> energy. If the feedline is radiating due to bad
> termination,
> then the symptoms you're seeing may well be
> indiciative of
> a cockpit flooded with RF. Changing the radiator
> from a bad
> coax to an antenna mounted right to the back of the
> radio
> is not likely to yield useful information.
>
> You need to do the dummy load thing first.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> Roger That
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I don't think this is totally true. I have a '56 172, CAR 3 certified, TSO's
are not a requirement for all the equipment since this is not required on
the TC. For instance a KX-170B radio.
Bill Greenley
RV-10 (waiting on wing kit delivery)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:29 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
That's a good point. NavWorx, for example, ONLY sells non-TSO'd equipment
so their only market is Experimental, right? Seems like they wouldn't have
a business model if you couldn't install their ADS-B transceivers in your
homebuilt...
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
At 02:09 PM 7/7/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>
>Work with your ADS-B vendor to assist you to work through the issues. It's
>in their best interest as well as yours.
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Under control . . . |
At 11:07 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>Bob, I had a bad day last Sunday, at least for my plane. Engine
>started to sputter at about 300' on take off. I made the impossible
>turn, but as Maxwell Smart used to say, "Missed it by that much". If
>the runway had only been 2 feet lower.......I walked away without a
>scratch or bruise, but now I have a little rework to do.
>Maybe I can come over in the trike once the summer heat subsides a bit.
Just damn . . . glad you're okay. Did you
figure out what's up with the engine?
Bob . . .
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
7/8/2011
Hello Bruce Gray, It is unfortunate that you assigned ADBS-B Out to the
subject of your aeroelectric list post instead of ADSB-B Out. We may be
stuck with that now as the identification of this thread. (Do you suppose
the transposition of the letters "B" and "S" in that fashion was the result
of some Freudian slip on your part?)
Hello Bob Taylor, You wrote:
1) "I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on
my
airworthiness certificate ..........."
Are you absolutely positive of this statement? Please recheck the FAA FORM
8130-7, SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE for your EXPERIMENTAL - AMATEUR
BUILT aircraft. Maybe your initial airworthiness inspector made a mistake in
filling out that form. (Was the inspection done by a DAR?).
My FSDO issued certificate has N / A entered in both the NAME and ADDRESS
boxes of Block B MANUFACTURER. In Block D it has my name in the BUILDER box.
This makes it very clear that in the eyes of the FAA I am the BUILDER and
not the MANUFACTURER of my airplane. This is important because some 14 CFR
regulations (such as 91.411 (b) (1) for example) give prerogatives to the
manufacturer of an aircraft that are not given to the builder of an E-AB
aircraft.
2) "..... and the data plate."
This really proves nothing. Except for the applicable and limited amount of
information required on an E-AB aircraft data plate by 14 CFR 45.11 and
45.13 (Builder's Name, Model Designation, and Builder's Serial Number) one
may put anything else one chooses on that data plate. (One may note in
passing that in the data plate terminology used in 45.13 even an aircraft
manufacturer such as Piper or Cessna becomes a "Builder" rather than a
"Manufacturer".)
3) "You can put anything you want in an E-AB."
Not really. This gets to be a complex issue and your statement can not be
taken at face value.
Please see the introduction to the attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT for
more insight into this issue.
4) "Just like a transponder, no?"
I would be inclined to agree. If the ADSB-B Out equipment has some sort of
TSO approval by the FAA why not go ahead and install it. If every builder of
E-AB aircraft had to comply with every word of every Advisory Circular that
were written, for the most part, by FAA employees that have not a clue about
the existence of E-AB aircraft, we would not have a single E-AB in the air.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
========================================================
Time: 06:15:31 PM PST US
From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57@neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on my
airworthiness certificate and the data plate. You can put anything you want
in an E-AB. Don't know why ADS-B stuff would be any different. Just like a
transponder, no?
Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
It could have well been a Freudian slip.
Anyway, someone mentioned Navworx on this thread.
According to the data in the regulation (14 CFR 92.225) those aircraft
equipped with Extended Squitter (1090 ES) must meet TSO-C166b, those
equipped with Universal Access Transceivers (UAT) must meet TSO-C154c.
How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval? Navworx is non
TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use.
Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:40 AM
BGray@glasair.org
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
7/8/2011
Hello Bruce Gray, It is unfortunate that you assigned ADBS-B Out to the
subject of your aeroelectric list post instead of ADSB-B Out. We may be
stuck with that now as the identification of this thread. (Do you
suppose
the transposition of the letters "B" and "S" in that fashion was the
result
of some Freudian slip on your part?)
Hello Bob Taylor, You wrote:
1) "I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says
so on
my
airworthiness certificate ..........."
Are you absolutely positive of this statement? Please recheck the FAA
FORM
8130-7, SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE for your EXPERIMENTAL -
AMATEUR
BUILT aircraft. Maybe your initial airworthiness inspector made a
mistake in
filling out that form. (Was the inspection done by a DAR?).
My FSDO issued certificate has N / A entered in both the NAME and
ADDRESS
boxes of Block B MANUFACTURER. In Block D it has my name in the BUILDER
box.
This makes it very clear that in the eyes of the FAA I am the BUILDER
and
not the MANUFACTURER of my airplane. This is important because some 14
CFR
regulations (such as 91.411 (b) (1) for example) give prerogatives to
the
manufacturer of an aircraft that are not given to the builder of an E-AB
aircraft.
2) "..... and the data plate."
This really proves nothing. Except for the applicable and limited amount
of
information required on an E-AB aircraft data plate by 14 CFR 45.11 and
45.13 (Builder's Name, Model Designation, and Builder's Serial Number)
one
may put anything else one chooses on that data plate. (One may note in
passing that in the data plate terminology used in 45.13 even an
aircraft
manufacturer such as Piper or Cessna becomes a "Builder" rather than a
"Manufacturer".)
3) "You can put anything you want in an E-AB."
Not really. This gets to be a complex issue and your statement can not
be
taken at face value.
Please see the introduction to the attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
for
more insight into this issue.
4) "Just like a transponder, no?"
I would be inclined to agree. If the ADSB-B Out equipment has some sort
of
TSO approval by the FAA why not go ahead and install it. If every
builder of
E-AB aircraft had to comply with every word of every Advisory Circular
that
were written, for the most part, by FAA employees that have not a clue
about
the existence of E-AB aircraft, we would not have a single E-AB in the
air.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
gather and understand knowledge."
========================================================
Time: 06:15:31 PM PST US
From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57@neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on
my
airworthiness certificate and the data plate. You can put anything you
want
in an E-AB. Don't know why ADS-B stuff would be any different. Just
like a
transponder, no?
Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
7/8/2011
Hello Bruce Gray, You wrote:
1) "ADBS-B Out"
It is unfortunate that you assigned ADBS-B Out to the
subject of your aeroelectric list post instead of ADSB-B Out. We may be
stuck with that now as the identification of this thread. (Do you suppose
the transposition of the letters "B" and "S" in that fashion was the result
of some Freudian slip on your part?)
2) "...the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
install/approve ADBS-B." and "The FAA has published an advisory circular on
the subject (AC 20-165) that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be
approved before use."
Since many portions of 14 CFR and the supporting Advisory Circulars are
written by bureaucrats and approved by lawyers who do not have a clue
regarding the existence of E-AB (Experimental- Amateur Built) aircraft one
should not be surprised by lack of this path. (And maybe we should be
grateful that they did not attempt to provide one since it would probably be
nearly impossible to comply with.)
3) "I asked the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the
manufacturer and
was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer."
Please see my response to Bob Taylor on this issue.
It is unfortunate that we have gotten all wrapped around the axle regarding
the semantics of "builder" versus "manufacturer". I think that we should
call all kit providers just that, "Kit Providers". They are neither the
manufacturers nor the builders of E-AB aircraft. And the E-AB builder is
just that, the builder, not the manufacturer of his E-AB aircraft.
4) "I called the EAA, they were clueless."
I think that if you call the EAA and talk to or email Joe Norris
(jnorris@eaa.org) you will find out that it is not the EAA that is clueless,
but rather the FAA responses when the EAA attempts to query the FAA on our
behalf on many issues.
5) "So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
any ideas?"
If the ADSB-Out equipment that you have has some TSO markings on it, make
the best installation that you can and go fly it.**
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I can recall a posting by an individual many years ago when GPS was
new. This builder attempted to comply with the then existing Advisory
Circular on GPS installations to obtain some FAA approval. He wound up
airborne with a terrified FAA bureacrat for an approval flight. The poor FAA
employee spent the entire flight looking out the windows waiting the the
inevitable mid air collision that was about to happen any second. The FAA
employee never looked at the GPS equipment.
That experience cured that builder of ever again trying to get any E-AB
aircraft equipment installation approved by the FAA.
=========================================================
Time: 01:51:50 PM PST US
From: "Bruce" <BGray@glasair.org>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you
guys?
***************************
Hi Guys,
I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair
III. But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the
public, the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
install/approve ADBS-B.
The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165)
that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It
then goes on to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly
hints that all equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do
not apply to us. To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO
that all STC's for approval were not being accepted and that the only
way to get approval was from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked
the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer. I called the
EAA, they were clueless.
So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
any ideas?
Here's the link to the AC,
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Under control . . . |
I can't find anything wrong with it, no signs of seizure or anything like
that. It starts and runs fine. The weather at the time was very humid and
the temps had just dropped 20 degrees following a thunderstorm passage. I
wasn't on my best investigative abilities after I crawled out of the plane
so I didn't check to see if there was ice on the carbs.
I'd been thinking about modifying the front of the fuselage truss to
accommodate a forward opening canopy, so I'm looking on this as an
opportunity. :-}
Rick
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com**>
>
> At 11:07 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>
>> Bob, I had a bad day last Sunday, at least for my plane. Engine started to
>> sputter at about 300' on take off. I made the impossible turn, but as
>> Maxwell Smart used to say, "Missed it by that much". If the runway had only
>> been 2 feet lower.......I walked away without a scratch or bruise, but now I
>> have a little rework to do.
>> Maybe I can come over in the trike once the summer heat subsides a bit.
>>
>
> Just damn . . . glad you're okay. Did you
> figure out what's up with the engine?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
7/8/2011
Hello Again Bruce, You wrote:
1) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
This brings to mind the great flap (not yet really resolved) over the use of
non TSO'd altitude encoders. (See CFR 91.217 and the many postings related
thereto.) There are thousands of E-AB aircraft flying around in violation of
91.217 and I don't think that we want to stir that can of worms again.
2) "How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval?"
In fact many of the non TSO'd altitude encoders in E-AB aircraft exceed TSO
performance requirements, but have not been through all the environmental
testing, production process, and paper work needed to get TSO approval.
3) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
I think that the prudent person buys and installs TSO'd equipment if it is
available. The non prudent person buys what is available that appears to
work, installs it, flys with it, and waits for the FAA to either stop him or
ignore him.
4) "Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace."
Recall that some time back the FAA planned to put us all into using the MLS
(Microwave Landing System). How is that working out?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
==========================================================
It could have well been a Freudian slip.
Anyway, someone mentioned Navworx on this thread.
According to the data in the regulation (14 CFR 92.225) those aircraft
equipped with Extended Squitter (1090 ES) must meet TSO-C166b, those
equipped with Universal Access Transceivers (UAT) must meet TSO-C154c.
How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval? Navworx is non
TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use.
Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | New and Improved Low-Ohms Adapter |
I've just finished the first-article fabrication
on the next generation of Low Ohms Adapters. The
first version was something of a cluge . . .
assembled in a hurry with the materials and processes
on hand at the moment.
The AEC9008-3 features user selectable excitation
currents of 100 mA and 1000 mA. All the electronics
are mounted to an ECB. This version needed a fatter
battery so I designed around the legacy 6v, spring
top, lantern battery. The Low Ohms Adapter is rubber-
banded to the top of the battery for use. When you're
done with the measurement, you can put the batty back
in your lantern.
WallyWorld sells a lantern WITH battery for about
$5.
Folks who have the older version on order today will
receive the -3 at the original price. Had to boost
the new one by $5 to offset some new fabrication
costs.
Bob . . .
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Reliability of Un-certified Flight Instruments |
- Survey
Hi Werner,
Thank you for your input - I am told this is because of limitations in
the survey tool that is being used. Something like survey monkey is
better but costs rather a lot. Apologies that you were not able to
select your country.
Best Regards, Peter
Do not archive
On 08/07/2011 09:14, Werner Schneider wrote:
> <glastar@gmx.net>
>
> Peter,
>
> you might ned to say, that you are just looking for data of
> US/AUS/CAN/SA and UK pilots.
>
> I did fill but could not choose my country I apologize to down under
> to have seleceted AUS then :) still plan on a retirement there so not
> totaly wrong.
>
> Cheers
>
> Werner
>
> On 08.07.2011 00:08, Peter Pengilly wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Some of you may be aware that in the UK homebuilts are restricted to Day
>> VMC operation only. A discussion has started with the regulator (the UK
>> CAA) about extending the clearance for suitable airplanes to Night and
>> IFR operations. One area where there is little data, and significant CAA
>> interest, is the reliability of uncertified flight instruments.
>>
>> It is proving difficult to obtain any data on this subject. I would like
>> to ask listers to help by providing some information based on your own
>> experiences. The UK homebuilders' association - The Light Aircraft
>> Association - has initiated a simple web based survey
>> <http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_World> to collect data. I would be
>> very grateful if you could spare the few minutes it will take to
>> complete. Thanks very much for your support.
>>
>> Any UK pilots reading this are invited to use this version
>> <http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_UK> of the survey.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Peter
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Yes, I have been through the non TSO'd encoder wars with my RMI
microencoder.
If my Microencoder air data unit exceeds TSO requirements, how does that
help me when I'm standing before a NTSB judge?
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 11:50 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-Out B
7/8/2011
Hello Again Bruce, You wrote:
1) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
This brings to mind the great flap (not yet really resolved) over the
use of
non TSO'd altitude encoders. (See CFR 91.217 and the many postings
related
thereto.) There are thousands of E-AB aircraft flying around in
violation of
91.217 and I don't think that we want to stir that can of worms again.
2) "How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval?"
In fact many of the non TSO'd altitude encoders in E-AB aircraft exceed
TSO
performance requirements, but have not been through all the
environmental
testing, production process, and paper work needed to get TSO approval.
3) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
I think that the prudent person buys and installs TSO'd equipment if it
is
available. The non prudent person buys what is available that appears to
work, installs it, flys with it, and waits for the FAA to either stop
him or
ignore him.
4) "Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace."
Recall that some time back the FAA planned to put us all into using the
MLS
(Microwave Landing System). How is that working out?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
gather and understand knowledge."
==========================================================
It could have well been a Freudian slip.
Anyway, someone mentioned Navworx on this thread.
According to the data in the regulation (14 CFR 92.225) those aircraft
equipped with Extended Squitter (1090 ES) must meet TSO-C166b, those
equipped with Universal Access Transceivers (UAT) must meet TSO-C154c.
How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval? Navworx is non
TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use.
Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
airspace.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hello all,
Why don't you who are worried about the legality of a non-TSO'd ADS-B box
ask one of the manufacturers instead of guessing. I'm sure Bill Moffitt of
NavWorx would be glad to elucidate. BillM@NavWorx.com
Dee
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:49 AM, <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
>
> 7/8/2011
>
> Hello Again Bruce, You wrote:
>
> 1) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
>
> This brings to mind the great flap (not yet really resolved) over the use
> of non TSO'd altitude encoders. (See CFR 91.217 and the many postings
> related thereto.) There are thousands of E-AB aircraft flying around in
> violation of 91.217 and I don't think that we want to stir that can of wo
rms
> again.
>
> 2) "How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval?"
>
> In fact many of the non TSO'd altitude encoders in E-AB aircraft exceed T
SO
> performance requirements, but have not been through all the environmental
> testing, production process, and paper work needed to get TSO approval.
>
> 3) "Navworx is non TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use."
>
> I think that the prudent person buys and installs TSO'd equipment if it i
s
> available. The non prudent person buys what is available that appears to
> work, installs it, flys with it, and waits for the FAA to either stop him
or
> ignore him.
>
> 4) "Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
> airspace."
>
> Recall that some time back the FAA planned to put us all into using the M
LS
> (Microwave Landing System). How is that working out?
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
> gather and understand knowledge."
>
> ========================
======**==================
>
> It could have well been a Freudian slip.
>
> Anyway, someone mentioned Navworx on this thread.
>
> According to the data in the regulation (14 CFR =A792.225) those aircraft
> equipped with Extended Squitter (1090 ES) must meet TSO-C166b, those
> equipped with Universal Access Transceivers (UAT) must meet TSO-C154c.
> How does on meet TSO standards without getting approval? Navworx is non
> TSO'ed, therefore not legal to use.
>
> Unless we crack this nut, in 2020 we will be denied the use of most
> airspace.
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
>
=====**===================
===========**=
/www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
=====**===================
===========**=
=====**===================
===========**=
com/contribution>
=====**===================
===========**=
>
>
--
DeWitt Whittington
www.VirginiaFlyIn.org
Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I(s that not the reason for the 51% rule? To specifically make the builder
the manufacturer? The gathering of parts and the design is supposed to be
less than 50%.
One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out who has
manufacturers' liability!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: July 8, 2011 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
At 01:47 PM 7/7/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>I asked
>the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
>was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer.
This seems blatantly wrong. If I built an Experimental airplane of my own
design from scratch, there is no question I am the manufacture of the
aircraft.
To that end, on my RV-8, when I registered it, under "Model" I put "RV-8",
under "Manufacture" I put "Matt Dralle (Van's Aircraft)".
Only the "Builder" (i.e. manufacture) of the aircraft can hold the Mechanics
cert for my RV-8. Last time I did an inspection on it, *I* signed the log
book off, not Van's Aircraft...
$.02
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bruce and everyone,
ADS-B doesn't have to be TSO'd until 2020. It's not illegal now, but
if it's not TSO'd by then, it will be according to today's FARs.
These things change. There is time to allow the manufacturers to TSO
their products. I have Navworx and I'm not too worried that I'll be
flying around with an illegal transmitter 9 years from now.
For Bruce's original question about how do you install a TSO'd ADS-B
system in a homebuilt, as others have said, I don't believe there is
an applicable FAR or FAA guidance. I'd look at it like any other
avionics. Maintained, yes, installed, no.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Forgive me if this is a redundant topic. This is my first post and I'm sure there
will be a learning curve.
I am helping friends with their RV-10s wiring. They are using Bob's Z-13/8 schematic.
Here are a few questions:
Can the essential bus be powered at the same time as the main bus? Would this
be helpful to trouble shoot the main bus components while the essential bus keeps
the necessary items happy.
If you have more than 20amps on the essential bus, what happens. the SD8 back-up
alternator only provides 20amps. By drawing more than the SD8 can provide,
does the system just draw down the battery until components start shutting down,
or do other issues occur?
Thanks for the help.
Keith
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Welcome Keith,
I'll try to answer a couple of your questions as I too am wiring now using
the 13/8 format.
The SD8 is an 8 amp alternator and can be 10 at high RPM (as I recall. Not
looking at specs right now).
If the main alt is off-line and the SD8 is on, it will produce what is being
asked of it to a max of it's capacity depending on RPM. The balance will
then be supplied by the battery until it starts running out of electrons.
After that, I would think some things will start shutting down, others will
start behaving is strange ways before shutting down completely.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Keith
Ward
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:06 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: New to list
--> <keithward1@bellsouth.net>
Forgive me if this is a redundant topic. This is my first post and I'm sure
there will be a learning curve.
I am helping friends with their RV-10s wiring. They are using Bob's Z-13/8
schematic.
Here are a few questions:
Can the essential bus be powered at the same time as the main bus? Would
this be helpful to trouble shoot the main bus components while the essential
bus keeps the necessary items happy.
If you have more than 20amps on the essential bus, what happens. the SD8
back-up alternator only provides 20amps. By drawing more than the SD8 can
provide, does the system just draw down the battery until components start
shutting down, or do other issues occur?
Thanks for the help.
Keith
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Under control . . . |
>I'd been thinking about modifying the front of the fuselage truss to accom
modate a forward opening canopy=2C so I'm looking on this as an >opportunit
y. :-}
>Rick
Rick=2C
You could modify the front of the fuselage to accept "side swinging" door
s. They call it
an Xtra.
Mike Welch
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
At 02:05 PM 7/8/2011, you wrote:
Forgive me if this is a redundant topic. This is my first post and
I'm sure there will be a learning curve.
Welcome to the list!
I am helping friends with their RV-10s wiring. They are using Bob's
Z-13/8 schematic.
Here are a few questions:
Can the essential bus be powered at the same time as the main
bus? Would this be helpful to trouble shoot the main bus components
while the essential bus keeps the necessary items happy.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Any time the
main bus is up (battery contactor closed) the endurance
bus is automatically powered through the normal feed-
path diode.
By closing the e-bus alternate feed path switch, the
e-bus components will stay powered directly from the
battery. If the SD-8 (8 amp alternator) is turned
ON and assuming that the engine is running at or above
2600 RPM, you can get 8+ amps out of the SD-8.
If you have more than 20amps on the essential bus, what happens. the
SD8 back-up alternator only provides 20amps. By drawing more than
the SD8 can provide, does the system just draw down the battery until
components start shutting down, or do other issues occur?
When any alternator is overloaded, the bus voltage sags
until the battery to starts picking up the difference
. . . somewhere around 12.5 volts. This condition
will continue until the battery drops below 11.0
volts whereupon it contains less than 5% of its useful
energy. After that the voltage falls more rapidly
and things start mis-behaving.
For endurance mode operations, the Plan-B checklist
should call for shutting the main bus OFF, e-bus
alternate feed ON, SD-8 Alternator ON. Then reduce
e-bus loads to 8A or less until airport of intended
destination is in sight. After that, you can turn
on what ever extra goodies are deemed necessary
for graceful approach to landing whether on the
e-bus or main bus.
I'm having trouble imagining what kind of troubleshooting
activity would be carried out with the main bus
down an only the e-bus on.
Bob . . .
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bob,
Thanks for the reply. My thought was that if the essential buss switch was closed
and the main buss was also alive, you could cycle the master and the primary
alternator switches to see if that would solve the problem and bring the primary
alternator back online. With the essential bus on, the necessary components
would still be powered even while the master and alternator switches/breakers
were being cycled.
This is probably flawed thinking, so please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Keith
On Jul 8, 2011, at 10:53 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
wrote:
>
>
> At 02:05 PM 7/8/2011, you wrote:
>
> Forgive me if this is a redundant topic. This is my first post and I'm sure
there will be a learning curve.
>
> Welcome to the list!
>
>
> I am helping friends with their RV-10s wiring. They are using Bob's Z-13/8 schematic.
>
> Here are a few questions:
>
> Can the essential bus be powered at the same time as the main bus? Would this
be helpful to trouble shoot the main bus components while the essential bus
keeps the necessary items happy.
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking here. Any time the
> main bus is up (battery contactor closed) the endurance
> bus is automatically powered through the normal feed-
> path diode.
>
> By closing the e-bus alternate feed path switch, the
> e-bus components will stay powered directly from the
> battery. If the SD-8 (8 amp alternator) is turned
> ON and assuming that the engine is running at or above
> 2600 RPM, you can get 8+ amps out of the SD-8.
>
> If you have more than 20amps on the essential bus, what happens. the SD8 back-up
alternator only provides 20amps. By drawing more than the SD8 can provide,
does the system just draw down the battery until components start shutting
down, or do other issues occur?
>
> When any alternator is overloaded, the bus voltage sags
> until the battery to starts picking up the difference
> . . . somewhere around 12.5 volts. This condition
> will continue until the battery drops below 11.0
> volts whereupon it contains less than 5% of its useful
> energy. After that the voltage falls more rapidly
> and things start mis-behaving.
>
> For endurance mode operations, the Plan-B checklist
> should call for shutting the main bus OFF, e-bus
> alternate feed ON, SD-8 Alternator ON. Then reduce
> e-bus loads to 8A or less until airport of intended
> destination is in sight. After that, you can turn
> on what ever extra goodies are deemed necessary
> for graceful approach to landing whether on the
> e-bus or main bus.
>
> I'm having trouble imagining what kind of troubleshooting
> activity would be carried out with the main bus
> down an only the e-bus on.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
At 10:21 PM 7/8/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the reply. My thought was that if the essential buss
>switch was closed and the main buss was also alive, you could cycle
>the master and the primary alternator switches to see if that would
>solve the problem and bring the primary alternator back
>online. With the essential bus on, the necessary components would
>still be powered even while the master and alternator
>switches/breakers were being cycled.
Yup, that's how it works.
>This is probably flawed thinking, so please let me know your thoughts.
You need to re-set your thinking as to the value
and function of the e-bus. "E" stands for endurance.
The idea behind it is to prevent main alternator
loss from becoming an emergency. You craft a
"Plan-B" that enables you to continue flight
to airport of intended destination by
partitioning off those equipment items
useful for cruising flight powered by
(1) battery only or (2) SD-8 plus Battery.
See chapter on system reliability and the notes
for Z-figures . . . particularly note for
Z-13/8.
Random, exploratory switch flipping in flight
is not recommended. More than one system failure
has been made worse by not having a simple, proven
Plan-B for dealing with alternator failure.
Bob . . .
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
7/8/2011
Hello Bob Taylor, You wrote:
1) "Every form that I filled out for my E-AB aircraft states that I am the
manufacturer (Taylor, Robert D.)."
A) Not true. See here, for example, FAA FORM 8130-6, APPLICATION FOR U. S.
AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/form/faa8130-6.pdf
Note that in Box 2 they ask for the AIRCRAFT BUILDER'S NAME (Make). The
instructions in FAA Order 8130.2F for filling out this form specifically
state that for an E-AB aircraft the name of the amateur builder is entered
in Box 2.
B) Please LOOK at your airplane's FAA FORM 8130-7 SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATE and tell us exactly what was typed into the NAME and ADDRESS
boxes in Section B, MANUFACTURER and what was typed into the Section D,
BUILDER box by that FAA inspector from the Cleveland MIDO when he inspected
your airplane and created that form.
That will tell you (and us) in the eyes of the FAA who was the MANUFACTURER
(undoubtedly N / A) and who was the BUILDER (your name) of your airplane.
2) "My aircraft was not a kit."
Does not matter. Every E-AB aircraft, regardless of its initial source or
manner of creation, will have "TO OPERATE AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT" in the
PURPOSE box of SECTION A, and the amateur builder's name in the BUILDER box
of Section D of that aircraft's FAA FORM 8130-7, SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATE.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
===============================================
From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57@neo.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: ADBS-B Out
> Every form that I filled out for my E-AB aircraft states that I am the
> manufacturer (Taylor, Robert D.). The model is TigerCub. No, my
> inspector was not a DAR. He was from the Cleveland MIDO office. My
> aircraft was not a kit. It was built/manufactured by me.
>
> Bob Taylor
> TigerCub N657RT
>
> =================================
> From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:40 AM
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>; <Flydad57@neo.rr.com>;
> <BGray@glasair.org>
> Subject: ADBS-B Out
>
>> 7/8/2011
>>
>> Hello Bruce Gray, It is unfortunate that you assigned ADBS-B Out to the
>> subject of your aeroelectric list post instead of ADSB-B Out. We may be
>> stuck with that now as the identification of this thread. (Do you suppose
>> the transposition of the letters "B" and "S" in that fashion was the
>> result
>> of some Freudian slip on your part?)
>>
>> Hello Bob Taylor, You wrote:
>>
>> 1) "I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so
>> on
>> my
>> airworthiness certificate ..........."
>>
>> Are you absolutely positive of this statement? Please recheck the FAA
>> FORM
>> 8130-7, SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE for your EXPERIMENTAL - AMATEUR
>> BUILT aircraft. Maybe your initial airworthiness inspector made a mistake
>> in
>> filling out that form. (Was the inspection done by a DAR?).
>>
>> My FSDO issued certificate has N / A entered in both the NAME and ADDRESS
>> boxes of Block B MANUFACTURER. In Block D it has my name in the BUILDER
>> box.
>>
>> This makes it very clear that in the eyes of the FAA I am the BUILDER and
>> not the MANUFACTURER of my airplane. This is important because some 14
>> CFR
>> regulations (such as 91.411 (b) (1) for example) give prerogatives to the
>> manufacturer of an aircraft that are not given to the builder of an E-AB
>> aircraft.
>>
>> 2) "..... and the data plate."
>>
>> This really proves nothing. Except for the applicable and limited amount
>> of
>> information required on an E-AB aircraft data plate by 14 CFR 45.11 and
>> 45.13 (Builder's Name, Model Designation, and Builder's Serial Number)
>> one
>> may put anything else one chooses on that data plate. (One may note in
>> passing that in the data plate terminology used in 45.13 even an aircraft
>> manufacturer such as Piper or Cessna becomes a "Builder" rather than a
>> "Manufacturer".)
>>
>> 3) "You can put anything you want in an E-AB."
>>
>> Not really. This gets to be a complex issue and your statement can not be
>> taken at face value.
>>
>> Please see the introduction to the attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND
>> EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
>> for
>> more insight into this issue.
>>
>> 4) "Just like a transponder, no?"
>>
>> I would be inclined to agree. If the ADSB-B Out equipment has some sort
>> of
>> TSO approval by the FAA why not go ahead and install it. If every builder
>> of
>> E-AB aircraft had to comply with every word of every Advisory Circular
>> that
>> were written, for the most part, by FAA employees that have not a clue
>> about
>> the existence of E-AB aircraft, we would not have a single E-AB in the
>> air.
>>
>> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
>> to
>> gather and understand knowledge."
>>
>> ========================================================
>>
>> Time: 06:15:31 PM PST US
>> From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57@neo.rr.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
>>
>>
>> I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on
>> my
>> airworthiness certificate and the data plate. You can put anything you
>> want
>> in an E-AB. Don't know why ADS-B stuff would be any different. Just
>> like a
>> transponder, no?
>>
>> Bob Taylor
>> TigerCub N657RT
>>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|