---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 07/08/11: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:24:37 AM PST US From: Werner Schneider Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > 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 > of the survey. > > Best Regards, > Peter > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:56:11 AM PST US From: Dan Billingsley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:30:42 AM PST US From: "William Greenley" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:34:43 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:43:09 AM PST US From: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:28:31 AM PST US From: "Bruce" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:28:31 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:52:04 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Under control . . . From: Richard Girard 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:52:41 AM PST US From: 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:45 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:04 AM PST US From: Peter Pengilly Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: > > > 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 >> 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 >> of the survey. >> >> Best Regards, >> Peter >> >> * >> >> >> * > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 10:17:25 AM PST US From: "Bruce" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-Out B 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:17 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-Out B From: "DeWitt (Dee) Whittington" 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, 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:18:02 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:03:15 PM PST US From: Dave Saylor Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADS-B TSO 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:08:48 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: New to list From: Keith Ward 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:29:24 PM PST US From: "B Tomm" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: New to list 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 --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:41 PM PST US From: Mike Welch Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:39 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New to list 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:11 PM PST US From: Keith Ward Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New to list 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:11:59 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New to list 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:34:27 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ADBS-B Out 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" 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: > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:40 AM > To: ; ; > > 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" >> 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.