Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:19 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11 (William Day)
2. 07:01 AM - Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Harley)
3. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11 (Michael Welch)
4. 01:41 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 02:44 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Harley)
6. 02:56 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Ralph Finch)
7. 04:48 PM - Re: Maintenace Charger (David)
8. 05:57 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (David)
9. 06:43 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Jared Yates)
10. 06:43 PM - Wiring Audio - Stereo/Mono (John Grosse)
11. 06:59 PM - stereo/mono audio switching (John Grosse)
12. 09:14 PM - Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture (Jeff B.)
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11 |
Mike=0A-=0ATried emailling Icom, not much luck.=0A-=0AWill try to call
when I get home from work.=0A-=0ALost power over the weekend due to the s
torm.=0A-=0ABill=0A-=0ATime: 06:17:20 AM PST US=0ASubject: Re: AeroElec
tric-List: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs=0AFrom: Michael Welch <mdn
anwelch7@hotmail.com>=0A=0AHi Bill,=0A=0A- My expertise level may be clos
er to yours, rather than some of our =0Aesteemed electro-gurus.=0A=0A- I
think I'd be asking for confirmation in this situation from our =0Apremium
members on this list, same as you.- =0A=0A- But......it does sound like
you are the right path with the stereo =0Ainputs.- I can't speak for the
duplex nature of =0Athe iPhone hook-up, though.- While the Pin J may wor
k for the "voice in" =0Apart of the iPhone, I don't know =0Ahow the "hearin
g" part would work.=0A=0A- We need one of the 'truly qualified" to addres
s this one for ya.- =0ASorry I am not more help.=0A=0A- If you can't ge
t someone here on the list to speak with authority on =0Athis matter, I'd s
uggest calling Icom.=0AThey ought to know where to proceed.=0A=0AMike Welch
=0A
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 |
|
| Subject: | Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
Hi All,
I just found out about this very important survey regarding
homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate
for homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft (12
accidents per 100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for
homebuilts). This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how
I found out about the survey. The article stated that the FAA is
looking into placing more restrictions on the homebuilt community
and the EAA convinced them to look at this survey before making
any new rules.
Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
Time is now the issue.
Harley
__._,_.___
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11 |
Bill,
I made a quick call for you to Icom. In answer to your question about
hooking up an iPhone....not quite, sort of.
I'll explain. The tech support guy said "No", you can't do it
directly, BUT, he is pretty sure there are devices available
at ACS, Pacific Avionics, etc, etc. He called them "external devises".
I asked him if there was a diagram that showed which pin goes to
where, but he said that all that information
would be included with the external device. He said the external device
already has the 'engineering' and electronics,
and would include a pin diagram for easy installation.
So, you 'may' be able to hook up an iPhone, but check with the
avionics houses and see what they have.
Mike Welch
On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Day wrote:
> Mike
>
> Tried emailling Icom, not much luck.
>
> Will try to call when I get home from work.
>
> Lost power over the weekend due to the storm.
>
> Bill
>
> Time: 06:17:20 AM PST US
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs
> From: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> My expertise level may be closer to yours, rather than some of our
> esteemed electro-gurus.
>
> I think I'd be asking for confirmation in this situation from our
> premium members on this list, same as you.
>
> But......it does sound like you are the right path with the stereo
> inputs. I can't speak for the duplex nature of
> the iPhone hook-up, though. While the Pin J may work for the "voice
in"
> part of the iPhone, I don't know
> how the "hearing" part would work.
>
> We need one of the 'truly qualified" to address this one for ya.
> Sorry I am not more help.
>
> If you can't get someone here on the list to speak with authority on
> this matter, I'd suggest calling Icom.
> They ought to know where to proceed.
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
>
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: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
At 08:58 AM 8/30/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
>Hi All,
>I just found out about this very important survey regarding
>homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for
>homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per
>100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts).
>This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out
>about the survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into
>placing more restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA
>convinced them to look at this survey before making any new rules.
>Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
>Time is now the issue.
Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
were for the accidents and why anyone is led
to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
airplane is causation for the difference.
I note further that questionair's interest
in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
systems. I also wonder where the accident study
gets their numbers for total hours flown for
the two classes of aircraft.
Aside from entering recent experience numbers
on a medical every two years, I don't recall
that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
I flew.
Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
of government, this has the look and smell
of expansion of organization at the expense
of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
reject certain risks.
Exactly what is entered on this survey will
have little or no effect on outcome. As one
wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
statistics are made up on the spot." I
fear that this is but another cloud of
floobydust kicked up to distract from the
real agenda.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
>>
>> We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
>> Hi All,
>> I just found out about this very important survey regarding
>> homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident
>> rate for homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft
>> (12 accidents per 100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K
>> hours for homebuilts). This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11
>> which is how I found out about the survey. The article stated
>> that the FAA is looking into placing more restrictions on the
>> homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to look at this
>> survey before making any new rules.
>> Here is the link:
>> http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
>> Time is now the issue.
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> airplane is causation for the difference.
>
> I note further that questionair's interest
> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> the two classes of aircraft.
>
> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> I flew.
>
> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> of government, this has the look and smell
> of expansion of organization at the expense
> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> reject certain risks.
>
> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> statistics are made up on the spot." I
> fear that this is but another cloud of
> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> real agenda.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
I had the same thoughts, Bob...I also am a bit skeptical...but
it's all we have at the moment! So, I filled it out in the hope
that the results just MIGHT make some kind of impression on
someone...I can't do anything by myself...and I don't want anyone
to restrict my freedom of flying because I can't afford the fees/
So thanks to the EAA for at least giving it a shot. Even though
they are fighting our wonderful government, once in awhile things
get decided in our favor.
Harley
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
I think it's pretty well studied and accepted that aircraft in the
Experimental category do suffer a much higher accident rate than
certificated aircraft.
The cause of those increased accident rates is still being debated though. I
see no hidden agenda on the part of the FAA to usurp more power or curtail
the OBAM movement, unless we continue to ignore the problem. Fortunately,
we are not ignoring it. Ron Wanttaja recently wrote a number of high-quality
articles for Kitplanes magazine investigating many aspects of this
problem--if you're a subscriber, look for the "Safety Is No Accident"
title. This is actively being investigated by the EAA/FAA and interested
parties.
As for the survey, the FAA is probably simply trying to get better data. I
started the survey but quit because it's really for those already flying
experimental aircraft, and I'm not (still building).
The reality is if the homebuilt community does not take action to reduce the
accident rate, the FAA will take action. A single aircraft accident--not
even fatal--always generates front page news in our local newspapers, and
that's probably true for most reading this. The non-flying public doesn't
like dangerous homebuilt airplanes and their rich, reckless pilots falling
out of the skies and killing unsuspecting citizens. That's how it gets
portrayed to Congress, who in turn tell the FAA to fix it, now. Better we
fix it ourselves.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com**>
>
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> airplane is causation for the difference.
>
> I note further that questionair's interest
> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> the two classes of aircraft.
>
> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> I flew.
>
> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> of government, this has the look and smell
> of expansion of organization at the expense
> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> reject certain risks.
>
> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> statistics are made up on the spot." I
> fear that this is but another cloud of
> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> real agenda.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Maintenace Charger |
You might also check RV sites. I eventually bought a unit that
supposedly charges low batteries, then maintains them at an optimum
level, all while using the least amount of electricity. I think it was
$100 or so and has 80 amp capability. If needed, I can go get the name
of the unit (will take some time, though).
David
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 09:57 AM 8/29/2011, you wrote:
>> Hi Bob;
>>
>> Little off topic but I was wondering if you could give me a specific
>> recommendation for a maintenance charger for my RV batteries. I have
>> 6 U2400's also called US145xc's. These are 6volt deep cycle wet
>> cells rated at 251 amps. At 12 volts this gives about 750amps for
>> the system. Anything out there that you think would work well.
>
> If you're simply wanting to maintain batteries
> that are topped off at the time the RV is parked,
> just about anything would work. But if you want
> to top-off less-than-full batteries, then something
> a bit more robust would be called for.
>
> Anything with Schumacher's name on it would be a
> good bet. Here's a 12A, processor controlled charger/
> maintainer you can probably pick up at Walmart
> for $50 or so.
> Emacs!
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
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: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
Kitplanes had a series of articles recently that showed accident numbers
derived from the NTSB data.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 08:58 AM 8/30/2011, you wrote:
>> <harley@agelesswings.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We need to get this out to the group ASAP:
>> Hi All,
>> I just found out about this very important survey regarding homebuilt
>> aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for homebuilts
>> is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per 100K hours
>> w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts). This was
>> reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out about the
>> survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into placing more
>> restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to
>> look at this survey before making any new rules.
>> Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp
>> Time is now the issue.
>
> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
> airplane is causation for the difference.
>
> I note further that questionair's interest
> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
> the two classes of aircraft.
>
> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
> I flew.
>
> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
> of government, this has the look and smell
> of expansion of organization at the expense
> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
> reject certain risks.
>
> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
> statistics are made up on the spot." I
> fear that this is but another cloud of
> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
> real agenda.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 |
Part of the issue with accident "rates" is that they are usually divided by
hours flown. After all, the number of accidents doesn't mean anything
without some sort of context. Imagine two cases, one where 5 airplanes crash
in a year, and the airplanes in that group flew 5000 hours. The following
year, 6 crash, but the group flew 7000 hours. The number of accidents rose,
but the accident rate per hour flown decreased.
EAB aircraft are becoming more numerous, so the increase in
accident occurrences may or may not actually be leading to a higher accident
rate. Since the FAA has no idea how many hours we fly experimental airplanes
(or most other light GA airplanes by that matter), they make a guess and
hope for the best. Since the number of hours flown is the denominator of
most of these rates, then an increase in hours will decrease the accident
rate. The opposite is also true of course. A good survey could make that
guess more accurate, which will therefore improve the accuracy of the rates.
If they are underestimating our hours, then the rates will improve even if
the total number of accidents per year does not decrease. I don't know if
this survey will serve that purpose, since I haven't taken it. I'm also not
flying an experimental airplane currently.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch@gmail.com>wrote:
> I think it's pretty well studied and accepted that aircraft in the
> Experimental category do suffer a much higher accident rate than
> certificated aircraft.
>
> The cause of those increased accident rates is still being debated though.
> I see no hidden agenda on the part of the FAA to usurp more power or curtail
> the OBAM movement, unless we continue to ignore the problem. Fortunately,
> we are not ignoring it. Ron Wanttaja recently wrote a number of high-quality
> articles for Kitplanes magazine investigating many aspects of this
> problem--if you're a subscriber, look for the "Safety Is No Accident"
> title. This is actively being investigated by the EAA/FAA and interested
> parties.
>
> As for the survey, the FAA is probably simply trying to get better data. I
> started the survey but quit because it's really for those already flying
> experimental aircraft, and I'm not (still building).
>
> The reality is if the homebuilt community does not take action to reduce
> the accident rate, the FAA will take action. A single aircraft accident--not
> even fatal--always generates front page news in our local newspapers, and
> that's probably true for most reading this. The non-flying public doesn't
> like dangerous homebuilt airplanes and their rich, reckless pilots falling
> out of the skies and killing unsuspecting citizens. That's how it gets
> portrayed to Congress, who in turn tell the FAA to fix it, now. Better we
> fix it ourselves.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com**>
>>
>>
>> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes
>> were for the accidents and why anyone is led
>> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the
>> airplane is causation for the difference.
>>
>> I note further that questionair's interest
>> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical
>> systems. I also wonder where the accident study
>> gets their numbers for total hours flown for
>> the two classes of aircraft.
>>
>> Aside from entering recent experience numbers
>> on a medical every two years, I don't recall
>> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight
>> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane
>> I flew.
>>
>> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies
>> of government, this has the look and smell
>> of expansion of organization at the expense
>> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/
>> reject certain risks.
>>
>> Exactly what is entered on this survey will
>> have little or no effect on outcome. As one
>> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all
>> statistics are made up on the spot." I
>> fear that this is but another cloud of
>> floobydust kicked up to distract from the
>> real agenda.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ====**==============================**=
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/**
>> Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ====**==============================**=
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ====**==============================**=
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/**contribution
>> ====**==============================**=
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: | Wiring Audio - Stereo/Mono |
gAttached is the wiring diagram for a traffic alert system. It appears
to me that they've reversed the tip and ring in the drawing. If this
drawing is correct then the tip is grounded when the switch is in the
"mono" position. The ring would also be grounded when a mono plug is
inserted in the jack so this can't work. Am I missing something???
Thanks.
John Grosse
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: | stereo/mono audio switching |
Attached is the wiring diagram for a traffic alert system. It appears to me that
they've reversed the tip and ring in the drawing. If it's correct the audio
goes to the "ring" in the jack when the switch is in "mono." That would ground
it when a mono plug is inserted in the jack. Am I missing something?
John Grosse
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture |
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com**>
>
> Second question: We will have a crowbar circuit for OVP, but does anyone
> see a problem with relying on the GRT EIS4000 to supply the "low voltage"
> warning? The EIS has a low-RPM maskable low voltage alert.
>
> Yes, you want ov protection to be automatic and
> FAST . . . MILLISECOND fast.
>
>
Thank you, Bob, I am glad this list exists so that we can learn, craft
fundamentally sound designs, and improve the status quo in aircraft
electrical design!
Just a clarification: the OVP will be a standard crowbar circuit such as
the OVM-14 or 9024. I was merely asking about the pilot indication of low
voltage ("idiot light"), instead of using a canned module like the 9005 (or
combination like the LR3C), if we chose to use the EIS4000 and its
annunciator system, would there be any undesirable effects?
Regarding the Transpo F7078, were you suggesting it was a mechanical
regulator, or did I read too much into the explanation?
-Jeff-
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! --
|