Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:15 AM - Inexpensive Runway lighting (checkn6)
2. 06:40 AM - Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting (Etienne Phillips)
3. 06:54 AM - Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting (n801bh@netzero.com)
4. 07:08 AM - Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting (n801bh@netzero.com)
5. 07:41 AM - Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting (rayj)
6. 09:02 AM - Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:11 AM - Re: Re: HID light noise (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:42 AM - Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting (DavidM)
9. 09:46 AM - Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting (DavidM)
10. 09:56 AM - Re: Re: HID light noise (Dave Saylor)
11. 10:20 AM - I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (Dave Saylor)
12. 10:25 AM - Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
13. 10:35 AM - Re: Re: HID light noise (Mark Wesson)
14. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: HID light noise (Jeff Luckey)
15. 10:44 AM - Re: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response ()
16. 11:42 AM - Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting (DavidM)
17. 11:42 AM - Re: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (DavidM)
18. 12:20 PM - NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (Ralph Finch)
19. 12:53 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (John Grosse)
20. 01:10 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (DavidM)
21. 01:15 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (Jeff Luckey)
22. 01:53 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (rayj)
23. 02:31 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (Dj Merrill)
24. 02:55 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (Daniel Hooper)
25. 03:01 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (Peter Pengilly)
26. 03:03 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (JOHN TIPTON)
27. 05:29 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (DavidM)
28. 06:50 PM - Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (John Grosse)
29. 08:35 PM - Re: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and got this response (Noel Loveys)
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: | Inexpensive Runway lighting |
This question is slightly off topic but is aircraft and electro related, albeit
somewhat loosely. Years ago I read an article in an aviation magazine about how
a small group put in runway lights using industrial porch light fittings from
a home store and compact fluorescent lights, they were simple to install and
had lower use and maintenance cost. My question is does anyone know if this
has been done with the latest LEDs?
I am based at an airport that is currently unlit and a small group of us are exploring
this option and we dont want to re-invent the wheel so to speak. The fittings
and mechanical is easy enough but was wondering about the types of LED/drivers,
and power transmission. Runway is 2200 ft. Although the CFL option is
viable I cant help but wonder if the power use and life expectancy of the LED
wouldnt make them a better candidate for something like this.
Ill listen to any ideas/advice on this and if anyone is interested in working with
us email me off list. Forming the light configuration with proto boards is
easy enough but curious about wiring for the long runs down the runway. For example,
would it be better to run standard voltage and have a driver in each fitting,
or have a driver in a central location that sends the required voltage
to each light fitting. I would guess that it would be easier to send higher voltage
down the length and set up each light with its own driver. Then again there
is the cost to calculate. Im Just getting started on this idea so any advice
would be welcome.
Thanks,
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363573#363573
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: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
Hi Chris
Have you considered retro-reflective lighting? Seems to be the cheapest and
easiest maintenance-free option, as far as I've seen. No experience with it
though (day/vfr pilot only), but I do see that Virgin uses is when they
land in Nigeria!
I've seen old vehicle number-plates folded in half in an inverted V shape
and secured to the ground too...
Thanks
Etienne
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: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
In a situation like yours with a small unlit strip the easiest way is to
use individuel solar lights at each location.... No wires to run and mo
st of the new generation light fixtures are darn cheap to buy and work g
ood....
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "checkn6" <checkn6@yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Inexpensive Runway lighting
This question is slightly off topic but is aircraft and electro related,
albeit somewhat loosely. Years ago I read an article in an aviation mag
azine about how a small group put in runway lights using industrial porc
h light fittings from a home store and compact fluorescent lights, they
were simple to install and had lower use and maintenance cost. My questi
on is does anyone know if this has been done with the latest LEDs?
I am based at an airport that is currently unlit and a small group of us
are exploring this option and we don=99t want to re-invent the wh
eel so to speak. The fittings and mechanical is easy enough but was wond
ering about the types of LED/drivers, and power transmission. Runway is
2200 ft. Although the CFL option is viable I can=99t help but wond
er if the power use and life expectancy of the LED wouldn=99t make
them a better candidate for something like this.
I=99ll listen to any ideas/advice on this and if anyone is interes
ted in working with us email me off list. Forming the light configuratio
n with proto boards is easy enough but curious about wiring for the long
runs down the runway. For example, would it be better to run standard v
oltage and have a driver in each fitting, or have a driver in a central
location that sends the required voltage to each light fitting. I would
guess that it would be easier to send higher voltage down the length and
set up each light with its own driver. Then again there is the cost to
calculate. I=99m Just getting started on this idea so any advice w
ould be welcome.
Thanks,
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363573#363573
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4f1044e05e8b3146b6acst04vuc
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: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
These are darn bright and probably available at a lower cost in volume.
They are alse shaped to shine light up just like regular runway side lig
hting.
http://www.solarlightstore.com/solar-landscape-lights/path-lights/newton
solaraccentlight.cfm
If you really want to go the inexpensive route take some pie tins and st
aple or screw to wooden stakes and line the side of the runway with them
. You would be amazed it how good they reflect the light off of your la
nding light of the aircraft... You can do an entire runway for 20 bucks
too. Ps. It might look a bit hoky but very functional.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inexpensive Runway lighting
Hi Chris
Have you considered retro-reflective lighting? Seems to be the cheapest
and easiest maintenance-free option, as far as I've seen. No experience
with it though (day/vfr pilot only), but I do see that Virgin uses is wh
en they land in Nigeria!
I've seen old vehicle number-plates folded in half in an inverted V shap
e and secured to the ground too...
Thanks
Etienne
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
============
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4f1047fa61ef146b928st03vuc
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: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
Just another data point.
I have a variety of solar lights along the "taxiway" from my parking
area to my house. The original poster didn't say where they lived, but I
have found that when it's cold the useful illumination time for most of
the solar lights is < 3hrs. Also, if it is cloudy for more than 1/2 the
day the illumination time is significantly reduced, even in the summer.
I think a cost effective solar powered system could be built, but my
experience with off the shelf items has been unsatisfactory.
Obviously, testing the unit you are considering using is a must.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 01/13/2012 08:49 AM, n801bh@netzero.com wrote:
>
> In a situation like yours with a small unlit strip the easiest way is to
> use individuel solar lights at each location.... No wires to run and
> most of the new generation light fixtures are darn cheap to buy and work
> good....
snipped DNA
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "checkn6" <checkn6@yahoo.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Inexpensive Runway lighting
> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:11:41 -0800
>
>
> This question is slightly off topic but is aircraft and electro related,
> albeit somewhat loosely. Years ago I read an article in an aviation
> magazine about how a small group put in runway lights using industrial
> porch light fittings from a home store and compact fluorescent lights,
> they were simple to install and had lower use and maintenance cost. My
> question is does anyone know if this has been done with the latest LEDs?
>
snip
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: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
At 08:37 AM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
Hi Chris
Have you considered retro-reflective lighting? Seems to be the
cheapest and easiest maintenance-free option, as far as I've seen. No
experience with it though (day/vfr pilot only), but I do see that
Virgin uses is when they land in Nigeria!
I've seen old vehicle number-plates folded in half in an inverted V
shape and secured to the ground too..
Absolutely the lowest cost-of-ownership solution.
The airport Dr. Dee and I used to own had "approved"
runway lights . . . or at least approved when they were
installed 20 years ago. They used a 10w sewing machine
bulb and had a domed cylinder cover/lens which may have
be optimized for concentrating light in the 'right' directions
but I suspect not.
Given the age of the installation, they were a real maintenance
headache. One thing I discovered was that fixtures with missing
globes were less likely to corrode . . . fresh rain water keeps
them free of dust accumulation and taking the globe off allowed
the guts of the fixture to dry out quickly. Leaving the globe on
trapped moisture inside to rot away at the metal parts.
Since we were a privately owned airport, the only risk for having
'non approved' fixtures was to risk loosing the notation in the AFM for
"low intensity lighting".
One night while driving down a section of highway under repair,
the striping was temporarily replaced with low profile reflectors
robust enough to withstand the effects of inattentive driving. Their
performance when illuminated with headlights was pretty amazing.
It was easy to imagine how these critters would look down the
edges of a runway while in a flare maneuver.
Here's one example of many:
http://tinyurl.com/7seqaey
http://tinyurl.com/85b2daj
If I were building a runway out on the farm, I would certainly
consider this technology as an alternative to powered lighting
systems.
Further, efficient reflectors of some larger size and shape
could be used to create a poor-boy's VASI system. They can be
placed at the bottom of a deep box with geometry that controls
the angle of illumination/reflection of the colors.
Combined with your own tested non-precision approach for
setting up a track and speed past a gps fix off the approach
end of the runway would get you set up to maximize performance
of the reflectors. No bulbs to wear out, low cost replacement
of damaged components, no electric bill, exceedingly weather
resistant.
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: HID light noise |
At 06:05 PM 1/12/2012, you wrote:
>
>Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
>
>http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid
This is a good example of why this and similar discussions
need to be brought to this List. We've had many discussions
over the years concerning the system integration risks for
systems that perform as advertised at very attractive prices
but without the support of studies showing suitability to
task in airplanes. One good example is the popular LuxDrive
product for LED lighting.
Emacs!
While it performed as advertised, it was a noise generator. I crafted
a repackaged product that made it easier to mount, easier to wire,
and added a filter for noise mitigation.
It strikes me that this HID ballast package might well benefit
from a similar repackaging effort.
Bob . . .
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: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
Be sure you set your lights up and protect them during grass cutting.
We all make mistakes and on an area that size, it is easy to slip up and
run one over. <sigh>
David M.
n801bh@netzero.com wrote:
>
> These are darn bright and probably available at a lower cost in
> volume. They are alse shaped to shine light up just like regular
> runway side lighting.
>
> http://www.solarlightstore.com/solar-landscape-lights/path-lights/newtonsolaraccentlight.cfm
>
> If you really want to go the inexpensive route take some pie tins and
> staple or screw to wooden stakes and line the side of the runway with
> them. You would be amazed it how good they reflect the light off of
> your landing light of the aircraft... You can do an entire runway for
> 20 bucks too. Ps. It might look a bit hoky but very functional.
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips@gmail.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inexpensive Runway lighting
> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:37:58 +0200
>
> Hi Chris
>
> Have you considered retro-reflective lighting? Seems to be the
> cheapest and easiest maintenance-free option, as far as I've seen. No
> experience with it though (day/vfr pilot only), but I do see that
> Virgin uses is when they land in Nigeria!
>
> I've seen old vehicle number-plates folded in half in an inverted V
> shape and secured to the ground too...
>
> Thanks
> Etienne
>
> *
>
> ===================================
> c-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> tronics.com
> ===================================
> www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
> *
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> *53 Year Old Mom Looks 33*
> The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4f1047fa61ef146b928st03vuc>consumerproducts.com
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4f1047fa61ef146b928st03vuc>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
But reflective-only lights are zero help when you're trying to just FIND
the airport at night! That is no fun at all.
David M.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 08:37 AM 1/13/2012, you wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
> Have you considered retro-reflective lighting? Seems to be the
> cheapest and easiest maintenance-free option, as far as I've seen. No
> experience with it though (day/vfr pilot only), but I do see that
> Virgin uses is when they land in Nigeria!
> <<<snip>>>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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: | Re: HID light noise |
Where do we start?
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 06:05 PM 1/12/2012, you wrote:
>
>
> Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
>
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid
>
>
> This is a good example of why this and similar discussions
> need to be brought to this List. We've had many discussions
> over the years concerning the system integration risks for
> systems that perform as advertised at very attractive prices
> but without the support of studies showing suitability to
> task in airplanes. One good example is the popular LuxDrive
> product for LED lighting.
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> While it performed as advertised, it was a noise generator. I crafted
> a repackaged product that made it easier to mount, easier to wire,
> and added a filter for noise mitigation.
>
> It strikes me that this HID ballast package might well benefit
> from a similar repackaging effort.
>
>
> **
>
> ** 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: | I signed a petition against aviation user fees and |
got this response
Enjoy!
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
Do Not Archive
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The White House <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>
Subject: Petition Response: Why We Need Aviation User Fees
Why We Need Aviation User Fees
By Dana Hyde, Associate Director for General Government Programs,
Office of Management and Budget
Thank you for signing the petition "Take Aviation User Fees Off the
Table." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform
on WhiteHouse.gov and your concerns about user fees in a challenging
economy.
In a challenging budget environment, the Obama Administration believes
its essential that those who benefit from our world-class aviation
system help pay for its ongoing operation. And we want to ensure that
everyone is paying their fair share. For example, under current law, a
large commercial aircraft flying from Los Angeles to San Francisco
pays between twenty-one and thirty-three times the fuel taxes paid by
a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same FAA air
traffic services. This is why the Administration proposed to establish
a new surcharge for air traffic services.
The proposed $100 per flight fee would generate an estimated $11
billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit and more equitably sharing
the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community.
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air
ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and
Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
We appreciate your petition's acknowledgment that there needs to be an
increased user contribution to aviation system funding in the current
fiscal climate, and we recognize that some would prefer to raise the
tax rate on aviation fuel. At the same time, we have concluded that a
$100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to
bear the cost of this essential service.
As we work to get our Nation back on a sustainable fiscal path, the
Administration is making tough choices across the Federal budget and
asking everyone to do their fair share. We recognize these shared
sacrifices are not easy, but together with investments in our economic
growth and job creation, they will make us stronger and more
competitive for the future. We look forward to working collaboratively
with the Congress and the aviation stakeholder community on this
issue, and thank you again for your constructive input.
Check out this response on We the People.
Stay Connected
Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email
updates from President Obama and other senior administration
officials.
Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr iTunes
This email was sent to dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
Manage Subscriptions for dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
Sign Up for Updates from the White House
Click here to unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 202-456-1111
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: | Inexpensive Runway lighting |
Combined with your own tested non-precision approach for
setting up a track and speed past a gps fix off the approach
end of the runway would get you set up to maximize performance
of the reflectors. No bulbs to wear out, low cost replacement
of damaged components, no electric bill, exceedingly weather
resistant.
Bob . . .
Just remember that in the northern climate, snow, ice, and
frost can compromise these reflective devices more than an incandescent
bulb, which generates some heat to melt the frozen surface. With any
runway
lighting system design, it is imperative that all probable weather
conditions be taken into account.
Roger
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
I am in the market for HID lights for my RV-9. I am finishing the wings and
am about to pull the trigger on the purchase of the Duckworks install kit
and a cheap HID kit.
Something like this for the HID would be much appreciated.
Mark Wesson
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: HID light noise
At 06:05 PM 1/12/2012, you wrote:
Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid>
&highlight=Hid
This is a good example of why this and similar discussions
need to be brought to this List. We've had many discussions
over the years concerning the system integration risks for
systems that perform as advertised at very attractive prices
but without the support of studies showing suitability to
task in airplanes. One good example is the popular LuxDrive
product for LED lighting.
Emacs!
While it performed as advertised, it was a noise generator. I crafted
a repackaged product that made it easier to mount, easier to wire,
and added a filter for noise mitigation.
It strikes me that this HID ballast package might well benefit
from a similar repackaging effort.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: HID light noise |
If Bob is going to offer some "tutoring & mentoring", I want to play on this
project!
(However, logistically participation could be problematic since I'm in
Southern California - perhaps an excuse to fly to Watsonville more often.)
-Jeff Luckey
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Saylor
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 09:52
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: HID light noise
Where do we start?
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
At 06:05 PM 1/12/2012, you wrote:
Here is how I won the battle with noise from the cheap HID lights...
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67875&highlight=Hid>
&highlight=Hid
This is a good example of why this and similar discussions
need to be brought to this List. We've had many discussions
over the years concerning the system integration risks for
systems that perform as advertised at very attractive prices
but without the support of studies showing suitability to
task in airplanes. One good example is the popular LuxDrive
product for LED lighting.
Emacs!
While it performed as advertised, it was a noise generator. I crafted
a repackaged product that made it easier to mount, easier to wire,
and added a filter for noise mitigation.
It strikes me that this HID ballast package might well benefit
from a similar repackaging effort.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: I signed a petition against aviation user fees |
and got this response
OFF TOPIC
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Talking about "fair share", here is some unverified data:
Salary of retired US Presidents .............$450,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate members ..........$174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House .............$223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders .....$193,400 FOR LIFE
Etc., etc.
Average salary of a soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN - $38,000
Average income for seniors on SOCIAL SECURITY - $12,000
Where should one start the cuts in this "challenging budget environment"? :)
---- Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> 831-722-9141 Shop
> 831-750-0284 Cell
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: The White House <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>
> Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM
> Subject: Petition Response: Why We Need Aviation User Fees
> To: dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Why We Need Aviation User Fees
>
> By Dana Hyde, Associate Director for General Government Programs,
> Office of Management and Budget
>
> Thank you for signing the petition "Take Aviation User Fees Off the
> Table." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform
> on WhiteHouse.gov and your concerns about user fees in a challenging
> economy.
>
> In a challenging budget environment, the Obama Administration believes
> its essential that those who benefit from our world-class aviation
> system help pay for its ongoing operation. And we want to ensure that
> everyone is paying their fair share. For example, under current law, a
> large commercial aircraft flying from Los Angeles to San Francisco
> pays between twenty-one and thirty-three times the fuel taxes paid by
> a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same FAA air
> traffic services. This is why the Administration proposed to establish
> a new surcharge for air traffic services.
>
> The proposed $100 per flight fee would generate an estimated $11
> billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit and more equitably sharing
> the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community.
> All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air
> ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and
> Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
>
> We appreciate your petition's acknowledgment that there needs to be an
> increased user contribution to aviation system funding in the current
> fiscal climate, and we recognize that some would prefer to raise the
> tax rate on aviation fuel. At the same time, we have concluded that a
> $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to
> bear the cost of this essential service.
>
> As we work to get our Nation back on a sustainable fiscal path, the
> Administration is making tough choices across the Federal budget and
> asking everyone to do their fair share. We recognize these shared
> sacrifices are not easy, but together with investments in our economic
> growth and job creation, they will make us stronger and more
> competitive for the future. We look forward to working collaboratively
> with the Congress and the aviation stakeholder community on this
> issue, and thank you again for your constructive input.
>
> Check out this response on We the People.
>
> Stay Connected
>
> Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email
> updates from President Obama and other senior administration
> officials.
>
>
> Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr iTunes
>
>
>
>
> This email was sent to dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
> Manage Subscriptions for dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
> Sign Up for Updates from the White House
> Click here to unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
> Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House
>
> The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 202-456-1111
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Runway lighting |
And if GPS is out or a 4G cell tower is nearby???
David M.
ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
>
> Combined with your own tested non-precision approach for
> setting up a track and speed past a gps fix off the approach
> end of the runway would get you set up to maximize performance
> of the reflectors. No bulbs to wear out, low cost replacement
> of damaged components, no electric bill, exceedingly weather
> resistant.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Just remember that in the northern climate, snow, ice, and
> frost can compromise these reflective devices more than an incandescent
> bulb, which generates some heat to melt the frozen surface. With any runway
> lighting system design, it is imperative that all probable weather
> conditions be taken into account.
>
> Roger
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: I signed a petition against aviation user fees |
and got this response
<censored> crooks! We must stop those people .
David M.
Dave Saylor wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Saylor<dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com>
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> 831-722-9141 Shop
> 831-750-0284 Cell
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: The White House<info@messages.whitehouse.gov>
> Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM
> Subject: Petition Response: Why We Need Aviation User Fees
> To: dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
>
>
> Why We Need Aviation User Fees
>
> By Dana Hyde, Associate Director for General Government Programs,
> Office of Management and Budget
>
> Thank you for signing the petition "Take Aviation User Fees Off the
> Table." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform
> on WhiteHouse.gov and your concerns about user fees in a challenging
> economy.
>
> In a challenging budget environment, the Obama Administration believes
> its essential that those who benefit from our world-class aviation
> system help pay for its ongoing operation. And we want to ensure that
> everyone is paying their fair share. For example, under current law, a
> large commercial aircraft flying from Los Angeles to San Francisco
> pays between twenty-one and thirty-three times the fuel taxes paid by
> a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same FAA air
> traffic services. This is why the Administration proposed to establish
> a new surcharge for air traffic services.
>
> The proposed $100 per flight fee would generate an estimated $11
> billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit and more equitably sharing
> the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community.
> All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air
> ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and
> Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
>
> We appreciate your petition's acknowledgment that there needs to be an
> increased user contribution to aviation system funding in the current
> fiscal climate, and we recognize that some would prefer to raise the
> tax rate on aviation fuel. At the same time, we have concluded that a
> $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to
> bear the cost of this essential service.
>
> As we work to get our Nation back on a sustainable fiscal path, the
> Administration is making tough choices across the Federal budget and
> asking everyone to do their fair share. We recognize these shared
> sacrifices are not easy, but together with investments in our economic
> growth and job creation, they will make us stronger and more
> competitive for the future. We look forward to working collaboratively
> with the Congress and the aviation stakeholder community on this
> issue, and thank you again for your constructive input.
>
> Check out this response on We the People.
>
> Stay Connected
>
> Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email
> updates from President Obama and other senior administration
> officials.
>
>
> Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr iTunes
>
>
> This email was sent to dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
> Manage Subscriptions for dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
> Sign Up for Updates from the White House
> Click here to unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
> Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House
>
> The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 202-456-1111
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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: | NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation |
user fees and got this response
How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
RF
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation |
user fees and got this response
Amen! We've been through this absurd cycle before. Let's not start again.
John Grosse
Ralph Finch wrote:
> How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
> RF
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against |
aviation user fees and got this response
This particular text is important to the entire aviation community and
is relevant to our usage here. It is money out of our pockets, directly.
David M.
John Grosse wrote:
> <grosseair@comcast.net>
>
> Amen! We've been through this absurd cycle before. Let's not start again.
> John Grosse
>
> Ralph Finch wrote:
>> How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
>> RF
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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 |
|
Subject: | NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation |
user fees and got this response
Agreed,
Didn't Uncle Bob create a new forum for this sort of commentary last
summer??
I'm all for political discourse, let's just do it in the appropriate place.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Grosse
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 12:49
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against
aviation user fees and got this response
Amen! We've been through this absurd cycle before. Let's not start again.
John Grosse
Ralph Finch wrote:
> How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
> RF
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against |
aviation user fees and got this response
How does it impact herding electrons?
do not archive
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 01/13/2012 03:07 PM, DavidM wrote:
>
> This particular text is important to the entire aviation community and
> is relevant to our usage here. It is money out of our pockets, directly.
>
> David M.
>
>
> John Grosse wrote:
>> <grosseair@comcast.net>
>>
>> Amen! We've been through this absurd cycle before. Let's not start again.
>> John Grosse
>>
>> Ralph Finch wrote:
>>> How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
>>> RF
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
Message 23
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: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation |
user fees and got this response
On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:50 PM, rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> How does it impact herding electrons?
>
> do not archive
>
>
Considering the glass panels we are installing that depend on the database updates
(more new fees coming soon) that are required for IFR flying (that these particular
new user fees significantly impact), I'd say it very directly impacts
some critical electrons. We could all go back to steam gauges and VFR only
flying, and only land at privately owned airports...
-Dj
Message 24
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: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation |
user fees and got this response
I'm happy to help with engineering questions and I'll ask one from time to time,
but please don't assault my inbox with unquestionably off-topic items.
Aviation isn't a disconnected community -- I already get my weekly issues spam
from AOPA like most of you. People know about this stuff. Let's keep it technical
here.
Thanks,
Daniel
On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:50 PM, rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> How does it impact herding electrons?
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>
> Considering the glass panels we are installing that depend on the database updates
(more new fees coming soon) that are required for IFR flying (that these
particular new user fees significantly impact), I'd say it very directly impacts
some critical electrons. We could all go back to steam gauges and VFR only
flying, and only land at privately owned airports...
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
>
>
Message 25
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: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against aviation |
user fees and got this response
Also consider the people on this list who have little idea what you guys
are talking about as we don't live in the US. My vote is for this
discussion to go somewhere else.
Peter
On 13/01/2012 22:28, Dj Merrill wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill<deej@deej.net>
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:50 PM, rayj<raymondj@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rayj<raymondj@frontiernet.net>
>>
>> How does it impact herding electrons?
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
> Considering the glass panels we are installing that depend on the database updates
(more new fees coming soon) that are required for IFR flying (that these
particular new user fees significantly impact), I'd say it very directly impacts
some critical electrons. We could all go back to steam gauges and VFR only
flying, and only land at privately owned airports...
>
> -Dj
>
>
Message 26
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: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against |
aviation user fees and got this response
And I certainly don't think it has anything to do with any 'aviation
community' outside of the US
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "DavidM" <ainut@knology.net>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against
aviation user fees and got this response
>
> This particular text is important to the entire aviation community and is
> relevant to our usage here. It is money out of our pockets, directly.
>
> David M.
>
>
> John Grosse wrote:
>> <grosseair@comcast.net>
>>
>> Amen! We've been through this absurd cycle before. Let's not start again.
>> John Grosse
>>
>> Ralph Finch wrote:
>>> How about we stop posting political junk on these lists.
>>> RF
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
>
Message 27
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: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against |
aviation user fees and got this response
The fewer aviation dollars in your pocket, the fewer electrons you can
afford to buy.
rayj wrote:
>
> How does it impact herding electrons?
>
> do not archive
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN
>
> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>
> On 01/13/2012 03:07 PM, DavidM wrote:
>>
>> This particular text is important to the entire aviation community and
>> is relevant to our usage here. It is money out of our pockets, directly.
>>
>> David M.
>>
>>
>> John Grosse wrote:
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Message 28
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: NO POLITICS Was: I signed a petition against |
aviation user fees and got this response
Is this really the ONLY place you guys have to complain? Let's just
please stick to the purpose of this list. None of us joined because we
thought this was a political chat line.
John Grosse
Message 29
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: | I signed a petition against aviation user fees |
and got this response
Sounds like they are planning on instituting the user fee any way. My only concern
would be for helicopters..Most of them are turbine engines and they do operate
in controlled airspace but $100/ flight is nothing short of graft, it's
just another way to squeeze another 10-20% out of the public.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: January 13, 2012 2:46 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: I signed a petition against aviation user fees and
got this response
Enjoy!
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
Do Not Archive
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The White House <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>
Subject: Petition Response: Why We Need Aviation User Fees
Why We Need Aviation User Fees
By Dana Hyde, Associate Director for General Government Programs,
Office of Management and Budget
Thank you for signing the petition "Take Aviation User Fees Off the
Table." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform
on WhiteHouse.gov and your concerns about user fees in a challenging
economy.
In a challenging budget environment, the Obama Administration believes
its essential that those who benefit from our world-class aviation
system help pay for its ongoing operation. And we want to ensure that
everyone is paying their fair share. For example, under current law, a
large commercial aircraft flying from Los Angeles to San Francisco
pays between twenty-one and thirty-three times the fuel taxes paid by
a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same FAA air
traffic services. This is why the Administration proposed to establish
a new surcharge for air traffic services.
The proposed $100 per flight fee would generate an estimated $11
billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit and more equitably sharing
the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community.
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air
ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and
Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
We appreciate your petition's acknowledgment that there needs to be an
increased user contribution to aviation system funding in the current
fiscal climate, and we recognize that some would prefer to raise the
tax rate on aviation fuel. At the same time, we have concluded that a
$100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to
bear the cost of this essential service.
As we work to get our Nation back on a sustainable fiscal path, the
Administration is making tough choices across the Federal budget and
asking everyone to do their fair share. We recognize these shared
sacrifices are not easy, but together with investments in our economic
growth and job creation, they will make us stronger and more
competitive for the future. We look forward to working collaboratively
with the Congress and the aviation stakeholder community on this
issue, and thank you again for your constructive input.
Check out this response on We the People.
Stay Connected
Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email
updates from President Obama and other senior administration
officials.
Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr iTunes
This email was sent to dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
Manage Subscriptions for dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com
Sign Up for Updates from the White House
Click here to unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 202-456-1111
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! --
|