Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:21 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 06/08/12 (Franz Fux)
2. 06:13 AM - Bi-ennial transponder/encoder/static certifications (bakerocb)
3. 06:36 AM - Re: 9 lb battery/jumpstart kits (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: OS Wig-Wag Project (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:24 AM - Re: Bi-ennial transponder/encoder/static certifications (Eric M. Jones)
6. 08:42 AM - Re: OS Wig-Wag Project (gregmchugh)
7. 10:30 AM - Re: Bad Contactor Diode? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: 14 Msgs - 06/08/12 |
only intermittent access to e-mail until June 19th, in an urgent matter contact
info@lastfrontierheli.com
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: | Bi-ennial transponder/encoder/static certifications |
6/9/2012
Hello Ralph Capen, Kelly McMullen has given you some good words on this
subject, but I would like to clarify one point.
Kelly wrote: "You can leak test your static system if you ever need to open
it between
the required certifications, and that is legal, ......"
This is true only if you meet one of the qualification requirements listed
in paragraph 91.411 (b). See a copy of that paragraph below:
"91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and
inspections.
(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace
under IFR unless-
(1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system,
each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting
system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E
and F of part 43 of this chapter;
(2) Except for the use of system drain and alternate static pressure valves,
following any opening and closing of the static pressure system, that system
has been tested and inspected and found to comply with paragraph (a),
appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter; and
(3) Following installation or maintenance on the automatic pressure altitude
reporting system of the ATC transponder where data correspondence error
could be introduced, the integrated system has been tested, inspected, and
found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter.
(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted
by-
(1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and
inspections are to be performed;
(2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those
functions and holding-
(i) An instrument rating, Class I;
(ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of
appliance to be tested;
(iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed;
(iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be
tested; or
(3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system
tests and inspections only)."
Note that holding only a Repairman's Certificate for a specific experimental
amateur built aircraft is not listed as one of the persons qualified to
perform static pressure system tests and inspections (in order to detect a
leak) on the aircraft that he is rated for.
Please let me know if you have any questions on this subject.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
PS: It is possible that some FAA employee has given the OK for some
Repairman to perform a static pressure system leak test on his experimental
amateur built aircraft, but that does not constitute a universal change the
regulation.
Besides what equipment and test performance criteria would the Repairman use
to determine whether or not he had an acceptable leak? Hint: The answer to
this question can be found in the Matronics aeroelectric list archives.
(Search for "static check" dated Sep 11)
==========================================================
>From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>Sent: Jun 8, 2012 10:22 AM
>To: avionics-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Bi-ennial transponder/encoder/static
>certifications
>
>--> Avionics-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
>A common misconception. Yes you built your aircraft. That does not make
>you a "manufacturer" in the terms of these regulations.
>You need the transponder certified by someone with a repair station
>license. There is no certification of the pitot system, only the static
>system. The only reason the pitot is connected to the test is to protect
>your airspeed indicator from an excessive pressure difference with the
>static port.
>You can leak test your static system if you ever need to open it between
>the required certifications, and that is legal, but the certification
>must be done by an appropriately rated repair station.
>Kelly McMullen
>A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
===========================================
>
>On 6/8/2012 6:46 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
>> <recapen@earthlink.net>
>>
>> In reading 91.411 and 91.413, it says the manufacturer of the airplane
>> can perform
the tests.
>>
>> Since I built my 6A, I'm thinking that I cando the tests myself and make
>> the
logbook entry.
>>
>> Testing the transponder codes might be the difficult part - but I have
>> already
built the test equipment and tested the Pitot-static system and verified the
altitude goung to the transponder is correct.
>>
>> Thoughts please,
>> Ralph
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: 9 lb battery/jumpstart kits |
Just confirming what Ron has already asserted . . . here's
a 1-amp discharge curve on one of the batteries he sent
me:
Emacs!
This test article delivered just over 11 a.h. at the 1-amp
so I suspect the 20 hour rate is about 0.8 amps for a total
of 12 a.h.
Both of the batteries I received were in the 180-200 amp
range for 15 second cranking currents.
Bob . . .
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: OS Wig-Wag Project |
At 06:03 PM 6/7/2012, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>
>If you want the initial software to support the variable flash rate
>on the wig-wag I can handle that. Let me know how you want
>to configure the changes to the inputs. Is the board you sent
>me already set up to handle this with the way it is configured?
>I can add the two other input lines to the test harness you
>sent.
Are you in possession of the tools and skills to work with
1206 surface mount components? The board I sent you has
Emacs!
R26 and R27 installed. Those need to be removed
and replaced by R11 and R14. I don't try to 'save'
a removed SMD component. So I'd wick the solder off
the two un-needed resistors and install two new ones.
Why don't I assemble the second board configured for
two sets of control inputs and you could put the finishing
touches on your code.
>I would think that three rate settings would be enough, maybe
>45 flashes per minute for the default rate, and then 90 and 120
>flashes for higher rates. That would be the flash rate for
>each of the lamps, alternating lamps to get the wig-wag.
The LEDs are much more effective at the high rates than
incandescent lamps. 3 events per second is supposed to
be the 'magic' attention-getter. Those values sound good to me.
>I would think that 3 rate settings would be enough using the
>same type of switch you have on the other set of inputs.
Let me pray over some controls topology for adding
independent control of the two lights.
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: Bi-ennial transponder/encoder/static certifications |
> I have a high confidence level in taking it to a 'certified' shop...Bi-ennial
transponder/encoder/static certifications (Ralph E. Capen)
Definitions for Airmen:
Certified: Endorsed by authorities as having met specific requirements or possessing
certain qualities; e.g. " Certified Public Accountant", i.e., a person skilled
at altering or destroying documents, ignoring or failing to investigate
shell companies created by insiders who grotesquely enriched themselves while
hiding mounting corporate debt in "off-balance-sheet companies"; Ignoring knowledgeable
whistleblowers and accounting "red flags" that indicate massive fraud
is taking place; misleading investors who continued pouring their money into
failing companies. See Enron.
Certifiable: Determined to be insane or non compos mentis; e.g. I know who I am.
No one else knows who I am. If I was a giraffe, and someone said I was a snake,
I'd think, no, actually I'm a giraffe. - Richard Gere
Certificated: Something or someone judged to meet certain standards, e.g. airworthiness
or as in certificated flight instructor. The term signifies that a printed
official-looking paper (a ticket, slang for certificate) is somewhere to
be found.
Discussion--The FAA is quite careful to use the word certify only in the sense
of swear to the truthfulness of or affirm. For example:
you only have to certify that you have no medical defect
You must certify the application form by reading, answering, signing, and dating.
to certify the record is true and complete.
In good humor, Eric M. Jones
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=375119#375119
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: OS Wig-Wag Project |
Bob,
I won't attempt to make the changes to the board. I will send
out a flashed PIC today with the default code that I have
been using for testing. When you send me a board with
the inputs reconfigured we can decide on how to configure
the variable flash rate option.
Attached is the source code for the PIC I am sending you.
Greg McHugh
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=375122#375122
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/wigwag_432.c
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: Bad Contactor Diode? |
At 08:56 AM 5/8/2012, you wrote:
Recently a friend of mine purchased an RV-6A, and shortly after
buying it he turned the master switch on one morning, there was a
"poof", and the wire supplying the ground to the battery contactor burnt up.
This is an exceedingly rare event. So rare that
legacy design goals in TC aircraft do not incorporate
any form of protection for this particular wire . . .
The airplane needed some major electrical work (even prior to
this). It was wired basically according to Z-11 (I recognized the
architecture straight away) but CRUDE! Cripes... Anyway, we changed
out the contactor as it was pretty rough looking and I had a new one
on the shelf from Spruce. But it didn't have a spark catching diode
so we used the old diode that the previous owner had made up. This
time when he powered it up (hanging onto the ground wire) he felt the
wire getting hot immediately and killed the power before anything
flamed. Changed the contactor completely and put a new one from B&C
(with the supplied diode) in and the problem went away.
6/9/12
The contactor and diode you sent me have been inspected. The
contactor appears functional and draws the expected
current. The diode was indeed shorted. The terminals on
the diode were of the size needed to insure proper installation
so I'm at a loss to explain the diode failure.
Bob . . .
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! --
|