Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:01 AM - Re: Re: Removable comm antenna (Holger Selover-Stephan)
2. 08:04 AM - Re: LARAGO ELT info needed (Richard Girard)
3. 08:40 AM - Re: LARAGO ELT info needed (Larry Mac Donald)
4. 09:08 AM - Re: LARAGO ELT info needed (Richard Girard)
5. 09:42 AM - Re: LARAGO ELT info needed (Larry Mac Donald)
6. 09:51 AM - Re: LARAGO ELT info needed (The Kuffels)
7. 10:02 AM - Re: LARAGO ELT info needed (BobsV35B@aol.com)
8. 10:17 AM - Re: LARAGO ELT info needed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 11:30 AM - Re: LARAGO ELT info needed (Charlie England)
10. 02:35 PM - FSDO horror shows (Ed Holyoke)
11. 03:20 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Henry Hallam)
12. 05:19 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Ed Holyoke)
13. 05:32 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (BobsV35B@aol.com)
14. 06:30 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Kelly McMullen)
15. 07:01 PM - Fw: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge (Dave Saylor)
16. 10:29 PM - Re: Fw: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge (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: Removable comm antenna |
Thanks, Old Bob, and that's a little, humble Monnett Moni. Sometimes the
shadow of this V-tail makes it look like a fighter jet! Its day job,
though, is providing its owner with cheap (2gal/hr), but very enjoyable
flying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_FvBS6MncA . The V-tail works
splendidly, the pilot is trying his best. ;)
Holger
On 12/16/12 10:38 AM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Holger,
> Great workmanship! What I really love is that V-Tail. <G> What kind of
> a machine is it?
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> Downers Grove, Illinois
> V-Tail Aficionado
>
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: LARAGO ELT info needed |
Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the Wichita
FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You cannot
use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied with
it. Not legally, anyway.
Rick Girard
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>wrote:
> Anyone recognize this ELT, or the antenna connector used? The antenna is
> missing, & the owner needs either an original 'fixed' antenna, or an
> adapter to a regular BNC connector/cable for an external antenna. He has
> the telescoping accessory antenna, but his IA won't sign off the plane
> with only that antenna.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
--
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 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: LARAGO ELT info needed |
I have a question about this statment.
It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the Wichita FSDO
last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You cannot use any
other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied with it. Not legally,
anyway.
>
> Rick Girard
>
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50cf4a9ec25d54a9d76d4st03vuc
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: LARAGO ELT info needed |
Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from
another ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval
to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the
mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
Rick
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have a question about this statment.
> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
> Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
> cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer
> supplied with it. Not legally, anyway.
> >
> > Rick Girard
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Woman is 53 But Looks 25
> Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50cf4a9ec25d54a9d76d4st03vuc
>
>
--
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 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: LARAGO ELT info needed |
Richard,
Thanks for the info.
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see i
f I could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the a
ircraft had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I
asked if I could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an ante
nna from another ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted appro
val to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even t
he mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
>
> Rick
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com> wrot
e:
m>
>
>
> I have a question about this statment.
> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the W
ichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. Yo
u cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer su
pplied with it. Not legally, anyway.
> >
> > Rick Girard
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Woman is 53 But Looks 25
> Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50cf4a9ec25d54a9d76d4st03vuc
>
>
> ==========
> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> le, List Admin.
> ==========
> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectr
ic-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Zulu Delta
> Mk IIIC
> Thanks, Homer GBYM
>
> It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unh
appy.
> - Groucho Marx
>
>
>
>
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
>
> Our Three Best Premium Packages for One Low Price
> Click here to see offers - http://store.JUNO.com/
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50cf591b4b459171d66st04vuc
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: LARAGO ELT info needed |
<< My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted
approval to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not
even the mounting screws supplied by the mfr. >>
There is a very small loophole. If the manufacturer's manual gives you
an option or specification, you can legally use it. For example, the
ACK E-04 manual talks about a ground plane in composite aircraft. They
specify 6 pieces of copper tape at least 12" long spaced equidistant
around the base. These tapes could be 1/32" wide or 1" wide or wider
and still meet the letter of the regulation. Five or seven pieces would
not, however. But if I used a solid sheet of metal doubt if anyone
would complain.
Tom Kuffel
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: LARAGO ELT info needed |
Good Morning All,
This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
participants are aware.
It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
inspectors at the same FSDO!
Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't
want your mother to know about!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
lm4@juno.com writes:
Richard,
Thanks for the info.
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if
I could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from
another ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval
to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the
mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
Rick
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald <_lm4@juno.com_
(mailto:lm4@juno.com) > wrote:
(mailto:lm4@juno.com) >
I have a question about this statment.
It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
with it. Not legally, anyway.
>
> Rick Girard
>
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: LARAGO ELT info needed |
>
>It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you
>don't want your mother to know about!
You beat me to it sir . . . practical advice in
a very impractical world.
Bob . . .
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: LARAGO ELT info needed |
Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to
surrender the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his
a/w cert? And at a later date, when he used the same engine on another
build, was told that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being
on the engine.....
I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
meets TSO for installation.
No one can ID the connector??
Thanks,
Charlie
On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning All,
> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
> participants are aware.
> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each
> FSDO is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers
> at different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from
> different inspectors at the same FSDO!
> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we
> determine a consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you
> don't want your mother to know about!
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> lm4@juno.com writes:
>
> Richard,
> Thanks for the info.
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to
>> see if I could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous
>> owner of the aircraft had modified and return it to service. The
>> answer was no. Then I asked if I could make an antenna for it.
>> Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another ELT of the same
>> frequency? Nope.
>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted
>> approval to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change
>> anything, not even the mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com
>> <mailto:lm4@juno.com>> wrote:
>>
>> <lm4@juno.com <mailto:lm4@juno.com>>
>>
>>
>> I have a question about this statment.
>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's
>> with the Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the
>> TSO for the unit. You cannot use any other antenna other than
>> that which the manufacturer supplied with it. Not legally,
>> anyway.
>> >
>> > Rick Girard
>> >
>>
>
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: | FSDO horror shows |
I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV
as the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration
and I was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating
them as to how to do their job and showing them the current issue
boilerplate oplims (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I
couldn't operate my homebuilt out of my home airport or three others
within their jurisdiction because of a memo that the former head of the
local FSDO had written several years earlier forbidding operations of
experimental aircraft in Phase 1 (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal
operations). I told them that they didn't have the authority to
arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and sicced the national
office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and issued my new
oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the FAA,
Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell
for a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer
you do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible
problem that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to
avoid if you can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in
life is to slide papers from one side of the desk to the other without
getting burned by them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward
the non-certificated world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at
length about how dangerous experimental aircraft are. He made it clear
that he took it personally that these scofflaws are allowed to skate
around the rules, as he sees it. If you do have business with them that
you can't do any other way, have your ducks in a neat little row before
you go in there and say absolutely nothing more than you have to in
order to get your business transacted.
Ed Holyoke
On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
> Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
>
> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to
> surrender the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue
> his a/w cert? And at a later date, when he used the same engine on
> another build, was told that he couldn't get an a/w without the data
> plate being on the engine.....
>
> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that
> has quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps
> freqs) that meets TSO for installation.
>
> No one can ID the connector??
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>> Good Morning All,
>> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of
>> our participants are aware.
>> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each
>> FSDO is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different
>> answers at different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different
>> answers from different inspectors at the same FSDO!
>> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we
>> determine a consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you
>> don't want your mother to know about!
>> Happy Skies,
>> Old Bob
>> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>> lm4@juno.com writes:
>>
>> Richard,
>> Thanks for the info.
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to
>>> see if I could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous
>>> owner of the aircraft had modified and return it to service. The
>>> answer was no. Then I asked if I could make an antenna for it.
>>> Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another ELT of the same
>>> frequency? Nope.
>>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted
>>> approval to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change
>>> anything, not even the mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com
>>> <mailto:lm4@juno.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <lm4@juno.com <mailto:lm4@juno.com>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a question about this statment.
>>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>>> Larry
>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>
>>> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's
>>> with the Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of
>>> the TSO for the unit. You cannot use any other antenna other
>>> than that which the manufacturer supplied with it. Not
>>> legally, anyway.
>>> >
>>> > Rick Girard
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
Henry
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke <bicyclop@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
> was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
> how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
> (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
> homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
> because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
> years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
> (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
> have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
> sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
> issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
> FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
> experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
> a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
>
> Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
> permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
> do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
> that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
> can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
> papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
> them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
> world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
> experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
> these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
> do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
> in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
> than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
>
> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
> the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
> at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
> that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
>
> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
> quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
> meets TSO for installation.
>
> No one can ID the connector??
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
> Good Morning All,
>
> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
> participants are aware.
>
> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
> is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
> different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
> inspectors at the same FSDO!
>
> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
> consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>
> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>
> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>
> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>
> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
> your mother to know about!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> lm4@juno.com writes:
>
> Richard,
> Thanks for the info.
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
> could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
> had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
> could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
> ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to
> the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
> screws supplied by the mfr.
>
> Rick
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a question about this statment.
>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
>> > Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
>> > cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
>> > with it. Not legally, anyway.
>> >
>> > Rick Girard
>> >
>
>
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: FSDO horror shows |
Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and
Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for
experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims
for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over
densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They
want to prohibit that also.
Ed
On 12/17/2012 3:19 PM, Henry Hallam wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Henry Hallam<henry@pericynthion.org>
>
> Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
>
> Henry
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke<bicyclop@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
>> how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
>> (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
>> homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
>> because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
>> years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
>> (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
>> have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
>> sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
>> issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
>> FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
>> experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
>> a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
>>
>> Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
>> permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
>> do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
>> that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
>> can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
>> papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
>> them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
>> world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
>> experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
>> these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
>> do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
>> in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
>> than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
>>
>> Ed Holyoke
>>
>> On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>>
>> Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
>>
>> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
>> the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
>> at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
>> that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
>>
>> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
>> quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
>> meets TSO for installation.
>>
>> No one can ID the connector??
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Good Morning All,
>>
>> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
>> participants are aware.
>>
>> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
>> is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
>> different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
>> inspectors at the same FSDO!
>>
>> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
>> consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>>
>> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>>
>> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>>
>> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>>
>> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
>> your mother to know about!
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>>
>> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>> lm4@juno.com writes:
>>
>> Richard,
>> Thanks for the info.
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
>> could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
>> had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
>> could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
>> ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to
>> the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
>> screws supplied by the mfr.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald<lm4@juno.com> wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald<lm4@juno.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a question about this statment.
>>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>>> Larry
>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
>>>> Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
>>>> cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
>>>> with it. Not legally, anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Rick Girard
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: FSDO horror shows |
Good Evening All,
I really do not mean to bash the FEDs. The vast majority are good guys who
like aviation and want to do a good job, but such is the nature of
bureaucracy. They tend to say no because you rarely have to explain a no decision
after an accident. If they say no to any operation they possibly can, they
reduce their own exposure to censure.
Best to avoid asking the question!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/17/2012 7:21:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bicyclop@pacbell.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and
Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for
experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims
for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over
densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They
want to prohibit that also.
Ed
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: FSDO horror shows |
Sometimes it helps to be on the inside. A couple years ago I was invited
to join the local FAAST volunteers group.
Being associated with them, helping out on what they want, they seem to
be more responsive to my requests.
Actually, also got assigned to a relatively new PMI who previously
worked on GA planes and has actually been helpful.
Small miracles do happen and while I expect that I will run into
uncooperative folks there, at the moment I'll
continue doing a few presentations a year for them and hope the
cooperation continues.
Kelly
On 12/17/2012 6:31 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening All,
> I really do not mean to bash the FEDs. The vast majority are good guys
> who like aviation and want to do a good job, but such is the nature of
> bureaucracy. They tend to say no because you rarely have to explain a
> no decision after an accident. If they say no to any operation they
> possibly can, they reduce their own exposure to censure.
> Best to avoid asking the question!
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 12/17/2012 7:21:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> bicyclop@pacbell.net writes:
>
> <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>
> Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and
> Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable
> for
> experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims
> for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over
> densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They
> want to prohibit that also.
>
> Ed
>
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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: | Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
Bob and all:
We're working on a plane with a self-powered oil/CHT temp gauge. The oil
side is inop, the CHT side seems to work fine. The customer asked us to
fix the oil temp side. It gives no indication or needle movement at all
when installed.
We removed the entire gauge, wire, and probe. The first problem seemed to
be really poor connections so I fixed that--no help. Then I replaced the K
type lead (as found) with J wire of about the same length. Still nothing.
I know now that the length of the wire is critical, but I don't know how to
find what it should be. I see a note on the back of the gauge that says it
needs to be an 8 ohm lead, but I don't know how to measure that--through
the entire system, just the wire, or some combination.
Here are some pictures of the probe and the gauge. Can you tell me what to
measure to verify that the probe is working? I've heated it up with a heat
gun and a hot water bath but I don't get any comprehensible results.
Measuring mV, the multi-meter just seems to kind of wander. About all I
can say for sure is that it changes from positive to negative voltage
depending on temperature, as if zero output is somewhere around room
temperature. I have seen up to about 50 mV in hot water that was about
120F but that doesn't seem consistent and it changes rapidly.
The gauge responds as I'd expect with the jumpers shorting each meter, that
is, the meters lose their "bounce" with the jumpers installed.
I quickly brushed each meter's leads with an ohm meter to see if they'd
respond, and they do. Everything points to the probe.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
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: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
At 08:59 PM 12/17/2012, you wrote:
>Bob and all:
>
>We're working on a plane with a self-powered
>oil/CHT temp gauge. The oil side is inop, the
>CHT side seems to work fine. The customer
>asked us to fix the oil temp side. It gives no
>indication or needle movement at all when installed.
>
>We removed the entire gauge, wire, and probe.
>The first problem seemed to be really poor
>connections so I fixed that--no help. Then I
>replaced the K type lead (as found) with J wire
>of about the same length. Still nothing.
>
>I know now that the length of the wire is
>critical, but I don't know how to find what it
>should be. I see a note on the back of the
>gauge that says it needs to be an 8 ohm lead,
>but I don't know how to measure that--through
>the entire system, just the wire, or some combination.
This would be total loop resistance of the thermocouple
and it's leads as measured at the instrument terminals
(with the instrument disconnected).
>Here are some pictures of the probe and the
>gauge. Can you tell me what to measure to
>verify that the probe is working? I've heated
>it up with a heat gun and a hot water bath but I
>don't get any comprehensible results.
>Measuring mV, the multi-meter just seems to
>kind of wander. About all I can say for sure
>is that it changes from positive to negative
>voltage depending on temperature, as if zero
>output is somewhere around room temperature. I
>have seen up to about 50 mV in hot water that
>was about 120F but that doesn't seem consistent and it changes rapidly.
What resistance do you measure on the two thermocouples?
The meter scales seem to suggest that both sides have
identical movements in them. You should be able to swap
the CHT over to the OIL temp side and see an appropriate
reading. This should confirm that the thermocouple is bad.
>The gauge responds as I'd expect with the
>jumpers shorting each meter, that is, the meters
>lose their "bounce" with the jumpers installed.
> I quickly brushed each meter's leads with an
>ohm meter to see if they'd respond, and they do.
> Everything points to the probe.
Yup. Get an ohmmeter reading on the questionable
probe and compare it with the CHT side. They should
both be on the order of 8 ohms.
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! --
|