---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 12/17/12: 16 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:01:13 AM PST US From: Holger Selover-Stephan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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. What kind of > a machine is it? > Happy Skies, > Old Bob > Downers Grove, Illinois > V-Tail Aficionado > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:04:59 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LARAGO ELT info needed From: Richard Girard 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:40:21 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LARAGO ELT info needed From: Larry Mac Donald 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:08:07 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LARAGO ELT info needed From: Richard Girard 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:42:14 AM PST US From: Larry Mac Donald Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:51:05 AM PST US From: "The Kuffels" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:02:40 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:17:09 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:30:02 AM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > > 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 02:35:30 PM PST US From: Ed Holyoke Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 >> > 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 11 ____________________________________ Time: 03:20:11 PM PST US From: Henry Hallam Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO? Henry On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:19:47 PM PST US From: Ed Holyoke Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > > Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO? > > Henry > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke 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 wrote: >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald >>> >>> >>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:32:55 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:54 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:35 PM PST US From: Dave Saylor Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:29:39 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.