---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 12/18/12: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 07:14 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Steve Thomas) 2. 10:09 AM - Re: Fw: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge (Dave Saylor) 3. 10:15 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Verso Electronics) 4. 10:56 AM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Steve Thomas) 5. 12:37 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Ed Holyoke) 6. 01:50 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Steve Thomas) 7. 03:44 PM - Re: FSDO horror shows (Ed Holyoke) 8. 09:32 PM - How do you work this soldering iron? (rparigoris) 9. 09:44 PM - Re: How do you work this soldering iron? (rparigoris) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:19 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows From: Steve Thomas Ed, When did this happen? I had my own issues with that memorandum restricting experimental aircraft from those 4 airports 2 years ago. I built my Glasair in Santa Barbara. When I tried to get it certified, the FSDO guy refused to allow any take-offs from the Santa Barbara Airport due to that memo. I engaged the support of national EAA, who then contacted the D.C. office, who then contacted the Van Nuys office. That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours. The interesting thing is that the Santa Barbara airport runways 15 L & R depart over the ocean. There is nothing to crash into but the water. The original ban on experimentals at Santa Barbara was due to political issues, not safety. There are several approaches to the airport that do not involve populated areas. For a while, during phase 2 operations, I was based in Santa Barbara. No one ever hassled me again. When I applied for my Repairman Certificate, the Van Nuys office was extremely helpful and cooperative. But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish. Steve Thomas ________________________________________________________________________ On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote: > > 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 10:09:52 AM PST US From: Dave Saylor Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com**> > > 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. =C3=82 The >> oil side is inop, the CHT side seems to work fine. =C3=82 The customer a sked us >> to fix the oil temp side. =C3=82 It gives no indication or needle moveme nt at >> all when installed. >> >> We removed the entire gauge, wire, and probe. =C3=82 The first problem s eemed >> to be really poor connections so I fixed that--no help. =C3=82 Then I re placed >> the K type lead (as found) with J wire of about the same length. =C3=82 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. =C3=82 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. =C3=82 Can you tell m e what >> to measure to verify that the probe is working? =C3=82 I've heated it up with a >> heat gun and a hot water bath but I don't get any=C3=82 comprehensible =C3=82 results. >> =C3=82 Measuring=C3=82 mV, the multi-meter just seems to kind of wander. =C3=82 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. =C3=82 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. =C3 =82 I=C3=82 >> quickly=C3=82 brushed each meter's leads with an ohm meter to see if the y'd >> respond, and they do. =C3=82 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 . . . > The functioning thermocouple is the type that goes under a spark plug. It measures 6 ohms one way, 4 ohms the other way, including the lead. The other thermocouple is "nearly open"... very high resistance, 500K one way, 300K the other way. That was the part of the puzzle I needed. Now I know what to replace. Something I'm still trying to understand is how the meter can measure a voltage when the junction itself seems to be perfectly grounded to the airframe. For example, the surface of the metallic CHT ring under the spark plug ohms out to the end of the lead at the instrument, telling me it's essentially a dead short from the contact with the spark plug, or oil temp sender, or any other junction, to ground. Is it just the potential at the junction that matters, and the mechanical connection is required to move the heat to the junction? That's all I can figure. Many thanks, Dave Saylor 831-750-0284 CL ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 10:15:53 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows From: Verso Electronics Steve, I'm a bit confused. If the memo restricting E-AB ops at these airports was rescinded, why were you still restricted to a single takeoff from SBA (and forced to make a cross-country flight over some hostile terrain or water on your first flight!), and who issued that restriction? Granted, the topography around CMA is a little better suited to Phase 1 and you were probably safer there, but if the E-AB restriction isn't legal, it isn't legal. Eric On Dec 18, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Steve Thomas wrote: > That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours. > > [SNIP] > > But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish. > > Steve Thomas ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:56:35 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows From: Steve Thomas I just didn't want to fight any more. The FSDO set that requirement. I had won one battle. I chose to not push my luck. I figured that I was persona non grata at that point and the FSDO can cause a lot of difficulty, even if it is not legal. I was allowed to set my own flight test area out of Camarillo, which was very large, so I was counting my blessings at that point. The process took 4 months to resolve to that point. I sure couldn't see another 4 to 6 month fight. I was talking to another builder at the Camarillo airport who told me that one FAA inspector had told him that he was not allowed to use nylock nuts anywhere on his airplane. He was required to use castle nuts with cotter pins. The only way he was able to get around that was to call a DAR to finish the certification. There is nothing anywhere that says that you cannot use nylock nuts. FSDO can be a real pain if they choose. Steve Thomas ________________________________________________________________________ On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Verso Electronics wrote: > > Steve, > > I'm a bit confused. If the memo restricting E-AB ops at these airports was rescinded, why were you still restricted to a single takeoff from SBA (and forced to make a cross-country flight over some hostile terrain or water on your first flight!), and who issued that restriction? > > Granted, the topography around CMA is a little better suited to Phase 1 and you were probably safer there, but if the E-AB restriction isn't legal, it isn't legal. > > Eric > > > On Dec 18, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Steve Thomas wrote: >> That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours. >> >> [SNIP] >> >> But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish. >> >> Steve Thomas ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 12:37:31 PM PST US From: Ed Holyoke Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows Howdy Steve, I'd have to go to the airport to look at my AW certificate issue date. The modifications to the aircraft were accomplished over the winter of 05 - 06. It seems likely that my confrontation at the FSDO was in late 05. The infamous memo is dated April 27, 2004 and the signature line reads Robyn L. Miller. If the memo had been rescinded at the time of my dealings with the FSDO, there was certainly no indication of that. The existence of the memo only came to light on day four of the process which should have taken about 40 minutes total to complete if the duty inspector had known his job. When I called to confirm my appointment to pick up the completed airworthiness certificate and operating limitations, the inspector informed me that all experimental flights were prohibited from the four airports previously listed. I was not amused. It took about another week or ten days to get the AW and oplims out of them and as soon as I had them in hand, I called the national EAA to thank them for their help and to turn them loose on the FAA. They had been waiting to really raise a ruckus until my paperwork was no longer held hostage. There was to be some sort of conference between the FAA DC office and various aviation groups at the Catskills or someplace and the whole sordid affair was to be brought up at that time. As the result of this, the FSDO was (and I'm only reporting what I heard from the EAA at the time) directed to rescind the offending memo and cease bothering us poor homebuilders. The agreement was that first flights and initial fly off wouldn't be allowed but re-entering Phase 1 as it applies to already flying aircraft and Phase 2 would. According to what I have heard, a new memo was issued that pretty much said the same as the first one, but there has been no effort to enforce it except for the first flight thing and the aforementioned persecution of the P51 owner, as far as I know. I don't have a copy of the new memo and I don't want to stir up another s**t storm by walking in and demanding to see it. Let sleeping dogs lie. Steve, do you have a copy of the memo that they cited? I have had other dealings with the FSDO since and, Old Bob you're right that by and large they do their job. If they are required by regulation to issue paperwork, they will do so. Steve you must have talked to the right guy. A friend of mine was quizzed severely before they would issue his Repairman's Cert. The thrust was that he hadn't built the plane himself and was fraudulently applying for the R.C. That enmity against the homebuilding community exists within the VNY FSDO is very much still true. They are waiting for an accident to occur so that they can claim that they've been right about us all along. Be very careful in your dealings with them and we should all be even more careful with our maintenance and flying so that we don't all get screwed. Ed Holyoke On 12/18/2012 7:13 AM, Steve Thomas wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas > > Ed, > > When did this happen? I had my own issues with that memorandum restricting experimental aircraft from those 4 airports 2 years ago. I built my Glasair in Santa Barbara. When I tried to get it certified, the FSDO guy refused to allow any take-offs from the Santa Barbara Airport due to that memo. I engaged the support of national EAA, who then contacted the D.C. office, who then contacted the Van Nuys office. That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours. > > The interesting thing is that the Santa Barbara airport runways 15 L& R depart over the ocean. There is nothing to crash into but the water. The original ban on experimentals at Santa Barbara was due to political issues, not safety. There are several approaches to the airport that do not involve populated areas. > > For a while, during phase 2 operations, I was based in Santa Barbara. No one ever hassled me again. When I applied for my Repairman Certificate, the Van Nuys office was extremely helpful and cooperative. > > But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish. > > > Steve Thomas > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote: > >> --> 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 >> >> 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 6 _____________________________________ Time: 01:50:02 PM PST US From: Steve Thomas Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows Sorry, but my memory is not all that good any more. The memo rescinding the restriction was issued in 2006. Maybe it was issued over your case? Here is the copy I received. Even though it refers to Experimental Exhibition aircraft, they clearly think it applies to E-AB as well. I hope that the Matronics list doesn't strip attachments. Best Regards, Steve Thomas ____________________________________________________________________ On Dec 18, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote: > I don't have a copy of the new memo and I don't want to stir up another s**t storm by walking in and demanding to see it. Let sleeping dogs lie. Steve, do you have a copy of the memo that they cited? Steve Thomas ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 03:44:33 PM PST US From: Ed Holyoke Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows Thanks, Steve. This memo is probably the result of the fight that the P51 owner I mentioned had with the FSDO which resulted from the swarm of hornets I had stirred up. This memo does not apply to EAB (experimental. amateur built). I believe that there was a similar memo prior to this covering experimental, amateur built, though I haven't seen it. Notice that this memo is from the manager of the flight standards division or the FSDOs' boss. This is not, repeat not from the VNY FSDO. They have a mind of their own and, to the best of my knowledge, never did rescind their 4/27/04 memo, but only gave up on trying to enforce it. As I understand it, the infamous 4/27/04 memo from VNY was in response to another memo from the home office, probably dated about June of 03 and covering EAB. This memo seems to have applied to the issuance of authorization for ex aircraft, or in other words the issuance of Airworthiness Certificates. The VNY FSDO took it upon themselves to issue new restrictions based upon their reading of the home office's memo(s) but going much further in that they called for no flight operations of experimental aircraft at all over densely populated areas, not even for the purpose of take offs and landings. It's a good guess that the reason that they never tried to enforce it until I walked in their door was that I was the first to try and get a new AW cert while based at one of the four airports covered by their prohibition. As long as I operated under my old AW and oplims, they didn't feel that they had the ammo to come after me and all the others like me. Once I exposed myself to their mercies and the fight was joined, they attempted to enforce it on others until the division manager was forced to rein them in. Pax, Ed On 12/18/2012 1:48 PM, Steve Thomas wrote: > Sorry, but my memory is not all that good any more. The memo > rescinding the restriction was issued in 2006. Maybe it was issued > over your case? Here is the copy I received. Even though it refers > to Experimental Exhibition aircraft, they clearly think it applies to > E-AB as well. I hope that the Matronics list doesn't strip attachments. > > Best Regards, > > Steve Thomas > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > On Dec 18, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ed Holyoke > wrote: > >> I don't have a copy of the new memo and I don't want to stir up >> another s**t storm by walking in and demanding to see it. Let >> sleeping dogs lie. Steve, do you have a copy of the memo that they cited? > > > Steve Thomas > ________________________________________________________________________ > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:32:10 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: How do you work this soldering iron? From: "rparigoris" Hi Group Sorry, I don't have a picture. I found a weird soldering iron. It has ~ 3 foot line cord, but its only one conductor? It has a big 100 amp rated alligator clip attached to the single conductor. If it were a Weller style iron, I guess it would be perhaps 175 to 250 watts? Bad light tonight and it needs to be cleaned to see if there are any markings. Do you by chance know how you work this thing and what it was meant to be used for? Perhaps connect a car battery to ground of the thing you want to solder, and connect the positive of the battery to the alligator clip? Perhaps used for old style auto solder fill touch ups? Or?? Looks to be in pretty good shape with little or no use, I'm trying to figure out if it needs to live in my hangar. L8r Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390674#390674 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:44:14 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: How do you work this soldering iron? From: "rparigoris" Hi Group OK figured it out. This is the iron: http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/pics/reinhard-mccabe-glow-point.jpg Here are the instructions: http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/pics/reinhard-mccabe-glow-point-inst.gif Interesting website: http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/electricirons.htm One was for sale: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Soldering-Iron-NEW-WITH-TAGS-WORKS-ON-A-BATTERY-RARE-no-reserve-/170919825685?nma=true&si=xfE%2BuetYdsHGvil0c6U0uiCK6VY%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 I guess it will end up living in my hangar! Ron P. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390675#390675 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.