Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:18 AM - Re: Heathrow 787 lithium event (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 08:18 AM - Re: Zodiac 601 with Jabiru engine radio noise revisited (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 02:37 PM - Re: Re: Zodiac 601 with Jabiru engine radio noise revisited (Bill Bradburry)
4. 06:07 PM - Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe (Kyrilian Dyer)
5. 07:37 PM - Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe (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: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
>Trying to do too much too fast, just like these lithium
>batteries. I hope that separator technology is finally able to tame
>lithium technology and make it very reliable.
Finding the golden separator material would alleviate some
reliability issues with the system batteries but it does
not address the potential for lapses in quality control.
The ELT battery probably didn't fail but was induced
to runaway by external shorting . . . which was not
held at bay by prudent system integration of the battery.
Take a look at
<http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl%2Ecom%2Fmrbr4ol&urlhash=Bqzo&_t=tracking_disc>http://tinyurl.com/mrbr4ol
One of the tests for a cluster of 6, CR-2 batteries
blew the lid off a 5-gallon container. The test
report didn't hypothesize whether the overpressure
was simply due to heating of internal airspace,
out-gassing of the runaway cells, or both.
If these cells out-gas vigorously, then crafting
an enclosure that produces a comfortable FMEA
may be completely impractical. This means that
the designers have to embrace a combination of
reliability study (batteries never spontaneously
mis-behave) and ISO-9000 (errors of wiring never
get out the door).
Given human weakness for faith in assumption
and pronouncements by higher authority, there's
a risk potential that cannot be quantified.
Honeywell may be discovering the effects of
this condition as we speak.
It's inarguable, the lithium technologies are
energetic. I've oft likened lithium batteries
on airplanes as similar to considering how to
burn nitroglycerine in your engine. The weight
and volume to energy ratios are amazing, miles
per gallon profound . . . now if we can just figure
out how to keep it from blowing up.
Bob . . .
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: Zodiac 601 with Jabiru engine radio noise revisited |
At 10:23 PM 8/1/2013, you wrote:
>Hi Bob and All.
> Thanks for all the help Bob, the Zodiac 601 was test flow
> today and the Microair radio is working great, no more whine and no
> noise! Putting in a forest of tabs got rid of all the crackling
> and popping in the receive mode and isolating the jacks and moving
> the regulator/rectifier to the positive side of the battery stopped
> the alternator whine. The owner is no longer badmouthing Microair.
> Thanks again
Great!
Bob . . .
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: Zodiac 601 with Jabiru engine radio noise revisited |
Can you explain, "moving the
>regulator/rectifier to the positive side of the battery stopped the
>alternator whine." a little better?
I have a very slight whine in my headset when I turn the alternator on. It
is low enough that I can hear it when I turn the alternator on, but not loud
enough that I can hear it during flight.
It hasn't bothered me, but if it is a simple fix, why not?
B2
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:18 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Zodiac 601 with Jabiru engine radio noise
revisited
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
At 10:23 PM 8/1/2013, you wrote:
>Hi Bob and All.
> Thanks for all the help Bob, the Zodiac 601 was test flow
> today and the Microair radio is working great, no more whine and no
> noise! Putting in a forest of tabs got rid of all the crackling
> and popping in the receive mode and isolating the jacks and moving
> the regulator/rectifier to the positive side of the battery stopped
> the alternator whine. The owner is no longer badmouthing Microair.
> Thanks again
Great!
Bob . . .
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
John,
The FAA publishes a range of Advisory Circulars that provide certification c
ompliance guidance. These documents aren't technically regulatory but provi
de an official interpretation of and sometimes an historical background to t
he regulations.
The following 'Systems and Equipment Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airp
lanes and Airships' may provide some clarity for your question.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2023-17C.pdf
See page 282
- Kyrilian
On Jul 31, 2013, at 4:45 PM, "John Loram" <johnl@loram.org> wrote:
> Where would I find the FAA definition of =9Ccircuit essential to fli
ght safety=9D?
>
> Thanks, -john-
> (get=99n close to inspection)
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelect
ric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:43 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe
>
>
>
> Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
>
>
> (b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not b
e
> used to protect any other circuit.
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
At 08:05 PM 8/2/2013, you wrote:
>John,
>
>The FAA publishes a range of Advisory Circulars that provide
>certification compliance guidance. These documents aren't
>technically regulatory but provide an official interpretation of and
>sometimes an historical background to the regulations.
>
>The following 'Systems and Equipment Guide for Certification of Part
>23 Airplanes and Airships' may provide some clarity for your question.
><http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2023-17C.pdf>http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2023-17C.pdf
>See page 282
On page 282 we read:
"After further review, FAA has concluded that the proposal should not
be limited to airplanes that
operate above 25,000 feet since emergencies resulting in the loss of
normal electrical power
are critical for all airplanes. Five minutes is considered adequate
time to cope with such an emergency so
that pilot can operate the airplane safely and assess the reason for
the loss of normal electrical power."
This seems to have been written by individuals
who've never sought the elegant solution to a
failure tolerant design, never flown an airplane
and been faced with a "five minuted window'
considered adequate for a pilot to put on his
mechanic's hat and "assess the reason for loss of
normal electrical power."
Okay, so assume he DOES correctly assess the
reason . . . now what? Whip out the toolbox and fix it?
Besides, what's 25,000 feet got to do with anything?
FMEA considers all anticipated operating conditions
from the ground up.
This is but one example of many pages of 'advisory
floobydust' for which the authors of such documents
are famous. After AC43-13 sat stagnant for dozens of
years and was being revised some years back. The FAA
'invited' the EAA membership to . . . uh . . .
help proofread the document.
I wrote about 12 pages of critical review on the
electrical section. Similar feedback was offered
by others who were highly skilled in their
disciplines. AC43-13 went back to the word processor
and didn't get released for another year or so . . .
for reasons beyond my understanding.
If they'd given EAA the thing in Word, we would
have had it cleaned up in a few days. The final
publication was better but was still sprinkled
with technical and practical inaccuracies.
Don't know who sat on the various committees
tasked with revising these documents but for sure,
there were no Bill Lears, Kelly Johnsons, Duane
Wallaces, Glen Rawdons, et. als.
My advice to any reader suggests that understanding
and mitigating the effects for loss of any piece
of equipment is stone simple. Just imagine how you're
going to get on the ground with that breaker
pulled. If you don't like the outcome of the
exercise, then fix it. It's not hard. Once it's
fixed, then you don't need a 'five minute assessment
window' . . . you flip to Plan-B and keep on
truck'n and you don't mess with the breaker.
Be wary of pronouncements from high places.
Our tax dollars pay millions of salaries,
benefits and retirement packages for individuals
who add no merchantable value to the general
welfare of domestic economy. The FAA is no
exception to the condition. Here's another
example . . .
http://tinyurl.com/mn55arc
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! --
|