---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 06/15/14: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:18 AM - 91.205 - NOT! (Owen Baker) 2. 09:21 AM - Re: Off Delay Cabin Light (Eric M. Jones) 3. 10:31 AM - Re: Re: Off Delay Cabin Light (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 11:00 AM - LED Ghosting (donjohnston) 5. 11:05 AM - Re: Re: Off Delay Cabin Light (Roger & Jean) 6. 11:55 AM - Re: LED Ghosting (Sprocket) 7. 01:21 PM - Re: LED Ghosting (donjohnston) 8. 03:36 PM - Re: 91.205 - NOT! (Richard Girard) 9. 04:05 PM - Re: 91.205 - NOT! (Richard Girard) 10. 06:27 PM - Re: Re: LED Ghosting (Eric Page) 11. 06:51 PM - Re: LED Ghosting (donjohnston) 12. 07:08 PM - Re: Re: LED Ghosting (Vern Little) 13. 08:37 PM - Re: Re: LED Ghosting (Eric Page) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:18:16 AM PST US From: "Owen Baker " Subject: AeroElectric-List: 91.205 - NOT! 6/15/2014 Hello Listers, Andrew Elliott wrote: And most clearly, 91.205 does not apply to experimental category aircraft. Why do you think that it does? Please see the FAA Feb 2, 2009 letter available here: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/rourke-1%20-%20(2009)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf This Feb 2, 2009 letter from the FAA explains why I think that 14 CFR 91.205 does apply to all EAB aircraft ever since change 3 to FAA Order 8130.2F** was issued on 4/18/2007. The below copied explicit wording has been required in every EAB Operating Limitations since 4/18/2007: After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. Prior to 4/18/2007, starting at some date that I can not determine, the FAA or DAR airworthiness inspectors were ordered to instruct the EAB aircraft applicant regarding this requirement and to include the requirement in the Operating Limitations, but no explicit wording was provided. OC 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and understand information." **PS: The current version, FAA Order 8130.2G, dated 4/16/2011, with Change 1, dated 7/02/2012, contains that same wording. ============================================================================= From: Dr. Andrew Elliott Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:38 AMSubject: RE: 91.205 - NOT! It does not. In your list, 91.205 is the reference for nearly all requirements. And most clearly, 91.205 does not apply to experimental category aircraft. Why do you think that it does? Andy ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:21:07 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Off Delay Cabin Light From: "Eric M. Jones" I checked the printed paper issue and the online issue and they are both incorrect. The 555 should be wired to Positive of the keep-alive bus. Likewise the op amp should be eliminated and a 0.01 uF capacitor installed in the trigger line. It plain to see that Jim Weir loves op amps. I prefer simpler designs and hope to publish one here soon, using no ICs and only six basic parts. It will do a "slow-fade dim-out". ps: it is entirely possible that the Cmos 555 will operate with no power connection. Cmos circuits are known to do that since their power requirements are almost zero. But I don't think it was done on purpose. -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424875#424875 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 10:31:38 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Off Delay Cabin Light >ps: it is entirely possible that the Cmos 555 will operate with no >power connection. Cmos circuits are known to do that since their >power requirements are almost zero. But I don't think it was done on purpose. Yeah, did a delayed off circuit mucho moons ago using schmidt-trigger cmos gate array driving power MOSFET . . . supported the timer with a big tantalum to keep the time active after the 'control' signal went low. Works good. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:00:16 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED Ghosting From: "donjohnston" I've built a Master Warning Panel using LEDs for things like boost pump on, starter engaged, pitot heat on, etc. I'm using Eric's EGRAVR dimmer to control the brightness. Everything works great. http://www.velocity-xl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-08-14-IMG_20130814_191418_518.jpg Except the engine analyzer (low oil pressure) alarm. That line is supposed to go to ground when an alarm condition occurs. But the LED for that warning is always slightly lit. The engine analyzer people said it was designed for incandescent and to put a 1.5k resistor across the LED. That eliminates the ghosting, but it also makes the LED dimmer than the rest. In fact, once I dim the panel to about 25%, the engine warning LED does not illuminate at all. I suppose that I could put resistors across all the LEDs which would dim all the LED's. Then again, I could reduce the inline resistor which would increase the brightness but I'm not sure this is the correct fix. Anybody have any suggestions? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424883#424883 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:05:02 AM PST US From: "Roger & Jean" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Off Delay Cabin Light > > It plain to see that Jim Weir loves op amps. I prefer simpler designs and > hope to publish one here soon, using no ICs and only six basic parts. It > will do a "slow-fade dim-out". Eric, It might be nice to consider designing this so that it can be turned on and off normally while the master is on and then come on for a delayed period when the master is shut off. Just a thought before the design gets finalized. Roger ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 11:55:58 AM PST US From: Sprocket Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED Ghosting There are many elegant fixes to this problem, but the brute force technique may be the easiest to wire. Assuming your engine monitor has a 5volt output, install a low power (gold contact) relay with the coil between the alarm output and the 5v. One pole of the contacts gets connected to ground and the other to the LED. There are ways to do this with transistors, but this is simple and hard to mess up. Vern =================================================== Sent from my iThing. It is responsible for all gramma and typo terrors. > On Jun 15, 2014, at 10:57 AM, "donjohnston" wrote: > > > I've built a Master Warning Panel using LEDs for things like boost pump on, starter engaged, pitot heat on, etc. I'm using Eric's EGRAVR dimmer to control the brightness. Everything works great. > > http://www.velocity-xl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-08-14-IMG_20130814_191418_518.jpg > > Except the engine analyzer (low oil pressure) alarm. > > That line is supposed to go to ground when an alarm condition occurs. But the LED for that warning is always slightly lit. The engine analyzer people said it was designed for incandescent and to put a 1.5k resistor across the LED. > > That eliminates the ghosting, but it also makes the LED dimmer than the rest. In fact, once I dim the panel to about 25%, the engine warning LED does not illuminate at all. > > I suppose that I could put resistors across all the LEDs which would dim all the LED's. Then again, I could reduce the inline resistor which would increase the brightness but I'm not sure this is the correct fix. > > Anybody have any suggestions? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424883#424883 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 01:21:37 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED Ghosting From: "donjohnston" sprocket(at)vx-aviation.c wrote: > There are many elegant fixes to this problem, but the brute force technique may be the easiest to wire. > > Assuming your engine monitor has a 5volt output, install a low power (gold contact) relay with the coil between the alarm output and the 5v. One pole of the contacts gets connected to ground and the other to the LED. > > There are ways to do this with transistors, but this is simple and hard to mess up. > > Vern It does have a 5v output, but not easy to get to at this point. There's a 12v supply that's easily accessible. Would that work? Can you give me a part number for the type of relay? Thanks, Don Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424891#424891 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 03:36:59 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 91.205 - NOT! From: Richard Girard Owen, Andrew, et al, The FAA published 8130.2G, "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products" on 8/31/2010. Section 9, Experimental Amateur-Built Airworthiness Certificates, paragraph 4104, page 4/64, "Issuance of Experimental Amateur-Built Operating Limitations." b. The following operating limitations shall be prescribed to experimental amateur-built aircraft: (7) This aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. (8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.205, this airc raft is to be operated under VFR, day only. So, Andrew, you can claim 91.205 doesn't apply, but when that statement is in your op limitations, it does. Rick Girard On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Owen Baker wrote: > > 6/15/2014 > > Hello Listers, Andrew Elliott wrote: =9CAnd most clearly, 91.205 do es not > apply to experimental category aircraft. Why do you think that it does? =9D > > Please see the FAA Feb 2, 2009 letter available here: > > http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_ > offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/ > interps/2009/rourke-1%20-%20(2009)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf > > This Feb 2, 2009 letter from the FAA explains why I think that 14 CFR > 91.205 does apply to all EAB aircraft ever since change 3 to FAA Order > 8130.2F** was issued on 4/18/2007. The below copied explicit wording has > been required in every EAB Operating Limitations since 4/18/2007: > > =9CAfter completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped > for night and/or instrument > flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under > VFR, day only.=9D > > Prior to 4/18/2007, starting at some date that I can not determine, the > FAA or DAR airworthiness inspectors were ordered to instruct the EAB > aircraft applicant regarding this requirement and to include the > requirement in the Operating Limitations, but no explicit wording was > provided. > > =98OC=99 > > 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gathe r > and understand information." > > **PS: The current version, FAA Order 8130.2G, dated 4/16/2011, with Chang e > 1, dated 7/02/2012, contains that same wording. > > ======================== > ================= > > From: Dr. Andrew Elliott > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:38 AMSubject: RE: 91.205 - NOT! > > It does not. In your list, 91.205 is the reference for nearly all > requirements. And most clearly, 91.205 does not apply to experimental > category aircraft. Why do you think that it does? Andy > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- 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 9 _____________________________________ Time: 04:05:24 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 91.205 - NOT! From: Richard Girard Just to be sure that 8130.2G still applies I checked the FAA.gov website. 8130.2H is out in draft form and true to FAA form they have managed to take something that was fairly straight forward and turn it into a POS. Now you are referred to Appendix C where you'll be happy to find a chart to thoroughly screw up the op limits for Ex Am-Built. If you go through said chart on page C-11 you'll find: Day VFR flight operations are authorized. Night flight operations are authorized if the instruments specified in 14 CFR 91.205(c) are installed, operational, and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 91. Instrument flight operations are authorized if the instruments specified in 14 CFR 91.205(d) are installed, operational, and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 91. All maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records and include the following items: date, work performed, and name and certificate number of person returning aircraft to service. and that this applies to all aircraft certificated under 14 CFR 21.191(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) & (i) . Your Friendly FAA at work for you. Rick Girard On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Richard Girard wrote : > Owen, Andrew, et al, The FAA published 8130.2G, "Airworthiness > Certification of Aircraft and Related Products" on 8/31/2010. > Section 9, Experimental Amateur-Built Airworthiness Certificates, > paragraph 4104, page 4/64, "Issuance of Experimental Amateur-Built > Operating Limitations." > b. The following operating limitations shall be prescribed to experimenta l > amateur-built > aircraft: > (7) This aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. > (8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately > equipped for night > and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR =C2=A7 91.205, this ai rcraft > is to be operated under > VFR, day only. > So, Andrew, you can claim 91.205 doesn't apply, but when that statement i s > in your op limitations, it does. > > Rick Girard > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Owen Baker wrote: > > >> >> 6/15/2014 >> >> Hello Listers, Andrew Elliott wrote: =9CAnd most clearly, 91.205 d oes not >> apply to experimental category aircraft. Why do you think that it does? =9D >> >> Please see the FAA Feb 2, 2009 letter available here: >> >> http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_ >> offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/ >> interps/2009/rourke-1%20-%20(2009)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf >> >> This Feb 2, 2009 letter from the FAA explains why I think that 14 CFR >> 91.205 does apply to all EAB aircraft ever since change 3 to FAA Order >> 8130.2F** was issued on 4/18/2007. The below copied explicit wording has >> been required in every EAB Operating Limitations since 4/18/2007: >> >> =9CAfter completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriatel y >> equipped for night and/or instrument >> flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under >> VFR, day only.=9D >> >> Prior to 4/18/2007, starting at some date that I can not determine, the >> FAA or DAR airworthiness inspectors were ordered to instruct the EAB >> aircraft applicant regarding this requirement and to include the >> requirement in the Operating Limitations, but no explicit wording was >> provided. >> >> =98OC=99 >> >> 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to >> gather and understand information." >> >> **PS: The current version, FAA Order 8130.2G, dated 4/16/2011, with >> Change 1, dated 7/02/2012, contains that same wording. >> >> ======================== >> ================= >> >> From: Dr. Andrew Elliott >> >> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:38 AMSubject: RE: 91.205 - NOT! >> >> It does not. In your list, 91.205 is the reference for nearly all >> requirements. And most clearly, 91.205 does not apply to experimental >> category aircraft. Why do you think that it does? Andy >> =========== =========== =========== =========== >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Zulu Delta > Mk IIIC > Thanks, Homer GBYM > > It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhapp y. > - Groucho Marx > > -- 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:27:23 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED Ghosting From: Eric Page On Jun 15, 2014, at 4:20 PM, "donjohnston" wrote: > It does have a 5v output, but not easy to get to at this point. There's a 12v supply that's easily accessible. Would that work? > > Can you give me a part number for the type of relay? A 12V supply is fine. It doesn't even have to be sourced from the engine analyzer. 12V from the supply side of your dimmer would work, or from anywhere else that's convenient. A relay like this... http://bit.ly/1voFDLC ...should work a treat. This relay's coil current is only 12.5 milliamps, so it will be safe to connect directly to the engine analyzer's alarm output. Connect 12V to pin 2, the engine analyzer's alarm output to pin 9, your LED indicator's ground line to pin 5, and ground to pin 10. Ignore pins 1 and 5 (or snip them off). I think it's pretty unlikely that the "leakage" you're seeing into the alarm output pin under alarm off conditions would be sufficient to close the relay. Solder directly to the relay's pins, then encapsulate the connections in hot glue, Shoe Goo or similar. In this service, the relay will probably outlast us all. Alternatively, you could eliminate moving parts and more than halve the cost by using a P-channel MOSFET like this... http://bit.ly/UEp2qv Connect your LED indicator's ground line to the source (S) pin, ground to the drain (D) pin, and the engine analyzer's alarm output to the gate (G) pin. You may find that it works fine like this, or it may still turn on the LED (it will be full bright now) with the alarm off. It depends what exactly is happening on the engine analyzer's alarm output pin; a MOSFET's gate is much more sensitive than a relay coil. If it does turn on with no alarm, just connect the 1.5k ohm resistor you already have from the MOSFET's gate to 12V. This will pull up on the gate during the alarm off condition, keeping the MOSFET -- and your indicator -- turned off. When the alarm output is on, it will pull the gate to ground, turning on the MOSFET, which in turn connects the LED to ground. Heat shrink each pin connection as you assemble, then the whole thing when it's complete. Very nice indicator panel, Don. Beautifully made. How did you make the legend transparency? Eric ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:54 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED Ghosting From: "donjohnston" Eric, That sounds perfect. Is there any need to physically mount the MOSFET? Like with a heatsink? Or can I RTV it someplace once it's all assembled and heatshinked? I had the mask made by trophy shop... for $20! I got a tip that they have this black material that they hit with a laser printer. Different fonts, sizes, the works. All I did was email the a PDF of what I wanted and a couple hours later I picked it up. 8) Here's some construction details for anyone that's interested. http://www.velocity-xl.com/blog/2013/08/03/13-99-annunicator-panel/ http://www.velocity-xl.com/blog/2013/08/15/13-99-annunicator-panel-3/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424903#424903 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:08:45 PM PST US From: "Vern Little" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED Ghosting ...I think it's pretty unlikely that the "leakage" you're seeing into the alarm output pin under alarm off conditions would be sufficient to close the relay. Eric has provided good advice. I am concerned that you will energize the relay due to the output protection structure of the EMS. If you can use the 5V this won't be a problem (but you would need a 5V relay). If it is, we'll refund the consulting fee. V ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:01 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED Ghosting From: Eric Page On Jun 15, 2014, at 9:50 PM, "donjohnston" wrote: > Is there any need to physically mount the MOSFET? Like with a heatsink? Or can I RTV it someplace once it's all assembled and heatshrinked? No heatsink required. It's a pretty stout device, capable of carrying several amps if heatsinked, but in this application it will only see the 20-30mA that passes through your LED. If we assume 30mA, the MOSFET will dissipate 0.03A x 0.03A x 0.185 ohm = 0.00017 watts of heat. MOSFET power dissipation is calculated by multiplying the square of current flow by the resistance between source and drain when the device is turned on: Rds(on) in the datasheet. You can glue or zip-tie it to whatever mounting point is convenient. Thanks for the details on your annunciator panel; I'm saving that for future reference! Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.