AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Mon 05/18/15


Total Messages Posted: 15



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 07:08 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 05/17/15 (James Baldwin)
     2. 08:16 AM - Re: Alternator Position (racerjerry)
     3. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: Alternator Position (William Mills)
     4. 10:35 AM - Re: Re: Alternator Position (Tim Olson)
     5. 10:54 AM - Re: Re: Alternator Position (Lyle Peterson)
     6. 10:57 AM - Re: Re: Alternator Position (Ken Ryan)
     7. 11:58 AM - Level A software . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     8. 12:39 PM - Thermocouple Wire Connections (Valin & Allyson Thorn)
     9. 01:06 PM - Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections (Ralph E. Capen)
    10. 01:15 PM - Re: Level A software . . . (Joe Motis)
    11. 01:15 PM - Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections (Stein Bruch)
    12. 02:48 PM - Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections (Valin & Allyson Thorn)
    13. 03:09 PM - Thermocouple Wire Connections (Paul Millner)
    14. 03:25 PM - Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections (Kent or Jackie Ashton)
    15. 04:31 PM - Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections (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
    Time: 07:08:48 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 05/17/15
    From: James Baldwin <1james.baldwin@gmail.com>
    As a 33 year Boeing pilot I can tell you this is media nonsense. I'll share one technical fact: the Honeywell FMS (Flight Management System) has what is called a Mode Control Panel and NOTHING will override the altitude control setting in that panel made by the pilot. NOTHING! Also, there is no command in the system that allows the pilot to program altitude climbs. Descents yes, climbs NO. Pure nonsense and yes, the two systems are totally seperate. On May 18, 2015 12:16 AM, "AeroElectric-List Digest Server" < aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> wrote: > * > > ================================================= > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ================================================= > > Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of > the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text > editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 15-05-17&Archive=AeroElectric > > Text Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 15-05-17&Archive=AeroElectric > > > =============================================== > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > =============================================== > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > AeroElectric-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Sun 05/17/15: 3 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Today's Message Index: > ---------------------- > > 1. 07:53 AM - Re: Alternator Position (user9253) > 2. 11:13 AM - Re: Alternator Position (Eric M. Jones) > 3. 11:44 AM - Re: Re: Alternator Position (Lyle Peterson) > > > ________________________________ Message 1 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:53:42 AM PST US > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator Position > From: "user9253" <fransew@gmail.com> > > > > it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to the planes flight > controls > > My take on this is that it is mostly false and rumors. > http://tinyurl.com/pko4qcv > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442191#442191 > > > ________________________________ Message 2 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 11:13:07 AM PST US > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator Position > From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net> > > > > This question is for Bob- > > In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to > > the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment > > system network. Do you feel this is possible? > > Anyone else have input on this? > > > Boeing says the entertainment system and the flight controls and avionics > are isolated > from each other. I believe them. > > -------- > 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=442196#442196 > > > ________________________________ Message 3 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 11:44:03 AM PST US > From: Lyle Peterson <lyleap@centurylink.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator Position > > I believe Boeing also. It would not be sensible to have the two systems > integrated in any way. > > I don't believe most of what the news reports say. My biggest issue is > with drones. The media does not know the difference between a combat > equipped drone and a hobby drone. To them a drone is a drone is > a....... Any of them will wreak havoc and destruction on the world. I > believe this led to the FAA getting there nose under the tent with > regard to hobby drones being used commercially. Someone at the FAA also > noticed that some entrepreneurs were making money with hobby sized > drones that carried no weapons. The FAA decided they had to manage > these operations to limit the profits to be had. How can drone > operation for a hobby be any safer than operating a drone for some > commercial purpose? > > The media sells air time and disaster holds the viewer interest. > > I apologize for stealing the thread but the note about the media got my > adrenalin flowing. > > Lyle > > On 5/17/2015 1:10 PM, Eric M. Jones wrote: > > > > > >> This question is for Bob- > >> In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to > >> the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment > >> system network. Do you feel this is possible? > >> Anyone else have input on this? > > > > Boeing says the entertainment system and the flight controls and > avionics are > isolated from each other. I believe them. > > > > -------- > > 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=442196#442196 > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 08:16:02 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Alternator Position
    From: "racerjerry" <gnking2@verizon.net>
    I too believe Boeing, BUT... I am sure that flight controls are well isolated; especially to vulnerable systems, such as in-flight entertainment; however I am not quite so sure about things like engine indicating systems, where erroneous indications could lead pilots to shut down an engine or take other emergency measures that might temporarily decrease their margin of safety. I personally feel that "criminals' like Mr. Roberts should be placed in a special category for exposing faults - or vulnerabilities where no actual harm is done or intended. Because of profit worries, it would take a very long time [never] for an aircraft manufacturer to admit such a defect in design and we should almost thank such people for exposing these faults before someone with far less scruples acts on them. Investigate him / pick his brain (& laptop) sentence him to probation under the condition he cooperates fully. Probation means that if he tried any such hair-brained schemes in the future, he would fully serve out his original sentence in the slammer. -------- Jerry King Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442232#442232


    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
    Time: 09:23:43 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Alternator Position
    From: William Mills <wtrooper@gmail.com>
    VmVyeSB3ZWxsIHNhaWQuCgpCaWxsClNGIGJheSBhcmVhCkRvIG5vdCBhcmNoaXZlCgoKU2VudCB2 aWEgdGhlIFNhbXN1bmcgR2FsYXh5IE5vdGXCriBJSSwgYW4gQVQmVCA0RyBMVEUgc21hcnRwaG9u ZQoKPGRpdj4tLS0tLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tLS0tPC9kaXY+PGRpdj5Gcm9t OiByYWNlcmplcnJ5IDxnbmtpbmcyQHZlcml6b24ubmV0PiA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PkRhdGU6MDUvMTgv MjAxNSAgODoxNCBBTSAgKEdNVC0wODowMCkgPC9kaXY+PGRpdj5UbzogYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLWxp c3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PlN1YmplY3Q6IEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0OiBS ZTogQWx0ZXJuYXRvciBQb3NpdGlvbiA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pgo8L2Rpdj4tLT4gQWVyb0VsZWN0cmlj LUxpc3QgbWVzc2FnZSBwb3N0ZWQgYnk6ICJyYWNlcmplcnJ5IiA8Z25raW5nMkB2ZXJpem9uLm5l dD4KCkkgdG9vIGJlbGlldmUgQm9laW5nLCBCVVQuLi4KCkkgYW0gc3VyZSB0aGF0IGZsaWdodCBj b250cm9scyBhcmUgd2VsbCBpc29sYXRlZDsgZXNwZWNpYWxseSB0byB2dWxuZXJhYmxlIHN5c3Rl bXMsIHN1Y2ggYXMgaW4tZmxpZ2h0IGVudGVydGFpbm1lbnQ7IGhvd2V2ZXIgSSBhbSBub3QgcXVp dGUgc28gc3VyZSBhYm91dCB0aGluZ3MgbGlrZSBlbmdpbmUgaW5kaWNhdGluZyBzeXN0ZW1zLCB3 aGVyZSBlcnJvbmVvdXMgaW5kaWNhdGlvbnMgY291bGQgbGVhZCBwaWxvdHMgdG8gc2h1dCAgZG93 biBhbiBlbmdpbmUgb3IgdGFrZSBvdGhlciBlbWVyZ2VuY3kgbWVhc3VyZXMgdGhhdCBtaWdodCB0 ZW1wb3JhcmlseSBkZWNyZWFzZSB0aGVpciBtYXJnaW4gb2Ygc2FmZXR5LgoKSSBwZXJzb25hbGx5 IGZlZWwgdGhhdCAiY3JpbWluYWxzJyBsaWtlIE1yLiBSb2JlcnRzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBwbGFjZWQg aW4gYSBzcGVjaWFsIGNhdGVnb3J5IGZvciBleHBvc2luZyBmYXVsdHMgLSBvciB2dWxuZXJhYmls aXRpZXMgd2hlcmUgbm8gYWN0dWFsIGhhcm0gaXMgZG9uZSBvciBpbnRlbmRlZC4gIEJlY2F1c2Ug b2YgcHJvZml0IHdvcnJpZXMsIGl0IHdvdWxkIHRha2UgYSB2ZXJ5IGxvbmcgdGltZSBbbmV2ZXJd IGZvciBhbiBhaXJjcmFmdCBtYW51ZmFjdHVyZXIgdG8gYWRtaXQgc3VjaCBhIGRlZmVjdCBpbiBk ZXNpZ24gYW5kIHdlIHNob3VsZCBhbG1vc3QgdGhhbmsgc3VjaCBwZW9wbGUgZm9yIGV4cG9zaW5n IHRoZXNlIGZhdWx0cyBiZWZvcmUgc29tZW9uZSB3aXRoIGZhciBsZXNzIHNjcnVwbGVzIGFjdHMg b24gdGhlbS4KCkludmVzdGlnYXRlIGhpbSAvIHBpY2sgaGlzIGJyYWluICgmIGxhcHRvcCkgc2Vu dGVuY2UgaGltIHRvIHByb2JhdGlvbiB1bmRlciB0aGUgY29uZGl0aW9uIGhlIGNvb3BlcmF0ZXMg ZnVsbHkuICAgUHJvYmF0aW9uIG1lYW5zIHRoYXQgaWYgaGUgdHJpZWQgYW55IHN1Y2ggaGFpci1i cmFpbmVkIHNjaGVtZXMgaW4gdGhlIGZ1dHVyZSwgaGUgd291bGQgZnVsbHkgc2VydmUgb3V0IGhp cyBvcmlnaW5hbCBzZW50ZW5jZSBpbiB0aGUgc2xhbW1lci4KCi0tLS0tLS0tCkplcnJ5IEtpbmcK CgoKClJlYWQgdGhpcyB0b3BpYyBvbmxpbmUgaGVyZToKCmh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNz LmNvbS92aWV3dG9waWMucGhwP3A9NDQyMjMyIzQ0MjIzMgoKCgoKCgoKXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KXy09ICAgICAg ICAgIC0gVGhlIEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0KXy09IFVzZSB0aGUgTWF0 cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQpfLT0gdGhlIG1hbnkgTGlz dCB1dGlsaXRpZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBMaXN0IFVuL1N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbiwKXy09IEFyY2hpdmUgU2Vh cmNoICYgRG93bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLApfLT0gUGhvdG9zaGFyZSwg YW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOgpfLT0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNv bS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/QWVyb0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3QKXy09Cl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IC0gTUFUUk9OSUNTIFdFQiBGT1JVTVMgLQpfLT0gU2FtZSBncmVhdCBjb250ZW50IGFsc28gYXZh aWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2ViIEZvcnVtcyEKXy09Cl8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLm1h dHJvbmljcy5jb20KXy09Cl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0aW9u IFdlYiBTaXRlIC0KXy09ICBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9ydCEKXy09 ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWluLgpf LT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbgpfLT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQoKCgo


    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
    Time: 10:35:00 AM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: Alternator Position
    I don't think it's too far fetched. These days so many companies are negligent in isolating systems. It doesn't take much to get 2 systems inadvertently tied together. If you think about the entertainment system, that may need access to the SATCOM link. But so would potentially many other things on the plane. So once you have a system like that where other systems utilize it, you have potential for hopping from one system to another. I'm an IT person myself, and from everything I've been able to read so far, I personally think it sounds legit. And, I think that all the aviation players in the mess will do their best to cover it up or make it go away a.s.a.p. But, the fact that the hacker was very forthcoming, and had good intentions, is a big bonus. Imagine the situation where someone DIDN'T make this known but other hackers found out. The consequences are serious. So if I were the FBI, I'd be asking him to prove it, and in fact I'd send a couple agents up with him and have him demonstrate it. And if it is proven true, I'd be begging him to help learn as much as possible so it can be fixed. If it is true, I hope he receives NO punishment. He I'm sure learned the lesson enough already not to screw with flight controls or engines. Had he just found something smaller to mess with, to test his theory, he may not be facing the same issues. Either way, in the end if this is a real problem, it's a good thing to expose it. Far too many companies and engineers do not think about security when designing systems, and this will be a good wakeup call. If it's a hoax, throw him in the slammer for a while. But right now, my bet is on it being legit. Tim On 5/18/2015 10:14 AM, racerjerry wrote: > <gnking2@verizon.net> > > I too believe Boeing, BUT... > > I am sure that flight controls are well isolated; especially to > vulnerable systems, such as in-flight entertainment; however I am not > quite so sure about things like engine indicating systems, where > erroneous indications could lead pilots to shut down an engine or > take other emergency measures that might temporarily decrease their > margin of safety. > > I personally feel that "criminals' like Mr. Roberts should be placed > in a special category for exposing faults - or vulnerabilities where > no actual harm is done or intended. Because of profit worries, it > would take a very long time [never] for an aircraft manufacturer to > admit such a defect in design and we should almost thank such people > for exposing these faults before someone with far less scruples acts > on them. > > Investigate him / pick his brain (& laptop) sentence him to probation > under the condition he cooperates fully. Probation means that if he > tried any such hair-brained schemes in the future, he would fully > serve out his original sentence in the slammer. > > -------- Jerry King > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442232#442232 > >


    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
    Time: 10:54:27 AM PST US
    From: Lyle Peterson <lyleap@centurylink.net>
    Subject: Re: Alternator Position
    Now AVweb has taken up the torch. The FBI has served warrants on Mr. Roberts who claims to have accessed the flight and engine controls of a 737 through the television system by connecting his laptop to the outlet that provides the TV signal to the seat back television. http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3055-full.html?ET=avweb:e3055:223146a:&st=email#224098 The FBI is a government agency so we have to .................... supply your own last words. i read this on the internet so it must be true. On 5/18/2015 10:14 AM, racerjerry wrote: > > I too believe Boeing, BUT... > > I am sure that flight controls are well isolated; especially to vulnerable systems, such as in-flight entertainment; however I am not quite so sure about things like engine indicating systems, where erroneous indications could lead pilots to shut down an engine or take other emergency measures that might temporarily decrease their margin of safety. > > I personally feel that "criminals' like Mr. Roberts should be placed in a special category for exposing faults - or vulnerabilities where no actual harm is done or intended. Because of profit worries, it would take a very long time [never] for an aircraft manufacturer to admit such a defect in design and we should almost thank such people for exposing these faults before someone with far less scruples acts on them. > > Investigate him / pick his brain (& laptop) sentence him to probation under the condition he cooperates fully. Probation means that if he tried any such hair-brained schemes in the future, he would fully serve out his original sentence in the slammer. > > -------- > Jerry King > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442232#442232 > >


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:57:47 AM PST US
    From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Alternator Position
    If he's telling the truth, he should be given a medal and a substantial monetary reward. On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote: > > I don't think it's too far fetched. These days so many companies > are negligent in isolating systems. It doesn't take much to > get 2 systems inadvertently tied together. If you think about > the entertainment system, that may need access to the SATCOM > link. But so would potentially many other things on the > plane. So once you have a system like that where other > systems utilize it, you have potential for hopping from > one system to another. I'm an IT person myself, and from > everything I've been able to read so far, I personally think it > sounds legit. And, I think that all the aviation players in > the mess will do their best to cover it up or make it go > away a.s.a.p. But, the fact that the hacker was very > forthcoming, and had good intentions, is a big bonus. Imagine > the situation where someone DIDN'T make this known but > other hackers found out. The consequences are serious. > So if I were the FBI, I'd be asking him to prove it, and in > fact I'd send a couple agents up with him and have him > demonstrate it. And if it is proven true, I'd be begging > him to help learn as much as possible so it can be fixed. > If it is true, I hope he receives NO punishment. He > I'm sure learned the lesson enough already not to screw > with flight controls or engines. Had he just found something > smaller to mess with, to test his theory, he may not be > facing the same issues. Either way, in the end if this > is a real problem, it's a good thing to expose it. Far > too many companies and engineers do not think about security > when designing systems, and this will be a good wakeup > call. If it's a hoax, throw him in the slammer for > a while. But right now, my bet is on it being legit. > Tim > > > On 5/18/2015 10:14 AM, racerjerry wrote: > >> <gnking2@verizon.net> >> >> I too believe Boeing, BUT... >> >> I am sure that flight controls are well isolated; especially to >> vulnerable systems, such as in-flight entertainment; however I am not >> quite so sure about things like engine indicating systems, where >> erroneous indications could lead pilots to shut down an engine or >> take other emergency measures that might temporarily decrease their >> margin of safety. >> >> I personally feel that "criminals' like Mr. Roberts should be placed >> in a special category for exposing faults - or vulnerabilities where >> no actual harm is done or intended. Because of profit worries, it >> would take a very long time [never] for an aircraft manufacturer to >> admit such a defect in design and we should almost thank such people >> for exposing these faults before someone with far less scruples acts >> on them. >> >> Investigate him / pick his brain (& laptop) sentence him to probation >> under the condition he cooperates fully. Probation means that if he >> tried any such hair-brained schemes in the future, he would fully >> serve out his original sentence in the slammer. >> >> -------- Jerry King >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442232#442232 >> >> >> > >


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:58:53 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Level A software . . .
    At 06:33 PM 5/16/2015, you wrote: This question is for Bob- In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment system network. Wait and see what is reported when the story is determined to be without merit. If it smacks of crisis/evil then there's a mad dash to the tv cameras and word processors to be 'first'. This is why 99 plus % of all 'crisis flavored' news releases are tiny bits of fact inflated with lots of floobydust. Software driven airborne management systems are subject to a host of robustness tests and failure modes analysis in the process of achieving permission to fly. This is especially true of Level A software. DO-178 Level E: Crew doesn't give a rat's rear end and may not even be aware of the failure to perform . . . like entertainment systems and coffee makers in the cabin. Level D: Crew knows that the thing crapped and makes plans to write up the squawk . . . after the next cup of coffee. Level C: Crew has to react to the failure in a manner that represents a small increase in workload but presents no hazard to airframe or passengers. Level B: Crew sits upright in seats and gets out the checklist for implementing plan-B. There is significant influence on workload but easily managed to mitigate any hazards to airframe or passengers. Level A: The wings fall off . . . or some such. Software with potential for extreme hazard has qualification protocols that drive people-hours for qualification 5 to 10 times greater than what is needed to write the software in the first place. NOBODY would be allowed to load critical software on an aircraft with a vulnerability suggested by the so-called 'news report'. The claim that a 'port of entry' even exits is floobydust. The idea that some yahoo with a laptop would have intimate knowledge of the communications protocols to 'tinker' with behaviors is laughable. Too many of our lesser informed citizens are intellectually crippled when some TV drama spook sits in his living room with a laptop and brings down the national power grid. They're unable to separate real life from Hollywood imaginations. Too many of those sad creatures hold microphones in front of tv cameras. When the 'story' proves vaporous, the last thing any of those folks will do is get back in front of the camera to correct the error. Bob . . .


    Message 8


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:39:51 PM PST US
    From: Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn@starflight.aero>
    Subject: Thermocouple Wire Connections
    Hello, We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe Processor/Box to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a pigtail of two wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we have to use the ring terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple wires running from the GEA 24? I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical resistance being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance connection as possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held together with a screw/nut is the best -- but, wondering if knife type connections or something else would be as good...? Thanks, Valin Lancair Legacy Project Colorado Sent by iPhone


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:06:09 PM PST US
    From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections
    There's plenty in the archives on this one.... As long as both sides of the connector are on the same side of the firewall and physically tight, you should be OK. The trick is that the actual wire has almost no elasticity to it so relying on a crimp connection is the weak point. I have experience with this in the first few hours - after that...I used the method suggested by the avionics manufacturer.....crimp plus solder quick disconnects with insulation to keep the poles apart. Happy now after a couple hundred hours on it..... -----Original Message----- >From: Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn@starflight.aero> >Sent: May 18, 2015 3:38 PM >To: AeroElectric List <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Wire Connections > > >Hello, > >We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe Processor/Box to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a pigtail of two wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we have to use the ring terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple wires running from the GEA 24? > >I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical resistance being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance connection as possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held together with a screw/nut is the best -- but, wondering if knife type connections or something else would be as good...? > >Thanks, > >Valin >Lancair Legacy Project >Colorado > >Sent by iPhone > >


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:15:03 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Level A software . . .
    From: Joe Motis <joemotis@gmail.com>
    Thank you Bob.. On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 06:33 PM 5/16/2015, you wrote: > > This question is for Bob- > In the news today it is being reported that a passenger hacked in to > the planes flight controls and made changes, using the entertainment > system network. > > > Wait and see what is reported when the > story is determined to be without merit. > If it smacks of crisis/evil then there's > a mad dash to the tv cameras and word processors > to be 'first'. This is why 99 plus % of all > 'crisis flavored' news releases are tiny bits > of fact inflated with lots of floobydust. > > Software driven airborne management systems > are subject to a host of robustness tests > and failure modes analysis in the process > of achieving permission to fly. This is > especially true of Level A software. > > DO-178 Level E: Crew doesn't give a > rat's rear end and may not even be aware > of the failure to perform . . . like > entertainment systems and coffee makers > in the cabin. > > Level D: Crew knows that the thing crapped > and makes plans to write up the squawk . . . > after the next cup of coffee. > > Level C: Crew has to react to the failure > in a manner that represents a small increase > in workload but presents no hazard to airframe > or passengers. > > Level B: Crew sits upright in seats and gets out > the checklist for implementing plan-B. There > is significant influence on workload but easily > managed to mitigate any hazards to airframe > or passengers. > > Level A: The wings fall off . . . or some such. > > Software with potential for extreme hazard > has qualification protocols that drive > people-hours for qualification 5 to 10 times > greater than what is needed to write the software > in the first place. NOBODY would be allowed to > load critical software on an aircraft with a > vulnerability suggested by the so-called 'news > report'. > > The claim that a 'port of entry' even exits > is floobydust. The idea that some yahoo with > a laptop would have intimate knowledge of the > communications protocols to 'tinker' with > behaviors is laughable. > > Too many of our lesser informed citizens are > intellectually crippled when some TV drama spook > sits in his living room with a laptop and brings > down the national power grid. They're unable to > separate real life from Hollywood imaginations. > Too many of those sad creatures hold microphones > in front of tv cameras. > > When the 'story' proves vaporous, the last > thing any of those folks will do is get back > in front of the camera to correct the error. > > > Bob . . . > >


    Message 11


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:15:40 PM PST US
    From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
    Subject: Thermocouple Wire Connections
    Those connections aren't necessarily as important as having them all consistently the same (whether it be ring terminals, butt-splices, knife splices, pins, or whatever). Sure there will be increased resistance at that junction, but if they are all uniform you won't see an unequal result. Cheers, Stein -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin & Allyson Thorn Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 2:38 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Wire Connections --> <thorn@starflight.aero> Hello, We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe Processor/Box to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a pigtail of two wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we have to use the ring terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple wires running from the GEA 24? I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical resistance being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance connection as possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held together with a screw/nut is the best -- but, wondering if knife type connections or something else would be as good...? Thanks, Valin Lancair Legacy Project Colorado Sent by iPhone


    Message 12


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:48:21 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections
    From: Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn@starflight.aero>
    Thanks guys. Stein, I see where it's okay as long as each temp probe has the same bias for EGTs. Seems like I'd want the CHTs to be as accurate as possible, though... Is there a best connection type for accuracy? Thanks, Valin Sent by iPhone > On May 18, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Stein Bruch <stein@steinair.com> wrote: > > > Those connections aren't necessarily as important as having them all > consistently the same (whether it be ring terminals, butt-splices, knife > splices, pins, or whatever). Sure there will be increased resistance at > that junction, but if they are all uniform you won't see an unequal result. > > Cheers, > Stein > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin & > Allyson Thorn > Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 2:38 PM > To: AeroElectric List > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Wire Connections > > --> <thorn@starflight.aero> > > Hello, > > We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe > Processor/Box to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a > pigtail of two wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we > have to use the ring terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple > wires running from the GEA 24? > > I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical > resistance being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance > connection as possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held > together with a screw/nut is the best -- but, wondering if knife type > connections or something else would be as good...? > > Thanks, > > Valin > Lancair Legacy Project > Colorado > > Sent by iPhone > > > > > > > >


    Message 13


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:09:34 PM PST US
    From: Paul Millner <millner@me.com>
    Subject: Thermocouple Wire Connections
    On 5/18/2015 12:38 PM, Valin & Allyson Thorn wrote: > I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical resistance being observed Not really... the input is high impedance, so a little resistance in the connectors is not a big deal. The big deal is not extending the wire with non-thermocouple wire, as that would introduce two cold junctions... one at the terminals on the thermocouple, and the other at the other end of the (presumably) copper extension wire. If one end is cooler than the other, you'll modify the observed TC reading. Any connector should work; the voltages are small, though, in the millivolt range. But as long as the two ends of your connection pair are at the same temperature, you're not introducing an error. Paul


    Message 14


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:25:32 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Thermocouple Wire Connections
    From: Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton@vnet.net>
    Omega.com sells a line of connectors for thermocouple wires but i agree with Stein. If the connections are made in the same area of temperature, the errors are negligible. I have owned a Cozy that used ordinary copper wire between the thermocouples and the gauges up front. Seemed to work pretty well. I use thermocouple wire (type J or K) all the way on the two airplanes i built but i am not sure it really makes much difference over copper wires. After fiddling with ring-terminal connections, I would just solder the connections and leave a little extra wire so you can just cut the connection if you need to pull the engine. -kent > On May 18, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn@starflight.aero> wrote: > > > Thanks guys. > > Stein, I see where it's okay as long as each temp probe has the same bias for EGTs. Seems like I'd want the CHTs to be as accurate as possible, though... Is there a best connection type for accuracy? > > Thanks, > > Valin > > > > Sent by iPhone > >> On May 18, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Stein Bruch <stein@steinair.com> wrote: >> >> >> Those connections aren't necessarily as important as having them all >> consistently the same (whether it be ring terminals, butt-splices, knife >> splices, pins, or whatever). Sure there will be increased resistance at >> that junction, but if they are all uniform you won't see an unequal result. >> >> Cheers, >> Stein >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valin & >> Allyson Thorn >> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 2:38 PM >> To: AeroElectric List >> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermocouple Wire Connections >> >> --> <thorn@starflight.aero> >> >> Hello, >> >> We're on the verge of connecting our Garmin GEA 24 Engine Airframe >> Processor/Box to our engine's thermocouples. Each engine thermocouple has a >> pigtail of two wires with ring terminals on them. My question is, do we >> have to use the ring terminals to make the connection to our thermocouple >> wires running from the GEA 24? >> >> I know the thermocouple temperature measurement is all about the electrical >> resistance being observed so I assume one needs as low a resistance >> connection as possible for best accuracy. Maybe two ring terminals held >> together with a screw/nut is the best -- but, wondering if knife type >> connections or something else would be as good...? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Valin >> Lancair Legacy Project >> Colorado >> >> Sent by iPhone > > > > >


    Message 15


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:31:22 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Thermocouple Wire Connections
    At 03:14 PM 5/18/2015, you wrote: Those connections aren't necessarily as important as having them all consistently the same (whether it be ring terminals, butt-splices, knife splices, pins, or whatever). Sure there will be increased resistance at that junction, but if they are all uniform you won't see an unequal result. Exactly . . . Somebody once opined that what was good for the goose was also good for the gander. In this instance, what's good for the chromel is good for the alumel. In other words, how ever you splice the wires, the path of electrons across metalic joints in one wire should be equal and opposite those on the other wire. While this still creates tiny errors, they're largely cancelling and insignificant to system operations. For more details, see: www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf 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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --