Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:27 AM - Re: Choice (Maureen & Bob Christensen)
2. 05:36 AM - Off/On/Mom Switch (Maureen & Bob Christensen)
3. 05:56 AM - Re: Choice (Fred Fillinger)
4. 06:16 AM - Re: Choice (Brian Lloyd)
5. 06:49 AM - Re: Choice (Brian Lloyd)
6. 06:54 AM - Radium dial (was: Choice) (Brian Lloyd)
7. 07:21 AM - Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) (Chuck Jensen)
8. 07:47 AM - Re: Choice (Fred Fillinger)
9. 07:56 AM - Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) (Matthew Mucker)
10. 07:57 AM - Re: Choice (Fred Fillinger)
11. 08:15 AM - Re: Off/On/Mom Switch (John Schroeder)
12. 08:35 AM - Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) (Brian Kraut)
13. 09:07 AM - Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO ()
14. 10:04 AM - Re: Choice (cgalley)
15. 10:09 AM - Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) (Chuck Jensen)
16. 10:35 AM - Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) (John Rippengal)
17. 11:16 AM - Re: Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO (Fred Fillinger)
18. 11:41 AM - Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) (Brian Lloyd)
19. 11:43 AM - Re: Choice (Brian Lloyd)
20. 11:52 AM - Re: Choice (Brian Lloyd)
21. 12:06 PM - Re: Off/On/Mom Switch (Tim & Diane Shankland)
22. 01:31 PM - Re: Choice (Fred Fillinger)
23. 01:47 PM - Re: Choice (Fred Fillinger)
24. 02:43 PM - Re: Choice (cgalley)
25. 02:54 PM - Re: Choice (Brian Lloyd)
26. 02:56 PM - Re: Choice (Brian Lloyd)
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
No doubt you can install Non-TSO'd Altimeters, etc.
The original question was/is will they pass a pitot/static system check
required for IFR? I've come to the conclusion . . . maybe but is it worth
worrying about for $200-300??
Thanks for all the responses!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Choice
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> It wasn't clear to me whether you were talking about the fuel sender for
an
> experimental or for a Cessna. If it's for the Cessna you would need a
> sender on the original type certificate, or an STC'd sender, or a field
> approval on a 337. If it's for an experimental, you can use anything you
> think is safe for flight.
>
> As to altimeters, you can install a non-TSO altimeter in any experimental
> and in Cessna/Piper/Beech/etc if you are flying under part 91. If you
> believe this is incorrect, please enlighten me by quoting the FAR number
> that says you need a TSO when flying under part 91.
>
>
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: | Off/On/Mom Switch |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and primer
solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
Thanks,
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ron Davis"
<l39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> It wasn't clear to me whether you were talking about the fuel sender
> for an experimental or for a Cessna. If it's for the Cessna you
would
> need a sender on the original type certificate, or an STC'd sender,
or
> a field approval on a 337. If it's for an experimental, you can use
> anything you think is safe for flight.
> ...
I fully agree with what all you wrote, and I was referring to
type-certificated airplanes, not experimental - amateur-built.
Reg,
Fred F.
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 23, 2004, at 2:20 PM, Fred Fillinger wrote:
> But if a foreign A/C with markings in Cyrillic and millibars, no
> longer available, I think you can replace it only with a TSO'd
> instrument.
>
> They need your old part, really,
> really bad; there's no TSO for a fuel sender, so no alternative route
> there.
I think you guys are confusing TSO with PMA. TSO is just the FAA 'Good
Housekeeping Seal'. It means that it is somehow better.
But parts can be FAA-approved without meeting any particular TSO. As
far as I know, the only place TSO in mentioned in the Regs is for
approval of a GPS for IFR enroute, terminal, or approach operations.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:01 AM, Bob Gibfried wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
>
> I think you really have to assess the risk between a TSO and a non TSO
> instrument.
>
> An engine gauge that is not accurate or a turn and bank instrument
> that is
> off fifteen degrees under VFR conditions aren't vital problems. At
> today's
> aircraft speeds, being at the correct altitude for the direction flown
> could
> be a real problem. Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as
> good
> but the standards are different and failure could come at any time.
> It may
> be better to save the budget in some other area other than an
> altimeter..
That is why there is a pitot-static check. It determines whether the
altimeter and the rest of the pitot-static system meet specifications.
Since the altimeter must be tested in the aircraft adherence to TSO is
a moot point. You know it is safe and accurate because you have tested
it and you continue to test it.
The other side is that loss of altimeter accuracy is immediately
apparent before flight because you set the local barometric setting
into the kolsman window and then look to see if the altimeter shows the
correct altitude.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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 |
|
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:46 AM, cgalley wrote:
> I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know
> that
> mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn
> back
> in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft.
> Unfortunately, it
> can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it
> still
> works accurately 60 years later.
Ha, I ran into the same problem. I had an instrument that I wanted
overhauled so I took it to my local instrument shop (the Gyro House in
Auburn, CA, USA). The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is considered
nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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 |
|
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Brian,
I may have a fix for you. I'll check with our shipping guys to see that its
okay. If it is, I'll buy it from you for $0.01, then we'll dispose of it
along with the rest of our nuclear waste. The shipping/disposal regs are a
little tricky for some of these materials, but given the limited quantity, I
suspect its not that big of a deal when we combine it with our regular
disposal shipments. Certainly, if you have a broker take care of it, it'll
be several hundred dollars--if you're lucky. If it works out, consider it
pay-back for some of your list contributions. You can contact me off-list.
Chuck
you wrote...
The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is considered
nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> ...
> But parts can be FAA-approved without meeting any particular TSO.
> As far as I know, the only place TSO in mentioned in the Regs is for
> approval of a GPS for IFR enroute, terminal, or approach operations.
"Must meet requirements of TSO" is in Part 91 for ELTs and
transponders. Doesn't have to be TSOd, but since a TSO is the easier
way to go for this kind of stuff, I believe in practice they all are.
I was talking to the avionics mgr of a fancy FBO, jet service and
stuff, where on display was a box to display Mode C being sent to ATC.
He said, I can sell it to you, but I can't install it. Really, why
not? It straps onto your altitude data lines, and it will "break" the
TSO of your transponder, which then violates Part 91 to fly. What if
I don't have a TSOd transponder? Yes you do. You can't even install
it in a homebuilt.
Then why do you sell them? We bought 'em first, then we asked FAA.
That's why they're on sale!
Reg,
Fred F.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Matthew Mucker" <matthew@mucker.net>
Check and be sure if it really does need disposal as nuclear waste.
I trained as a medical technologist. Several hospital laboratory procedures
use radioactivity as a marker for various tests. Though the materials would
make a Geiger counter scream, the radiation level was so low that it was
legal to dispose of the waste as regular biohazard waste; no additional
precautions were necessary. FedEx even shipped this stuff (with a nice
scary warning label on the box, of course.)
I suspect Chuck would know more about this than I would, but don't get too
scared yet, Brian.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Chuck Jensen
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:41 AM
> To: 'avionics-list@matronics.com'
> Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Chuck Jensen
> <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> Brian,
>
> I may have a fix for you. I'll check with our shipping guys
> to see that its
> okay. If it is, I'll buy it from you for $0.01, then we'll
> dispose of it
> along with the rest of our nuclear waste. The
> shipping/disposal regs are a
> little tricky for some of these materials, but given the
> limited quantity, I
> suspect its not that big of a deal when we combine it with our regular
> disposal shipments. Certainly, if you have a broker take
> care of it, it'll
> be several hundred dollars--if you're lucky. If it works
> out, consider it
> pay-back for some of your list contributions. You can
> contact me off-list.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> you wrote...
>
> The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
> returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
> face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
> overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is
> considered
> nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
> no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty
> things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
> =========
> =========
> =========
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> That is why there is a pitot-static check. It determines whether the
> altimeter and the rest of the pitot-static system meet
specifications.
That's certainly is some assurance, but I had a TSOd altimeter that
would intermittently stick right at 4,000, rather undesirable for IFR
in solid. Instrument shop said that's on the list of what can happen.
So, for serious IFR, the only question for me is the chance of a
altimeter maybe made in the Indonesia, though testing accurate...but
will never stick, or do anything else on that list. What happens when
the aneroid thingy springs a tiny leak?
Reg,
Fred F.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off/On/Mom Switch |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Bob -
B&C has an S700-2-50 that may work. Off would be down, middle would be
boost pump on and mom. up would be primer and boost pump. See Bob
Nuckolls' Aeroelectric Connection for more details.
B&C: http://www.bandcspecialty.com/
John Schroeder
> I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and
> primer
> solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
>
> Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
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 |
|
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut@engalt.com>
Bury it in the backyard for 300 years and it will be fine when your great,
great, great, great,.... grand kids dig it up.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Subject: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:46 AM, cgalley wrote:
> I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know
> that
> mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn
> back
> in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft.
> Unfortunately, it
> can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it
> still
> works accurately 60 years later.
Ha, I ran into the same problem. I had an instrument that I wanted
overhauled so I took it to my local instrument shop (the Gyro House in
Auburn, CA, USA). The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is considered
nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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 |
|
| Subject: | Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
<n3eu@comcast.net>
> ....skip....... It cannot be installed in a production aircraft, unless it
> is FAA-approved by other means, such as
> an STC.....skip.....
12/24/2004
Hello Fred, Your statement above regarding altimeters permitted to be
installed in "production aircraft" (I assume that you mean standard type
certificated aircraft) puzzles me.
I am aware that the FAA, by means of the FAR's, requires some instruments
and equipment in aircraft (both standard type certificated and amateur built
experimental) to be "approved" by some FAA approval process. I am also aware
that there are various ways that the FAA can grant approval for a piece of
equipment that is to be installed in an airplane. But there are also
instruments and equipment required to be in both those aircraft categories
that do not have to be FAA approved.
If one reads FAR Sec 91.205 carefully it identifies which items of required
equipment must be "approved" in order to be used in aircraft. Some examples
are: collision lights, safety belts, shoulder harness', ELT's (by reference
to FAR Sec 91.207), and position lights.**
Altimeters are not identified as one of the items that must be "approved" by
some FAA approval process in order to be installed in an aircraft.
My question to you is: What is the basis for your statement above? Thanks.
OC
**PS: I would like to point out again that since there are no certification
requirements for amateur built experimental aircraft that the FAA approval
process for some of these items used in those aircraft comes in the form of
the initial inspection and airworthiness approval of these aircraft.
PPS: One should also be aware that though FAR Sec 91.205 itself says that
the Section applies to "...civil aircraft with a standard category US
airworthiness certificate..." the Operating Limitations that are part of the
Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for each amateur built experimental
aircraft contains the words ".....In addition, this aircraft must be
operated in accordance with the applicable air traffic and general operating
rules of Part 91...........".
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
I believe springing a leak could happen to any altimeter TSOed or not, even
though I haven't had it happen. Would it be very obvious? What would be the
symptoms?
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Choice
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
>
> Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >
> > That is why there is a pitot-static check. It determines whether the
> > altimeter and the rest of the pitot-static system meet
> specifications.
>
> That's certainly is some assurance, but I had a TSOd altimeter that
> would intermittently stick right at 4,000, rather undesirable for IFR
> in solid. Instrument shop said that's on the list of what can happen.
>
> So, for serious IFR, the only question for me is the chance of a
> altimeter maybe made in the Indonesia, though testing accurate...but
> will never stick, or do anything else on that list. What happens when
> the aneroid thingy springs a tiny leak?
>
> Reg,
> Fred F.
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Radium dial (was: Choice) |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Great, great, great, great grand kids would still be at risk. Since the
half-life of radium is approx. 1,600 years, you might be okay 80 generations
from now. Because radium is primarily an alpha/beta emitter, its not really
a risk unless inhaled or ingested (such as the radium dial painters did when
they formed the paint brush to a very fine point on their tongue--mouth and
throat cancer). A few hundred years from now, the 'diggers' in your back
yard will probably be alright if they don't throw it in a trash fire, then
stand downwind. Of course, as long as they don't inhale.....well, that's
another story.
I know your comment was in jest, but we should take great care in disposing
of these type things (including smoke detectors--Americium). We are
spending billions cleaning up DOD and DOE sites because of bad practices a
few decades ago. Hopefully we're wiser and better-behaved nowadays.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Kraut
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut@engalt.com>
Bury it in the backyard for 300 years and it will be fine when your great,
great, great, great,.... grand kids dig it up.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Subject: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:46 AM, cgalley wrote:
> I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know
> that
> mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn
> back
> in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft.
> Unfortunately, it
> can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it
> still
> works accurately 60 years later.
Ha, I ran into the same problem. I had an instrument that I wanted
overhauled so I took it to my local instrument shop (the Gyro House in
Auburn, CA, USA). The guy took one look at it, turned around, and
returned with a Geiger counter. It screamed when he put it up to the
face of the instrument. He then explained to me that they could not
overhaul it and the disposal cost was astronomical as it is considered
nuclear waste. I kid you not. I still have that instrument but I have
no idea what I am ever going to do with it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 16
| 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: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal@cytanet.com.cy>
Just to be clear on this a half life of 1600 years doesn't mean it is not
radiating at all in 3200 years. In 1600 it's down to half, in 3200 it's down
to a quarter, 4800 to an eighth etc.
John Rippengal.
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> Great, great, great, great grand kids would still be at risk. Since the
> half-life of radium is approx. 1,600 years, you might be okay 80
> generations
> from now. Because radium is primarily an alpha/beta emitter, its not
> really
> a risk unless inhaled or ingested (such as the radium dial painters did
> when
> they formed the paint brush to a very fine point on their tongue--mouth
> and
> throat cancer). A few hundred years from now, the 'diggers' in your back
> yard will probably be alright if they don't throw it in a trash fire, then
> stand downwind. Of course, as long as they don't inhale.....well, that's
> another story.
>
> I know your comment was in jest, but we should take great care in
> disposing
> of these type things (including smoke detectors--Americium). We are
> spending billions cleaning up DOD and DOE sites because of bad practices a
> few decades ago. Hopefully we're wiser and better-behaved nowadays.
>
> Chuck
Message 17
| 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: Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
> > ....skip....... It cannot be installed in a production aircraft,
unless it
> > is FAA-approved by other means, such as
> > an STC.....skip.....
> ...
> If one reads FAR Sec 91.205 carefully it identifies which items of
> required equipment must be "approved" in order to be used in
aircraft.
> to be installed in an aircraft.
> ...
> My question to you is: What is the basis for your statement above?
Thanks.
Think it works like this. Part 91 isn't the only rule for maintaining
type-certificated aircraft, but also Parts 21 and 43. These make it
clear it to me at least that only actual aircraft parts go into actual
airplanes. Take the silly example of a rusted cigarette lighter
socket. If the plane is still in production, profit motive will
dictate what they do. But if out-of-business, can they get one from
Auto Zone? Seems a better idea than getting a semi-rusted one from an
A/C salvage yard and try refurbishing it. One solution is just do it,
but it's not listed among the work done in the log.
However, an altimeter is not a trivial item, and the Regs forbid
anyone from making one and selling it as an aircraft part, except for
homebuilts and ultralights. If they sell a nonTSOd instrument but
with a PMA, maybe a shop might go with that, if it's not the specific
part the airframe mfr used. Is there such an animal out there? None
of the instruments I have, sold for homebuilt only, say PMA.
Reg,
Fred F.
Message 18
| 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: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 24, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Matthew Mucker wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Matthew Mucker"
> <matthew@mucker.net>
>
> Check and be sure if it really does need disposal as nuclear waste.
>
> I trained as a medical technologist. Several hospital laboratory
> procedures
> use radioactivity as a marker for various tests. Though the materials
> would
> make a Geiger counter scream, the radiation level was so low that it
> was
> legal to dispose of the waste as regular biohazard waste; no additional
> precautions were necessary. FedEx even shipped this stuff (with a nice
> scary warning label on the box, of course.)
>
> I suspect Chuck would know more about this than I would, but don't get
> too
> scared yet, Brian.
Oh, I am not the least bit scared. In fact, I don't really care. I just
thought that the hoopla was funny.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 19
| 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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 24, 2004, at 10:09 AM, Fred Fillinger wrote:
>> That is why there is a pitot-static check. It determines whether the
>> altimeter and the rest of the pitot-static system meet
> specifications.
>
> That's certainly is some assurance, but I had a TSOd altimeter that
> would intermittently stick right at 4,000, rather undesirable for IFR
> in solid. Instrument shop said that's on the list of what can happen.
Things break. TSO is no guarantee that the thing won't break.
> So, for serious IFR, the only question for me is the chance of a
> altimeter maybe made in the Indonesia, though testing accurate...but
> will never stick, or do anything else on that list. What happens when
> the aneroid thingy springs a tiny leak?
It is broken and will no longer indicate altitude. You will need to
repair/replace it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 20
| 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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 24, 2004, at 9:59 AM, Fred Fillinger wrote:
> I was talking to the avionics mgr of a fancy FBO, jet service and
> stuff, where on display was a box to display Mode C being sent to ATC.
> He said, I can sell it to you, but I can't install it. Really, why
> not? It straps onto your altitude data lines, and it will "break" the
> TSO of your transponder, which then violates Part 91 to fly.
Well, if the display unit is not approved and it requires permanent
installation you would need a field approval to install in in a
certified airplane. You would not for a homebuilt. That is what the
experimental designation is all about.
> What if
> I don't have a TSOd transponder? Yes you do. You can't even install
> it in a homebuilt.
I don't believe this is correct but I am not an aviation law specialist.
There are non-TSO'd transponders just as there are non-TSO'd nav-coms.
Both are legal in even certified aircraft. You can have approved
devices without having them meet TSO.
> Then why do you sell them? We bought 'em first, then we asked FAA.
> That's why they're on sale!
I find that surprisingly many radio shops do not fully understand the
rules and regs. It is best to take what they say with a grain of salt.
If they say yes, it is almost definitely OK. If they say no, you need
to do some research because it may still be OK.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 21
| 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: Off/On/Mom Switch |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank@megsinet.net>
Digikey.
Tim Shankland
Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
>--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
>
>I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and primer
>solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
>
>Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
>
>Thanks,
>Bob
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| 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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
> Things break. TSO is no guarantee that the thing won't break.
>
Sure. I can't tell whether you're disagreeing with my corollary to
that, such that if an altimeter is made from parts mfg'd in Taiwan and
assembled in Mexico, can one assume that it's as safe in IFR as a TSOd
instrument? Really not something to debate; a builder need be only as
conservative as he wishes.
Reg,
Fred F.
Message 23
| 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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
> There are non-TSO'd transponders just as there are non-TSO'd
nav-coms.
I have FAA's list. The old Genave Beta 5000 in not TSO'd, nor is the
vacuum tube Narco AT6A. Both of these can be had off eBay for $20 or
less, since neither could possiblly be made servicable. The FAA
document even implies that transponders must be "Level 1 approval,"
which includes a TSO among other ways. Nav-comms are OK at lower
approval levels.
> > Then why do you sell them? We bought 'em first, then we asked
FAA.
> > That's why they're on sale!
>
> I find that surprisingly many radio shops do not fully understand
the
> rules and regs. It is best to take what they say with a grain of
salt.
> If they say yes, it is almost definitely OK. If they say no, you
need
> to do some research because it may still be OK.
Seems a purely interpretative issue; nothing to research. The input
impedance on this Mode C readout box is 1 megohm. So a shop might
conclude the thing can't possibly affect the transponder's ability to
continue to perform to meet the requirements of the TSO. But, this
shop called the FAA office which oversees them, and they said no.
This FSDO has Avionics Inspectors on the staff.
Reg,
Fred F.
Message 24
| 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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Your assumption is that your TSOed is not made in Mexico or Tawain or China
may be totally false.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Choice
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
>
> > --> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
> > Things break. TSO is no guarantee that the thing won't break.
> >
> Sure. I can't tell whether you're disagreeing with my corollary to
> that, such that if an altimeter is made from parts mfg'd in Taiwan and
> assembled in Mexico, can one assume that it's as safe in IFR as a TSOd
> instrument? Really not something to debate; a builder need be only as
> conservative as he wishes.
>
> Reg,
> Fred F.
>
>
Message 25
| 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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 24, 2004, at 3:43 PM, Fred Fillinger wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
> <n3eu@comcast.net>
>
>> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>> Things break. TSO is no guarantee that the thing won't break.
>>
> Sure. I can't tell whether you're disagreeing with my corollary to
> that, such that if an altimeter is made from parts mfg'd in Taiwan and
> assembled in Mexico, can one assume that it's as safe in IFR as a TSOd
> instrument? Really not something to debate; a builder need be only as
> conservative as he wishes.
I rarely bother with new instruments. I tend to buy overhauled
instruments. Most instrument overhaul shops can tell you what lasts and
what doesn't. I don't bother looking for TSO. YMMV.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 26
| 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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
> Seems a purely interpretative issue; nothing to research. The input
> impedance on this Mode C readout box is 1 megohm. So a shop might
> conclude the thing can't possibly affect the transponder's ability to
> continue to perform to meet the requirements of the TSO. But, this
> shop called the FAA office which oversees them, and they said no.
> This FSDO has Avionics Inspectors on the staff.
And my experience is that very few people in the FAA have any clue.
Their standard reply is 'no'. That is easy and requires no effort
and/or research on their part.
YMMV.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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! --
|