---------------------------------------------------------- Avionics-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 11/17/05: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:13 AM - Why Do I Have A Fund Raiser Each Year? (Matt Dralle) 2. 05:06 AM - Re: Message from David Henderson (Bill Denton) 3. 06:32 AM - Re: Re: Message from David Henderson (Werner Schneider) 4. 07:08 AM - GPS IFR requirements () 5. 07:52 AM - Re: GPS IFR requirements (Wayne Sweet) 6. 07:52 AM - Re: Re: Message from David Henderson (Marcos Della) 7. 08:00 AM - Re: Re: Message from David Henderson (David Henderson) 8. 08:36 AM - Re: GPS IFR requirements (Fred Fillinger) 9. 11:54 AM - Re: Re: Message from David Henderson (Marcos Della) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:13:32 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: Avionics-List: Why Do I Have A Fund Raiser Each Year? --> Avionics-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Listers, I was thinking that perhaps I should explain why I have a Fund Raiser and also take the opportunity to express why I think the List Services here provide a better experience than the commercial equivalents. I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with running a high performance email list site such as this one. With the annual support from the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I have found I can run the entire site without having to inflect any of the members with those annoying banner ads flashing up all the time trying to sell Toner Cartridge Refills or other garbage nobody wants or needs. From the comments I've received over the years regarding the Lists, the great majority of the members really appreciate the non-commercialism of my List systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once a year to encourage members to support the Lists. I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer many benefits over the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first feature I believe to be particularly significant is that you cannot receive a computer v*rus from any of these Lists directly. I've been on a few other List servers and have been unfortunate enough to download infected files people have innocently or not-so-innocently included with their posts. This just can't happen with the Matronics Lists; each incoming message is filtered and dangerous attachments stripped off prior to posting. I provide a Photo and File Share feature that allows members to share files and bitmaps with other members and everyone can be assured that these files will be prescanned for any sort of v*rus before they are posted. Safe and simple. Also, with this photo and file sharing technique, the Archives don't get loaded up with a huge amounts of bitmap "data" that slows the Archive Search times. Another feature of this system is the extensive List Archives that are available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives go all the way back to the very beginning of each List and with the super fast Search Engine, the huge size of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly finding the data you're looking for. Another feature of the Archives is that they have been primarily stripped of all the useless email header garbage that seems to build up in a typical email thread. I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain since about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys I knew and who where also building RVs. It has grown into well over 50 different aviation-related Email Lists and an associated web site that receives over 17,000,000 hits each year!! Additionally, the List email system forwards well over 32,000,000 (yes, that's 32 MILLION) email messages to subscribers each year! With all the dot.bombs these days, I think there's a lot of value in supporting a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing and improving a high quality service all without any advertising budget! I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows in the quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email Message, Search the Archives, or use the List Browser. The Lists will be here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a while for free, that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate, and receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual List Fund Raiser! The Secure Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you, Matt Dralle Email List Administrator Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:06:06 AM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing what I can... David said: "SL30 with 106A". My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used with the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?". Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully tested and certified to function as it should with the SL 30". Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line... ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:32:27 AM PST US From: Werner Schneider Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson --> Avionics-List message posted by: Werner Schneider only the 306 has BC possibility the 106 has not Werner Bill Denton wrote: >--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > >I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing what I >can... > >David said: "SL30 with 106A". > >My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used with >the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?". > >Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully tested >and certified to function as it should with the SL 30". > >Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line... > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:30 AM PST US From: Subject: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4999 1.0000 0.0000 --> Avionics-List message posted by: 11/15/2005 Hello Anon, Regarding your question copied below "....how to certify a GPS for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft?" The short answer is: "One should not even attempt such certification because it is not required." Let me explain. The term "certify" is thrown around too loosely and any attempts to discuss a question about certifying a GPS for IFR operations in an amateur built experimental aircraft without first setting some ground rules will result in endless wrangling. To me "certified" in this context means there is a piece of paper (certificate or equivalent document) signed by a person authorized by the FAA Administrator to sign that certificate or document. Standard type certificated aircraft get a standard airworthiness certificate based on meeting published standards and during its operational life no one is permitted to legally do anything to that aircraft that would void that certificate. There are tens of thousands of words in the Federal Aviation Regulations, Advisory Circulars, Technical Standard Orders, RTCA documents, SAE documents, FAA Orders, and other documents such as FAA policy that exist to maintain the sanctity of that aircraft's standard airworthiness status. Amateur built experimental aircraft get an initial special airworthiness certificate, which includes Operating Limitations specific to that individual aircraft, signed by an FAA Inspector or a DAR (Designated Airworthiness Representative) acting with the authority of the FAA Administrator. Since there are no published standards for amateur built experimental aircraft to deviate from, as long as the aircraft remains in compliance with its Operating Limitations and the references contained therein it is properly certified and no further certification acts are required. Moving on to the subject of IFR equipment and instruments in amateur built experimental aircraft. The best discussion of this subject is by Dick Koehler starting on page 62 of the September 2005 issue of Sport Aviation magazine. Also see the MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT table available directly from me. Now focusing specifically on GPS IFR equipment requirements and IFR operations in amateur built experimental aircraft. One should read the entire paragraph 1-1-19 of the August 4, 2005 edition of the AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual) Note One to Table 1-1-6 reads "To determine equipment approvals and limitations, refer to the AFM, AFM supplements, or pilot guides." The amateur builder has control over what his Aircraft Flight Manual says or does not say. The pilot has access to the information and limitations provided by the maker of his GPS equipment (pilot guides). If the builder / pilot of an amateur built experimental aircraft is in compliance with his aircraft's Operating Limitations, in compliance with his AFM, in compliance with the instructions and limitations provided by the maker of his GPS equipment, and in compliance with the equipment requirements and flight procedural instructions regarding GPS IFR in the most recent version of the AIM then he has met the legal requirements to fly GPS IFR and no additional certification activity or approval is required. I'm happy to continue the discussion if there are differing or additional viewpoints. OC ----- Original Message ----- From: Anon Subject: GPS IFR requirements > Hello O.C. I recall that you did some extensive research on how to certify > a GPS > for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft. There seems to be a lot > of interpretation of the law as written, and I would be interested in > your findings and opinions on the subject. > Regards, Anon ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:52:32 AM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" OC, Thanks for a very informative summary on this subject. I have had battles with other builders intent on following the "letter of the FAR's", which invariably lead to mass confusion and spit-ball fights. I left one discussion group just for that reason. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements > --> Avionics-List message posted by: > > 11/15/2005 > > Hello Anon, Regarding your question copied below "....how to certify a > GPS for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft?" > > The short answer is: "One should not even attempt such certification > because > it is not > required." Let me explain. > > The term "certify" is thrown around too loosely and any attempts to > discuss a question about certifying a GPS for IFR operations in an > amateur > built > experimental aircraft without first setting some ground rules will > result in endless wrangling. > > To me "certified" in this context means there is a piece of paper > (certificate or > equivalent document) signed by a person authorized by the FAA > Administrator > to sign > that certificate or document. > > Standard type certificated aircraft get a standard airworthiness > certificate based on meeting published standards and during its > operational > life no one is permitted to legally do anything to that aircraft that > would > void that certificate. There are > tens of thousands of words in the Federal Aviation Regulations, Advisory > Circulars, Technical Standard Orders, RTCA documents, SAE documents, FAA > Orders, and other documents such as FAA policy that exist to maintain the > sanctity of that aircraft's > standard airworthiness status. > > Amateur built experimental aircraft get an initial special airworthiness > certificate, which includes Operating Limitations specific to that > individual aircraft, signed by an FAA Inspector or a DAR (Designated > Airworthiness Representative) acting with the authority of the FAA > Administrator. Since there are no published standards for amateur built > experimental aircraft to deviate from, as long as the aircraft remains > in compliance with its Operating Limitations and the references contained > therein it is properly certified and no further certification acts are > required. > > Moving on to the subject of IFR equipment and instruments in amateur > built experimental aircraft. The best discussion of this subject is by > Dick > Koehler starting on page 62 of the September 2005 issue of Sport > Aviation magazine. Also see the MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT > REQUIREMENTS > FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT > table available directly from me. > > Now focusing specifically on GPS IFR equipment requirements and IFR > operations in amateur built experimental aircraft. One should read the > entire paragraph 1-1-19 of the August 4, 2005 edition of the AIM > (Aeronautical Information Manual) > > > Note One to Table 1-1-6 reads "To determine equipment approvals and > limitations, refer to the AFM, AFM supplements, or pilot guides." The > amateur builder has control over what his Aircraft Flight Manual says or > does not say. The pilot has access to the information and limitations > provided by the maker of his GPS equipment (pilot guides). > > If the builder / pilot of an amateur built experimental aircraft is in > compliance with his aircraft's Operating Limitations, in compliance with > his AFM, in compliance with the instructions and limitations provided by > the > maker of his GPS equipment, and in compliance with the equipment > requirements and flight procedural instructions regarding GPS IFR in the > most recent version of the AIM then he has met the legal requirements to > fly GPS IFR and no additional certification activity or approval is > required. > > I'm happy to continue the discussion if there are differing or additional > viewpoints. > > OC > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Anon > > Subject: GPS IFR requirements > >> Hello O.C. I recall that you did some extensive research on how to >> certify >> a GPS >> for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft. There seems to be a lot >> of interpretation of the law as written, and I would be interested in >> your findings and opinions on the subject. > >> Regards, Anon > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:52:42 AM PST US Subject: RE: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson From: "Marcos Della" --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Marcos Della" I have the MD200-306 on my SL30... And just as a side note, unless you didn't want the glideslope indivator, the MD200-306 is cheaper than the garmin CDI w/glideslope anyway. Even the Nav needle alone on the garmin indicator is almost the same price as the MD200-306. I ended up using two of the MD200-306s, one for the CNX80 and one for the SL30 -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Denton Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing what I can... David said: "SL30 with 106A". My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used with the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?". Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully tested and certified to function as it should with the SL 30". Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line... ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:00:16 AM PST US From: "David Henderson" Subject: RE: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson --> Avionics-List message posted by: "David Henderson" WOW! That's scary, I never even thought of the back course. I just assumed and that gets me into trouble every time. Maybe I should spend the extra bucks and get an avionics broker involved. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner Schneider Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson --> Avionics-List message posted by: Werner Schneider only the 306 has BC possibility the 106 has not Werner Bill Denton wrote: >--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > >I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing what I >can... > >David said: "SL30 with 106A". > >My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used with >the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?". > >Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully tested >and certified to function as it should with the SL 30". > >Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line... > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:36:34 AM PST US From: "Fred Fillinger" Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" > I have had battles with other builders intent on > following the "letter of the FAR's", which invariably > lead to mass confusion and spit-ball fights. I left one > discussion group just for that reason. > Wayne > There is an Advisory Circular on "certifying" the installation of GPS for IFR, but I don't see anywhere in the FARs where we need follow it for a homebuilt as per the other post. Of course, FAA has a concern where we're slogging along in cloud and might cause a hazard to others, due to our navigation error. So whatever is in the AC to comply with the spirit of the document in that regard, plus proper installation, seems reasonable to me. But an example is the need for a VOR type remote indicator, and the annunciator lights. However, it seems to me that if the GPS is installed within easy view, and its CDI display and such is adequate for the purpose, we shouldn't be causing a problem. Recently a good FAA FSDO type spoke at our EAA chapter meeting. I asked her about these traditional airways routings on clearance delivery I still hear, about 95%, even bizjets. Like, how often do they get up there, and get a direct to something they can't receive yet? Using their GPS. She laughed. Said, "We see nothing, we hear nothing, we know nothing!" Fred F. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:54:47 AM PST US Subject: RE: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson From: "Marcos Della" --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Marcos Della" actually the 106 and 306 will both fly the BC the same. The big difference is that the BC light doesn't come on with the 106 to let you know that the meter is reading the opposite of what you would expect for a BC (that is, its displaying it "correctly" and you don't have to fly opposite of the needle) But without the light, you'd possibly forget that... ________________________________ From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of David Henderson Subject: RE: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson --> Avionics-List message posted by: "David Henderson" WOW! That's scary, I never even thought of the back course. I just assumed and that gets me into trouble every time. Maybe I should spend the extra bucks and get an avionics broker involved. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner Schneider Subject: Re: Avionics-List: RE: Message from David Henderson --> Avionics-List message posted by: Werner Schneider only the 306 has BC possibility the 106 has not Werner Bill Denton wrote: >--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > >I couldn't figure out how to directly reply to the list, so I'm doing what I >can... > >David said: "SL30 with 106A". > >My question to Garmin on 09/08/2005: "Which indicator should be used with >the Garmin SL 30: the GI 102A/GI 106A or the MD200-306?". > >Garmin's reply: "Of those listed only the MD200-306 has been fully tested >and certified to function as it should with the SL 30". > >Hopefully, this will save you a headache down the line... > > > >