---------------------------------------------------------- Avionics-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 11/18/05: 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:44 AM - MD200-306 indicator and dual navs () 2. 06:52 AM - Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs (Marcos Della) 3. 08:17 AM - Grand Rapids EFIS (Brinker) 4. 08:21 AM - WX-8 Stormscope (Brinker) 5. 10:30 AM - Re: Grand Rapids EFIS (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)) 6. 01:33 PM - Re: WX-8 Stormscope (Mike) 7. 02:45 PM - Re: WX-8 Stormscope (Brinker) 8. 03:50 PM - GPS IFR requirements () ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:44:07 AM PST US From: Subject: Avionics-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs --> Avionics-List message posted by: My original plan was to install the Garmin GNS430 and SL30 with one MD200-306, which would be shared with the two navs. I have been told that this will not work as the indicator has to be calibrated for each nav and will be inaccurate with the other one. I now do not know if I have panel space for the second indicator (not to mention the bucks!) Two questions... One - Is this true? Do I really have to have an indicator dedicated to each nav? Two - If not true, how do I switch between the two navs on the indicator? Thanks, Bill Bradburry Snip 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... Snip ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:52:15 AM PST US Subject: RE: Avionics-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs From: "Marcos Della" --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Marcos Della" I can tell you that I've gone the route about switching the CDIs and I've been involved in the calibration of them. Its true that it is unlikely that anyone certified will put a switch between two devices powering the CDI (the resolver is calibrated in 10 degree increments and there are all kinds of issues that you can get into). With that said, you *don't* have to put a CDI on a device to use it. Its up to *how* you want to use it. I don't know about the 430 since I have a 480 myself, but with the 480, there is a built in CDI/HSI that I use. I rarely use the head that is connected to the 480 unless I'm doing my final stepdown on an ILS. As for the SL30, it too has a built in NAV needle on its display. No GS, but I can't remember the last time I used the GS on the SL30 for anything other than a backup. Typically I use the SL30 to do my references for the FAF or IAF, etc. So althought I do have both MD300-206's in my plane, I don't use them that much. I tend to use the GPS one less than the SL30 one (its easier to read the 480 HSI needle than the NAV needle on the SL30) Your milage will vary... Maybe you can find someone in your area that has a setup that you can do a test flight with just to get an inflight demo... Marcos -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bbradburry@allvantage.com Subject: Avionics-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs --> Avionics-List message posted by: My original plan was to install the Garmin GNS430 and SL30 with one MD200-306, which would be shared with the two navs. I have been told that this will not work as the indicator has to be calibrated for each nav and will be inaccurate with the other one. I now do not know if I have panel space for the second indicator (not to mention the bucks!) Two questions... One - Is this true? Do I really have to have an indicator dedicated to each nav? Two - If not true, how do I switch between the two navs on the indicator? Thanks, Bill Bradburry Snip 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... Snip ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:17:35 AM PST US From: "Brinker" Subject: Avionics-List: Grand Rapids EFIS --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" Is anyone on the list now flying behind the Grand Rapids EFIS ? Was told they now show terrain and have a weather option was wondering about this. Also sounds like the SL30, having the capability of tracking 2 VOR's at once, would be the way to go with this unit since it reads (if I'm understanding it correctly) 2 VOR's at once crosschecking the GPS coordinates. It would seem this feature would be almost as good as a GPS itself if one was always in an area where he could pick up 2 VOR's & if the system accually X's out the 2 radial's on the moving map showing accual location. Randy ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:27 AM PST US From: "Brinker" Subject: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" Bought a WX-8 Stormscope off of ebay complete with wiring antenna etc. I will not be installing in my Comp 6 for a while. Question is: Is it possible for me to test this unit myself, maybe installing temporarily in another airplane or bench testing ? And what should I be looking for when testing ? Randy ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 10:30:40 AM PST US From: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Grand Rapids EFIS --> Avionics-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) I invite you to join the GRT_EFIS users group on yahoo. There's an email archive you can search through, pictures, documents and files to browse through and of course a place to ask many folks who are flying behind the system as well as the system developers who are also on that list. -------------- Original message -------------- > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" > > Is anyone on the list now flying behind the Grand Rapids EFIS ? Was > told they now show terrain and have a weather option was wondering about > this. Also sounds like the SL30, having the capability of tracking 2 VOR's > at once, would be the way to go with this unit since it reads (if I'm > understanding it correctly) 2 VOR's at once crosschecking the GPS > coordinates. It would seem this feature would be almost as good as a GPS > itself if one was always in an area where he could pick up 2 VOR's & if the > system accually X's out the 2 radial's on the moving map showing accual > location. > > Randy > > > > > > I invite you to join the GRT_EFIS users group on yahoo. There's an email archive you can search through, pictures, documents and files to browse through and of course a place to ask many folks who are flying behind the system as well as the system developers who are also on that list. -------------- Original message -------------- -- Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" Is anyone on the list now flying behind the Grand Rapids EFIS ? Was told they now show terrain and have a weather option was wondering about this. Also sounds like the SL30, having the capability of tracking 2 VOR's at once, would be the way to go with this unit since it reads (if I'm understanding it correctly) 2 VOR's at once crosschecking the GPS coordinates. It would seem this feature would be almost as good as a GPS itself if one was always in an area where he could pick up 2 VOR's if the system accually X's out the 2 radial's on the moving map showing accual location. Randy ======================== h as the Subscriptions page, ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 01:33:21 PM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Mike" Randy, Yes, you can put the antenna on the roof of your house if you want and watch the storms come in. You are looking for electrical discharges in the proper direction and intensity. It's been a long time since I used a WX 8 but if memory serves me the colors change based on the rate of strikes in a certain sector and the range is based on the amplitude of the strikes. But in short, you should be able to set the unit up at your house and check it by looking at radar returns on the TV. The WX 8 will only show storms that have convection. No lighting, no return. As far a putting it on another plane or vehicle, the units are very susceptible to electric noise. It is very possible to get false indications if the installation is not done correctly. We use a mapping test set to find the best location on airplanes before installation. Mike Lancair Legacy TS-11 Kitfox A-320 -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker Subject: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" Bought a WX-8 Stormscope off of ebay complete with wiring antenna etc. I will not be installing in my Comp 6 for a while. Question is: Is it possible for me to test this unit myself, maybe installing temporarily in another airplane or bench testing ? And what should I be looking for when testing ? Randy -- Checked by AVG Free Edition. 11/18/2005 -- Checked by AVG Free Edition. 11/18/2005 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 02:45:24 PM PST US From: "Brinker" Subject: Re: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" Thanks Mike, I had heard that they need to be handled with care since it was prossible for static electricity to fry the antenna. But am not sure what handling with care means. Rubber gloves ?? Cloth gloves ? But then again if it was not handled correctly by the un-installer then it may still have a problem. I'm keeping my finger's crossed. I have had mostly good luck off of ebay but there can always be a problem and I don't want to create it. Even though the system wiring is suppose to be complete I may run into a problem figuring out the connecting wires. I do not want to reverse the polarity etc. and fry the unit. If so would you have a schematic showing the proper connections ? Thanks Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike" Subject: RE: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Mike" > > Randy, > > Yes, you can put the antenna on the roof of your house if you want and > watch the storms come in. You are looking for electrical discharges in > the proper direction and intensity. It's been a long time since I used > a WX 8 but if memory serves me the colors change based on the rate of > strikes in a certain sector and the range is based on the amplitude of > the strikes. But in short, you should be able to set the unit up at > your house and check it by looking at radar returns on the TV. The WX 8 > will only show storms that have convection. No lighting, no return. As > far a putting it on another plane or vehicle, the units are very > susceptible to electric noise. It is very possible to get false > indications if the installation is not done correctly. We use a mapping > test set to find the best location on airplanes before installation. > > Mike > > Lancair Legacy > TS-11 > Kitfox > A-320 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker > To: avionics-list@matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope > > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" > > > Bought a WX-8 Stormscope off of ebay complete with wiring > antenna > etc. I will not be installing in my Comp 6 for a while. Question is: > Is it > possible for me to test this unit myself, maybe installing temporarily > in > another airplane or bench testing ? And what should I be looking for > when > testing ? > > Randy > > > -- > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > 11/18/2005 > > > -- > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > 11/18/2005 > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 03:50:25 PM PST US From: Subject: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4993 1.0000 0.0000 --> Avionics-List message posted by: Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger" ....skip.....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......skip..... Fred F. 11/18/2005 Hello Fred, I think that you are right on target. Please let me add a few words about complying with AC 20-138A from a recent email exchange. OC --------------------------RECENT EMAIL EXCHANGE---------------------- 11/17/2005 Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you again. I'll respond with inserts below. <<....skip.....My understanding is that any GPS used for primary navigation must meet the TSO C129 guidelines, which basically boils down to having RAIM prediction, RAIM notification, and ability for the external indicator to become more sensitive.....skip......>> OK, but don't forget AIM paragraph 1-1-19. d. 1. (b). Otherwise I essentially agree, but let me pick a few nits. I know that AIM Table 1-1-5 says TSO C129, but that is a bit misleading / out of date. (See ). If one digs a little deeper one finds TSO C129a, TSO C129 (AR), and TSO C146a, are also relevant. Maybe the best way to describe the TSO requirement is to say that one has met the minimum GPS IFR requirements if one complies with the latest / current version of TSO C129__ and the "appropriate" AIM requirements. More on "appropriate" AIM requirements later. Also note the subcategory capabilities within TSO C129__ shown in Table 1-1-5 of the AIM. . Without a copy of the current TSO and Table 1-1-5 in front of one it is almost impossible to make a decision or take a definitive stand on GPS IFR requirements. The problem with getting the TSO documents and doing research is that the TSO documents don't seamlessly relate to each other content wise and date wise and frequently the TSO document is a bare shell with the meat of the subject matter contained in several not readily available, and expensive if available, documents that are referenced by the TSO. Not quite. For initial certification the inspector's IFR avionics inspection obligation is fulfilled by this sentence in each aircraft's Operating Limitations "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." It is up to the builder and not the inspector to "appropriately equip" his aircraft in this regard. An over zealous inspector my have personal preferences in regard to IFR avionics and because he has the power of the Administrator during the initial inspection he may exert some influence, but he has no valid FAA prerogative with regard to IFR avionics. That is why the recent great leaps forward in instrumentation and avionics technology have come from the amateur built experimental aircraft community -- our hands were not tied by inspectors forcing us to use the old fashioned tried and true hardware. Here is the problem in trying to comply literally with AC 20-138A: When an FAA bureaucrat or lawyer sits down to write an FAR, a NPRM, an Advisory Circular, or a paragraph in the AIM, unless that document is aimed specifically at aircraft with special airworthiness certificates (and the writer is knowledgable thereof) the document is fundamentally being written for type certificated aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates. But the FAA doesn't make note of (or appreciate) this fact. So AC 20-138A should really begin "1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance material for the airworthness approval of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment [and its installation in standard type certificated aircraft]." My words added in [xxx]. Now go to paragraph 21 of AC 20-138 INSTALLED PERFORMANCE - DATA SUBMITTAL. The first sentence of paragraph 21.a. reads "General. This paragraph identifies documentation typically required by the aircraft certification authorities to support installation approval." These "aircraft certification authorities" do not exist for installations in previously certified amateur built experimental aircraft and if they existed they would not have any published standards for amateur built aircraft to measure compliance against. There is no FAA administrative mechanism for additional certification approval of an amateur built experimental aircraft after its initial certification so there are no "certification authorities" to submit amateur built experimental aircraft subsequent GPS installation documents to for approval.** The Operating Limitations of each amateur built experimental aircraft gives direction as to how major modifications are to be accomplished and recorded by anyone doing so (doesn't have to be the builder). Minor modifications of the aircraft are left completely in the hands of anyone choosing to make them. The last sentence of paragraph 21. a. reads "The data described in this paragraph is applicable to obtaining an STC, an amended TC or an amended STC." Amateur built experimental aircraft do not have Type Certificates so it is not feasible to attempt to create documents in order to obtain supplements or amendments to a Type Certificate that does not exist. So we amateur aircraft builders and pilots need to follow the AIM (and other FAA documents) when appropriate, but recognize that sometimes attempting to literally follow those documents just is not feasible. <> Agreed. OC **PS: A few years back a builder posted his experience with trying to get the FSDO to bless / approve / certify his GPS installation in an already flying amateur built experimental aircraft in accordance with a then current AC that called for a flight test (as does AC 20-138A). After months of paper shuffling and delay he finally coerced a terrified FAA bureaucrat to fly in his death machine. The FAA gent spent the entire flight staring out the windshield waiting for either the inevitable mid air collision or the imminent crash. The performance of the GPS installation was beneath / beyond his level of interest. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hicks, Wayne" Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements > We've had similar discussions on our canard email lists. My understanding > is > that any GPS used for primary navigation must meet the TSO C129 > guidelines, > which basically boils down to having RAIM prediction, RAIM notification, > and > ability for the external indicator to become more sensitive. It must be > installed according to AC 20-138. Any GPS can be used as long as it meets > the TSO. But as of right now, the only units capable of doing this are > from > the big boys, like the Garmins, Kings, and others. Blue Mountain for > example is not and cannot. Handhelds need not apply either. > > Do I have this right, or is it time to educate Wayne again. (I enjoy this > so much.) > > ==================== > L. Wayne Hicks > Senior Engineer > Zel Technologies, LLC > 757-325-1282 phone > wayne.hicks@zeltech.com > http://www.zeltech.com