Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:06 AM - Re: Aviation wire (Marcos Della)
2. 05:13 AM - Re: Avionics-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/01/05 (N395V)
3. 07:40 AM - Re: Aviation wire (Brinker)
4. 08:27 AM - Re: Aviation wire (Matthew Mucker)
5. 02:10 PM - Required FAA Paperwork ()
6. 06:16 PM - Garmin 300XL and Database intent ()
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: "Marcos Della" <mdella@cstone.com>
There are many reasons to go with regulation wire and crimps, connectors, etc. I'm assuming that you've already looked over Bob's site at http://www.aeroelectric.com/ for various articles and suggestions...
For me, I use the MS22759/16 for all my single conductor stuff and the MS27500
for all multi conductor/shielded wire. Since you can basically buy things like
22 guage wire for around $0.15/ft or less if you buy in bulk, its hard not to
purchase. You're only going to go up to 20 or 18 gauge for power lines or things
that need the lower resistance/higher current rating.
Almost all my avionics wire is either 22 or 24 gauge for things like the CDIs,
annunciators, etc. For any audio, its always the three strand shielded (even
if two strand will work, the third strand is always needed *after* you pulled
the wire through the plane :-) like my stereo headsets and the RS-232 to the new
altutide encoder). All your breakers are selected based on the "wire" that
they are protecting. You're not really doing much for the equipment itself.
Your mostly trying to prevent issues with the wire.
Lastly, if you've ever taked "hardware store" wire or something similar and shorted
it across a large amperage battery (don't do this, danger danger will robinson)
the insulation will basically melt into a slag and your "wire" is now shorted
to the frame that its mounted on. MUCH better to pop the fuse/breaker/whatever.
Also better to only have it warm up rather than melt down (different
in the MilSpec coating vs PVC or whatever you're using).
I'm only a layman, but most of my experience is in electronics, not avionics.
But I've now learned enough lessons to know that why bother saving a few pennies.
P.S. I just received in the mail today another 300ft of M22759/16-22-9 (22gauge
white) and 100ft of M27500-22TG3T14 (three conductor shielded) for my instrument
panel. Only thing I do a little differently is I use black for ground wires
and red for power wires. White for everything else :-)
Marcos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard E. Tasker
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
--> <retasker@optonline.net>
I don't know if there are any specific FAA regulations about the wire.
I believe in a homebuilt you can do virtually anything you want and can probably
get it approved. On the other hand, how much are you really going to save?
The tefzel wire in my RV9A will probably still be in good shape long after I
am gone. It cost a few bucks more than commercial wire, but it is far superior
in its qualities. All the aircraft wire I have bought is 19 strand - much more
flexible and resistant to damage from flexing than commercial wire which is
typically seven strand. The tefzel insulation and/or jacket is far superior
to most commercial insulations - much better temperature ratings, impervious
to soldering temperatures and very abrasion resistant.
Considering how much money I have in my RV9A, the extra $50-100 or so in wire costs
was well worth it for my peace of mind.
Also, if you ever decide you want or need to sell the plane it will be much more
sales-worthy with regulation wire.
Dick Tasker
Brinker wrote:
>--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker"
>--> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade wire
>(m27500 or
>22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is advised to use it ?
>I have called my local electrical supply and can get shielded wire a
>lot cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was riser
>type. Is the FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
>
>Randy
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
--
--
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: | Re: Avionics-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/01/05 |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: N395V <N395V@direcway.com>
re: aviation grade wire.
I used automotive wire once for a quick temporary project. It shorted, caught fire,
damn near killed me.
Spend the $. Go with aviation grade.
Milt
----- Original Message -----
From: Avionics-List Digest Server
To: Avionics-List Digest List
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:55 AM
Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/01/05
*
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
Today's complete Avionics-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 Avionics-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/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2005-12-01.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2005-12-01.txt
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
Avionics-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Thu 12/01/05: 4
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:40 PM - cell phone adapter (gary.stiffler@kroger.com 12/01/2005 17)
2. 02:41 PM - Aviation wire (Brinker)
3. 06:50 PM - Re: Aviation wire (Richard E. Tasker)
4. 11:34 PM - Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting]
(dralle@matronics.com)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 02:40:53 PM PST US
Subject: Avionics-List: cell phone adapter
From: "gary.stiffler@kroger.com 12/01/2005 17":36:55@roxy.matronics.com,
Serialize complete at 12/01/2005 17:36:55@roxy.matronics.com
--> Avionics-List message posted by: gary.stiffler@kroger.com 12/01/2005 17:36:55,
Serialize complete at 12/01/2005 17:36:55
Does anyone know of an inexpensive cell phone adapter that I can put in
line with my David Clark head set? Or a plan to build one?
Thanks:
Gary
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 02:41:16 PM PST US
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade wire (m27500 or
22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is advised to use it ?
I have called my local electrical supply and can get shielded wire a lot
cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was riser type. Is the
FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
Randy
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 06:50:51 PM PST US
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
I don't know if there are any specific FAA regulations about the wire.
I believe in a homebuilt you can do virtually anything you want and can
probably get it approved. On the other hand, how much are you really
going to save? The tefzel wire in my RV9A will probably still be in
good shape long after I am gone. It cost a few bucks more than
commercial wire, but it is far superior in its qualities. All the
aircraft wire I have bought is 19 strand - much more flexible and
resistant to damage from flexing than commercial wire which is typically
seven strand. The tefzel insulation and/or jacket is far superior to
most commercial insulations - much better temperature ratings,
impervious to soldering temperatures and very abrasion resistant.
Considering how much money I have in my RV9A, the extra $50-100 or so in
wire costs was well worth it for my peace of mind.
Also, if you ever decide you want or need to sell the plane it will be
much more sales-worthy with regulation wire.
Dick Tasker
Brinker wrote:
>--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade wire (m27500 or
>22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is advised to use it ?
>I have called my local electrical supply and can get shielded wire a lot
>cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was riser type. Is the
>FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
>
>Randy
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 11:34:36 PM PST US
From: dralle@matronics.com
Subject: Avionics-List: Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting]
DNA: do not archive
--> Avionics-List message posted by: dralle@matronics.com
Dear Lister,
Please read over the Avionics-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
Avionics-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/Avionics-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
Avionics-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the Avionics-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the Avionics-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
Avionics-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the Avionics-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
- Occassional posts by vendors or individuals who are regularyly
subscribed to a given List are considered acceptable. Posts by
List members promoting their respective products or items for sale
should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble
a typical SPAM message. The List isn't about commercialism, but
is about sharing information and knowledge. This applies to
everyone, including those who provide products to the entire
community. Informal presentation and moderation should be the
operatives with respect to advertising on the Lists.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Aviation wire |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Thanks for all the response's. I surely do not want to cause any
problems after spending good money on avionics. I understand a little bit
about wiring insulation and the differences between the flexibility in the
multiple strands. But this is my first experience with wiring an airplane.
Sorry I did not make myself clear.
Since the FAA generally goes overboard on everthing I figured there
was a comparable readily available wire that could be bought at the local
electrical supply that would be as good as the aviation grade.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade wire (m27500
> or
> 22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is advised to use it
> ?
> I have called my local electrical supply and can get shielded wire a lot
> cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was riser type. Is
> the
> FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
>
> Randy
>
>
>
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: "Matthew Mucker" <matthew@mucker.net>
I am by no means an expert, but I believe two of the primary concerns
involving 'aviation' wire are the flamability of the insulation, and the
amount of smoke/toxic gases that the insulation would emit in the case of a
fire. These are greater concerns than the flexibility of the wire, I
believe.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 9:40 AM
> To: avionics-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker"
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Thanks for all the response's. I surely do not want to
> cause any
> problems after spending good money on avionics. I understand
> a little bit
> about wiring insulation and the differences between the
> flexibility in the
> multiple strands. But this is my first experience with
> wiring an airplane.
> Sorry I did not make myself clear.
> Since the FAA generally goes overboard on everthing I
> figured there
> was a comparable readily available wire that could be bought
> at the local
> electrical supply that would be as good as the aviation grade.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
> To: <avionics-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
>
>
> > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker"
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
> >
> > Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade
> wire (m27500
> > or
> > 22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is
> advised to use it
> > ?
> > I have called my local electrical supply and can get
> shielded wire a lot
> > cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was
> riser type. Is
> > the
> > FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Required FAA Paperwork |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to AeroElectric-List message copied below and previously posted
by: John Markey markeypilot@yahoo.com
<<Good Folks: A friend flying a fast Glasair I recently installed a GARMIN
430-series gps.
The plane originally was approved for night IFR. The shop that did the
installation
is now closed and they messed up the paperwork to the FAA. I think the foul
up is irrelevant because he doesn't need to file anyway since the plane is
experimental.
MUST he file any additional paperwork with the FAA on this change, or is
he "good
to go" given the original signoff for IFR in his operating limits?
Thanks, John Markey
Glasair IIS N661CC @ VPZ>>
12/2/2005
Hello John, Short answer first. No, your friend does not have to file any
additional IFR approval paperwork with the FAA for the installation of a
Garmin 430 GPS in his Glasair amateur built experimental airplane.
To explain:
1) Your friend did not need and did not have any specific ".....orginal
signoff for IFR in his operating limitations." He did not need, and should
not have attempted to obtain, any such subsequent FAA approved sign off.
2) His Operating Limitations, which were part of his original special
airworthiness certificate issued by either an FAA or DAR inspector, should
contain words like the following from the then current version of FAA Order
8130.2_:
"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."
"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
3) Those sentences are the grand sum total of IFR approval for his aircraft.
There are some other instructions in his Operating Limitations that would
apply when operating the aircraft IFR such as:
"In addition, this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable
air traffic and general operating rules of part 91and all additional
limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of 91.319(e)."
"When filing instrument flight rules (IFR), the experimental nature of this
aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."
As long as his aircraft is in compliance with his Operating Limitations and
the instructions in the current version of the AIM he is legal to fly IFR
with no further aircraft approval or paperwork from the FAA.
4) I might point out that included in the AIM for IFR GPS operations are the
requirements that the pilot comply with instructions in his AFM and AFM
supplement and pilot guides. Since your friend is in control of what is in,
or not in, his planes AFM and supplement that should present no problem.
Since the pilot guide for his Garmin GPS is published by Garmin, complying
with that guide should be no problem.
5) Common sense would require that the pilot follow some installation
guidance such as that provided in AC 20-138A and a perform a healthy dose of
VFR / VMC flight testing before attempting any IFR operations.
Please let me know if I can be of further help.
OC
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: | Garmin 300XL and Database intent |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0003 1.0000 -4.4871
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Mark &
Lisa" <marknlisa@hometel.com> and copied below.
12/02/2005
Hello Mark and Lisa, I read your posting below with great interest and found
myself mostly in agreement. But a few points puzzled me -- can we pursue
them?
1) <<You wrote: "My interpretation is if SOME of the data is current, then
the database
contains current data and meets the intent of the AC."
OK, you are entitled to your interpretation. (You are not a lawyer by any
chance are you? I am reminded of that description of a lawyer as one who is
skilled in evading the law.)
2) <<You wrote: "It's up to me to determine of the data is current before
use. This allows me (and everyone else in my situation) to continue to use
my GX60 following the guidance contained in the supplement approved when the
unit was installed.>>
If we are talking amateur built experimental aircraft here the point is moot
because the builder can write his AFM and AFM supplement to say, or not say,
what he chooses as long as it is not in direct conflict with the FAR's, the
GPS manufacturer's "pilot guide", or the AIM.
If we are talking type certificated aircraft here then it would appear that
the actual wording contained in the AFM supplement that was approved by the
FAA for that aircraft would control.
If the supplement was written back when AC 20-138 was current and the
supplement contains the sample wording provided by that AC one has
considerable data substitution leeway as described by Old Bob in his quotes
from that version of the AC.
If the supplement was written after AC 20-138A became effective and it
contains the wording from the sample in that version of the AC then one is
forced into splitting much finer hairs regarding the FAA's intent in my
opinion .
3) You wrote: "I've never received (from the FAA) a notice telling me to
change the information
in the FAA-approved supplement, so I believe I'm still legal in using it, as
approved."
I presume here that you are referring to a type certificated aircraft with
AFM supplement wording following the sample wording provided in AC 20-138. I
would agree with your position.
4) You wrote: "I update my database at the beginning of the update cycle,
such that
my database is dated later than the date of the chart system's first update
cycle. Now I know all changed data on the update cards apply to my
database."
You lost me here unless you mean that you put in a new chip, card, or
software that officially updates the entire navigation database. It is not
important that I understand, but I'll provide the following from TSO C129a
regarding Class A equipment.
"a. (3) (x) 1. The equipment shall provide an appropriately updatable
navigation data base containing at least the following location information
in terms of latitude and longitude with a resolution of 0.01 minute or
better for the area(s) in which IFR operations are to be approved: all
airports, VORs (and VORTACs), NDBs, and all named waypoints and
intersections shown on en route and terminal area charts, Standard
Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs).
NOTE: Manual entry/update of navigation data base data shall not be
possible. (This requirement does not preclude the storage of "user defined
data" within the equipment.)"
Since I am not sure what you are doing I don't know if this pertains or not.
5) You wrote: "Prior to flight, I check all the data I plan to use. By
carrying this list
in-flight I can quickly and accurately assess the validity of data I hadn't
planned to use. If data I need for a particular route is out of date, I
simply request a different route, or use the VOR. So far (3 years), I've
never NOT been able to complete a flight due to out-of-date data."
This seems very conservative and safe to me.
6) You wrote: "I'm meeting the intent of both the FAA and equipment
manufacturer -- and my
own fairly stringent common-sense and safety requirements. And I believe
I'm making Old Bob smile, because this is exactly the result he was shooting
for!"
Anything that makes Old Bob smile is OK with me.
OC
<<OC, While I generally agree with the most conservative opinion when it
comes to
operations under IFR, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation:
> So it appears to me that you are correct
> if one is following AC20-138, but
> that AC20-138A has a specific limitation
> wording recommendation that the
> ".... database must be installed and
> contain current data." I interpret that
> to mean that all of the data in the
> data base must be current.
My interpretation is if SOME of the data is current, then the database
contains current data and meets the intent of the AC. It's up to me to
determine of the data is current before use. This allows me (and everyone
else in my situation) to continue to use my GX60 following the guidance
contained in the supplement approved when the unit was installed. I've
never received (from the FAA) a notice telling me to change the information
in the FAA-approved supplement, so I believe I'm still legal in using it, as
approved.
> As a practical matter it would be
> very difficult for a pilot flying IFR
> in IMC who was taken off his planned
> route to confirm that all of the data
> points on his new routing were in fact
> accurately portrayed in his out dated
> data base.
Actually data currency is very easily determined in a number of ways. I use
Howie Keefe's Air Chart system. I receive a cycle update every 28 days
listing all the information that's changed since the last cycle. The list
is cumulative; all changes since the first cycle of the year are on the
list. I update my database at the beginning of the update cycle, such that
my database is dated later than the date of the chart system's first update
cycle. Now I know all changed data on the update cards apply to my
database.
Prior to flight, I check all the data I plan to use. By carrying this list
in-flight I can quickly and accurately assess the validity of data I hadn't
planned to use. If data I need for a particular route is out of date, I
simply request a different route, or use the VOR. So far (3 years), I've
never NOT been able to complete a flight due to out-of-date data.
I'm meeting the intent of both the FAA and equipment manufacturer -- and my
own fairly stringent common-sense and safety requirements. And I believe
I'm making Old Bob smile, because this is exactly the result he was shooting
for!
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
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! --
|