Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:43 AM - Re: KLN-89B Question ()
2. 04:49 AM - Re: KLN-89B Question ()
3. 07:17 AM - Re: KLN-89B Question (John Rippengal)
4. 12:39 PM - Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations ()
5. 01:32 PM - Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations (John Rippengal)
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 |
|
| Subject: | KLN-89B Question |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <George.Kuehn@dot.gov>
I should have mentioned that I was outside in the clear and I had a
handheld gps that was receiving four satellites. I also checked the
voltage on the antenna lead and unit was putting out the required 5
volts.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "David Lloyd"
<skywagon@charter.net>
Were you doing the test inside a hanger?
I believe that code comes up when the GPS is not sending out position
data
which will happen if the GPS antenna is shielded...i.e. inside a
building.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: <George.Kuehn@dot.gov>
Subject: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: <George.Kuehn@dot.gov>
>
> I'm installing a used KLN89b in my RV. The unit checked out ok at a
> local shop. However, when I went through the initial checks after
> installation, I could not get any reception and the following error
> messages; "No GPS Receiver Data" and "RCVR HW ERROR 0100" Since the
> plane is not flying yet, I pulled the unit out of the rack and to
> another local shop. Again it worked fine in their test setup. So I
> suspect that either the antenna cable or the used KA-92 antenna that
> came with the unit maybe a fault but don't know how to test the
antenna.
> (The cable tests ok for continuity) 1) Does anyone know what the
> Honeywell 0100 error code means? 2) How can I test the antenna?
>
> 3) Any other ideas of what might cause this problem?
>
>
> Thanks, George
>
>
>
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: | KLN-89B Question |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <George.Kuehn@dot.gov>
Hi Bill,
There is a small green plastic module with a stab connector mounted in
the back plate on the lower left side. I believe this is the
configuration module if I recall correctly form the install manual. Now
whether it is working properly is another matter.
Thanks,
George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Gill
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "William Gill"
<wgill10@comcast.net>
Hello George,
Verify that you have the configuration module installed in the back of
your rack. If you don't know what I'm referring to, I could send a
couple of pictures to you directly.
Best regards,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
George.Kuehn@dot.gov
Subject: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <George.Kuehn@dot.gov>
I'm installing a used KLN89b in my RV. The unit checked out ok at a
local shop. However, when I went through the initial checks after
installation, I could not get any reception and the following error
messages; "No GPS Receiver Data" and "RCVR HW ERROR 0100" Since the
plane is not flying yet, I pulled the unit out of the rack and to
another local shop. Again it worked fine in their test setup. So I
suspect that either the antenna cable or the used KA-92 antenna that
came with the unit maybe a fault but don't know how to test the antenna.
(The cable tests ok for continuity) 1) Does anyone know what the
Honeywell 0100 error code means? 2) How can I test the antenna?
3) Any other ideas of what might cause this problem?
Thanks, George
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: KLN-89B Question |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal@cytanet.com.cy>
George,
I had a lot of trouble when trying to install a KLN89B. The problem turned
out to be the rather short reach that the computer type pins have in their
connectors. I was used to the older type of avionics with the long flat
contacts. I found that it was easy for a very small piece of debris or a
slight misalignment of the panel to prevent the unit going fully home and
ensuring all the pins made contact.
Hope it is something as stupidly simple in your case!
John
From: <George.Kuehn@dot.gov>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: <George.Kuehn@dot.gov>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> There is a small green plastic module with a stab connector mounted in
> the back plate on the lower left side. I believe this is the
> configuration module if I recall correctly form the install manual. Now
> whether it is working properly is another matter.
>
> Thanks,
> George
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 |
|
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0683 1.0000 -1.5857
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by: "John
Rippengal" <j.rippengal@cytanet.com.cy>
12/28/2005
Hello John, Thanks for your input. By pursuing this issue in some detail I
am trying to avoid the circumstance where a builder discovers too late that
he has created an installation that is a costly nuisance every two years at
IFR cert time. Just "betting on the come" doesn't appeal to me and I assume
that there are other builders that may feel the same way.
<<1) You wrote: "If you have normal pitot and static ports then normal test
equipment can be connected to those ports on the aircraft.">>
The pitot tube and its plumbing should not play a role in the static system
check unless there is a defect inside the airspeed indicator that allows a
leak through between the pitot pressure chamber and the static pressure
chamber in that instrument.
<<2) You wrote: "In anycase the 'on aircraft' test is much preferable since
it checks for leaks and stoppages in the pipework to the pitot/static
system."
The 'on aircraft test' is not just preferable, it is mandatory. See CFR 14
Sec. 91.217 (b) "Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and
calibrated.....skip....." and CFR 14 Appendix E to Part 43 (c) "....skip...
to ensure that the altitude reporting equipment, altimeters, and ATC
transponders perform their intended functions as installed in the aircraft."
I agree that by far the best circumstance is if the technician agrees to
start the test on plane, has compatible test equipment and encounters no
problems during all phases of the test. But what if after starting the
testing he gets some indeterminate results and can't decide whether it is
the installation, the encoder, or the altimeter that is causing the problem?
The result can be some costly trouble shooting. Whereas if the altimeter and
encoder had been chamber tested by a bench technician prior to the on plane
testing then those two items are eliminated as the source of any problems.
OC
<<If you have normal pitot and static ports then normal test equipment can
be connected to those ports on the aircraft. The test equipment I have seen
generally has 'plug in' adapters to suit. Even though the EFIS is digital
there will be an analogue pressure sensor for both alt (static) and airspeed
(pitot) so you will have to know how to get at the adjustment for those two
items if they need correcting.
You will just have to forget about taking the equipment into the shop. In
anycase the 'on aircraft' test is much preferable since it checks for leaks
and stoppages in the pipework to the pitot/static system.
In Europe I believe, but can't be sure, it is obligatory to do the test on
the aircraft right from the pitot/static ports otherwise you are just
testing the instruments not the system. John Rippengal>>
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: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal@cytanet.com.cy>
Well I was aware that the pitot and the static systems are not connected but
the guy who has the precision pressure gauges - both positive and negative -
is usually the one who does both systems and both should be done from the
pitot and static ports.
The word I used was 'obligatory' rather than 'mandatory' for licensing
purposes in Europe.
There is no escaping the problem of having a number of instruments included
all in one box but at least a reasonable design should allow for easy
unplugging and removal to a test bench. Like avionics now though the test
bench will probably have to be pretty sophisticated.
John
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by: "John
> Rippengal" <j.rippengal@cytanet.com.cy>
>
> 12/28/2005
>
> Hello John, Thanks for your input. By pursuing this issue in some detail I
> am trying to avoid the circumstance where a builder discovers too late
> that
> he has created an installation that is a costly nuisance every two years
> at
> IFR cert time. Just "betting on the come" doesn't appeal to me and I
> assume
> that there are other builders that may feel the same way.
>
> <<1) You wrote: "If you have normal pitot and static ports then normal
> test
> equipment can be connected to those ports on the aircraft.">>
>
> The pitot tube and its plumbing should not play a role in the static
> system
> check unless there is a defect inside the airspeed indicator that allows a
> leak through between the pitot pressure chamber and the static pressure
> chamber in that instrument.
>
> <<2) You wrote: "In anycase the 'on aircraft' test is much preferable
> since
> it checks for leaks and stoppages in the pipework to the pitot/static
> system."
>
> The 'on aircraft test' is not just preferable, it is mandatory. See CFR 14
> Sec. 91.217 (b) "Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and
> calibrated.....skip....." and CFR 14 Appendix E to Part 43 (c)
> "....skip...
> to ensure that the altitude reporting equipment, altimeters, and ATC
> transponders perform their intended functions as installed in the
> aircraft."
>
> I agree that by far the best circumstance is if the technician agrees to
> start the test on plane, has compatible test equipment and encounters no
> problems during all phases of the test. But what if after starting the
> testing he gets some indeterminate results and can't decide whether it is
> the installation, the encoder, or the altimeter that is causing the
> problem?
> The result can be some costly trouble shooting. Whereas if the altimeter
> and
> encoder had been chamber tested by a bench technician prior to the on
> plane
> testing then those two items are eliminated as the source of any problems.
>
> OC
>
>
> <<If you have normal pitot and static ports then normal test equipment can
> be connected to those ports on the aircraft. The test equipment I have
> seen
> generally has 'plug in' adapters to suit. Even though the EFIS is digital
> there will be an analogue pressure sensor for both alt (static) and
> airspeed
> (pitot) so you will have to know how to get at the adjustment for those
> two
> items if they need correcting.
> You will just have to forget about taking the equipment into the shop. In
> anycase the 'on aircraft' test is much preferable since it checks for
> leaks
> and stoppages in the pipework to the pitot/static system.
> In Europe I believe, but can't be sure, it is obligatory to do the test on
> the aircraft right from the pitot/static ports otherwise you are just
> testing the instruments not the system. John Rippengal>>
>
>
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! --
|