Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:04 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (JNice51355@aol.com)
2. 05:04 AM - Vans orders. Web or call em? (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
3. 05:36 AM - Re: Vans orders. Web or call em? (PSILeD@aol.com)
4. 06:12 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Jim Brown)
5. 06:14 AM - Re: Vans orders. Web or call em? (Leesafur@aol.com)
6. 06:26 AM - Re: Carbs, Turbos, and CFM... (Eric Parlow)
7. 06:35 AM - Re: Vans orders. Web or call em? (Nebr RV-8)
8. 06:40 AM - TCM FADEC for the Lycoming (RV8ter@aol.com)
9. 07:02 AM - Re: MT Propeller weights (Charlie Kuss)
10. 07:11 AM - Re: Vans orders. Web or call em? (Jerry Springer)
11. 07:16 AM - Re: Vans orders. Web or call em? (Alex Peterson)
12. 07:48 AM - Re: MT Propeller weights (Randy Lervold)
13. 07:56 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Mike Robertson)
14. 08:02 AM - Re: Wire Sizes in the wing (Mike Robertson)
15. 08:02 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Noel & Yoshie Simmons)
16. 08:20 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Mike Robertson)
17. 09:03 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Humor) (Tom Gummo)
18. 09:13 AM - Re: Vans orders. Web or call em? (John)
19. 09:28 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Cy Galley)
20. 09:33 AM - Thank you for RV-ator offers (Aircraft Technical Book Company)
21. 09:33 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Humor) ()
22. 09:41 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
23. 10:11 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Bill VonDane)
24. 10:21 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
25. 10:33 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Mike Robertson)
26. 10:40 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Mike Robertson)
27. 10:46 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Mike Robertson)
28. 10:54 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Mike Robertson)
29. 10:59 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (C. Rabaut)
30. 11:14 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Gary Zilik)
31. 11:20 AM - Dynon - Rethink Internal Battery (Ross Mickey)
32. 11:58 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
33. 11:59 AM - Re: Transponder Checks (SportAV8R@aol.com)
34. 12:05 PM - Re: Dynon - Rethink Internal Battery (SportAV8R@aol.com)
35. 12:13 PM - Re: Transponder Checks (Bill VonDane)
36. 12:33 PM - Re: Transponder Checks (Bill VonDane)
37. 12:35 PM - Re: Transponder Checks (Noel & Yoshie Simmons)
38. 01:34 PM - Re: TCM FADEC for the Lycoming (Eric Parlow)
39. 01:47 PM - Re: Transponder Checks (Mike Robertson)
40. 01:57 PM - Re: Transponder Checks (Scott Bilinski)
41. 02:23 PM - Canopy (DAVAWALKER@aol.com)
42. 02:39 PM - Re: Transponder Checks (Mike Robertson)
43. 05:18 PM - Re: Dynon - Rethink Internal Battery (Sam Buchanan)
44. 05:34 PM - Formation in Wisconsin? (Chris Good)
45. 06:47 PM - Re: Transponder Checks (Larry Bowen)
46. 06:49 PM - Re: Canopy (Ed Holyoke)
47. 07:34 PM - Re: Dynon - Rethink Internal Battery (N67BT@aol.com)
48. 08:24 PM - Re: Vans orders. Web or call em? (James E. Clark)
49. 08:54 PM - Re: Transponder Checks (James E. Clark)
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: | Re: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
In a message dated 2/12/04 7:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sisson@consolidated.net writes:
> he said that they were not
> >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to make
> an
> >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on each
> specific
> >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type)
Me thinks this individual is either guilty of a bad joke or a total idiot.
An avionics shop does not have to get approval to work on each specific type
certificated aircraft, and they use the same equiptment to do all of their
checks no matter what kind of airplane. Why would experimental aircraft be "any"
different??
do not archive
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: | Vans orders. Web or call em? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Current builders ordering a lot......
Can you advise on whether, from a timing perspective, you use the web or
call vans when placing an order?
In the past days, say 4 years ago, my experience was there was no
difference between calling and ordering on the web.
However, my last three web orders take 3 days to ship.
I enter web order Monday morning, 3am pst. And it does not ship till
Wednesday. And I get it 5 days later. Which means I cant order it on a
Monday and have it for the weekend. ARGH!
I generally don't want to call them as this just keeps prices up and can
be much less efficient. But if this is now common, then I will call for
my orders, if calling means it ships that day.
Advice?
Michael Stewart
Repeat offender loving this PP stuff.
Do not archive
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: Vans orders. Web or call em? |
--> RV-List message posted by: PSILeD@aol.com
Mike,
I use the web to order, it just seems easier.
Paul LeDoux
Falcon Field
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: | Re: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Brown <acrojim@cfl.rr.com>
Dan,
I suspect that you may be getting bunch of BULL. I have had two
transponder, and static systems check on my Experimental Europa. One
check was done in Billings Montana, in 2000, and two years later in 2002
at another avionics shop in Ocala Florida..
Once the a/c is licensed, why would Avionics shops need license to
inspect each different type of plane. Transponders are the same either
installed in Factory a/c or in home builts.
Just my two cents worth.
Jim Brown
RV 7A
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: Vans orders. Web or call em? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Leesafur@aol.com
When they are open I call when they are closed I use the web ether way it
takes more than a week to receive my order. With that said its to be expected to
take that long when a company ships that much stuff. They could hire more
people but then prices would go up. Hears an example I screwed up some 2023 plate
material to get the material locally it would have cost me over a hundred
dollars called Vans 12 bucks pulse shipping.
Do not archive
Lee
Anoka, MN
RV-3 Wing
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: | Carbs, Turbos, and CFM... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
Bill,
I'm considering doing the same thing on my -8A.
My background is engine design and development.
I worked as TCM's Senior Product Engineer and now work as Senior Project
Engineer for Borg Warner Turbo Systems. I do turbo matching every day!
I need the following to match a turbo:
Engine Speed
Displacement
Volumetric Efficiency*
BSFC* (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption) lb/bhp*hr
Power
Air filter restriction*
Exhaust restriction*
* I can guess at these based on my work at TCM
I also did the work on the TCM FADEC for the Lycoming IOF-360 that Mattituck
sells.
This is my only experience with how the Lycomig performs.
The major issue is designing a turbine wastegate to regulate the boost.
I assume you want to turbo normalize. i.e. maintain 160 bhp to 17,500ft.
Give me call and let's talk.
ERic--
GodSpeed Aviation
(828) 777-7976
Anyone have any idea what the CFM rating on the marvel carbs are for an
O320, and or what CFM a turbo would have to be able to flow on an O320?
Anyone have knowledge of putting a turbo on an O320 out there?
-Bill VonDane
EAA Tech Counselor
RV-8A ~ N8WV ~ Colorado Springs
www.vondane.com
www.creativair.com
www.epanelbuilder.com
Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and
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: | Vans orders. Web or call em? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Nebr RV-8" <nebrrv8@earthlink.net>
Another possible angle is that internet sales are sale tax exempt.
Jim Muegge
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Leesafur@aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Vans orders. Web or call em?
--> RV-List message posted by: Leesafur@aol.com
When they are open I call when they are closed I use the web ether way
it
takes more than a week to receive my order. With that said its to be
expected to
take that long when a company ships that much stuff. They could hire
more
people but then prices would go up. Hears an example I screwed up some
2023 plate
material to get the material locally it would have cost me over a
hundred
dollars called Vans 12 bucks pulse shipping.
Do not archive
Lee
Anoka, MN
RV-3 Wing
==
==
==
==
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 |
|
| Subject: | TCM FADEC for the Lycoming |
--> RV-List message posted by: RV8ter@aol.com
Eric, what luck to know you were a part of that FADEC design.
I heard someone say recently that with a FADEC system installed on a O-360,
you bring that Lycosaur design up to modern times in that you can burn mogas as
well as 100LL, appreciable fuel burn rate reduction, measurably smoother,
etc, etc.
But someone else coutered with something like "maybe, but you have to more
careful with prop selection (power pulses very different?) and that's if you can
get it to work right, etc". Apparently fielded units are supposedly received
with mixed results?
Anyway, it's all new and news to me.
Does it only work with an IO setup?
Can you clear the fog up on that FADEC system and give us your inside opinion
on the practical pros and cons of buying that option and it's proper use and
care and whether it's what you would do?
If that's all spelled out somewhere then sorry for the bother and could you
send me a link? :-)
thanks,
lucky
In a message dated 2/13/2004 9:26:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ericparlow@hotmail.com writes:
also did the work on the TCM FADEC for the Lycoming IOF-360 that Mattituck
sells.
This is my only experience with how the Lycomig performs.
The major issue is designing a turbine wastegate to regulate the boost.
I assume you want to turbo normalize. i.e. maintain 160 bhp to 17,500ft.
Give me call and let's talk.
ERic--
GodSpeed Aviation
(828) 777-7976
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: | Re: MT Propeller weights |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Jim,
Thanks for all the info on these new MT props. I have a question I haven't seen
asked yet. What is the minimum diameter of these props? The Hartzell prop (not
the new blades) Vans sold for years was originally designed for Mooneys. It
was a 76 inch diameter model, with a minimum diameter of 72 inches. (A prop repair
shop could trim as much as 2" off each blade and yellow tag it) This was
the size Vans recommended. This meant that you could not safely cut down your
72 inch Hartzell, as it was already reduced by 4" for use on the RVs. What's
the deal with these MTs?
Charlie Kuss
>--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
>
>Hi All,
>
>I just weighed a few of the MT Propellers.
>
>I just used a balance beam bathroom scale. The measured weights should be
>fairly accurate.
>
>Each propeller is a 72" diameter propeller with complete spinner assembly
>installed; ready to mount on an RV with a 1 1/2" cowl spacing and a Lycoming 360
>engine.
>
>The 2 blade MTV-9-B/183-50 weighed 43 1/4 pounds.
>
>The 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59d weighed 46 pounds.
>
>The aluminum blade 2 blade MTV-15-B/183-402 weighed 57 pounds.
>
>I don't know the 2 blade Hartzell propeller weight. Unfortunately, they
>normally give their propeller weight without a spinner and bulkheads.
>
>Jim Ayers
>I may be sending this a second time. My AOL was acting up again, and not
>letting me send messages (maybe).
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vans orders. Web or call em? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Here in Oregon we do not pay sales tax. Van is in Oregon so I don't kow
if that is a factor or not
for the rest of you when you order from Van's
Jerry
do not archive
Nebr RV-8 wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Nebr RV-8" <nebrrv8@earthlink.net>
>
>Another possible angle is that internet sales are sale tax exempt.
>
>Jim Muegge
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Leesafur@aol.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Vans orders. Web or call em?
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Leesafur@aol.com
>
>When they are open I call when they are closed I use the web ether way
>it
>takes more than a week to receive my order. With that said its to be
>expected to
>take that long when a company ships that much stuff. They could hire
>more
>people but then prices would go up. Hears an example I screwed up some
>2023 plate
>material to get the material locally it would have cost me over a
>hundred
>dollars called Vans 12 bucks pulse shipping.
>
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>Lee
>Anoka, MN
>RV-3 Wing
>
>
>
>
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: | Vans orders. Web or call em? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
> Another possible angle is that internet sales are sale tax exempt.
>
Not so - all mail order stuff is subject to sales tax per the
recipient's state's rates, regardless of how the order was placed. That
being said, no one reports out of state internet purchases in order to
pay sales tax. Be sure, politicians are salivating at the thought of
nailing us.
The airframe kits we receive from Van's are a different animal,
discussed at length in this list, which normally must be reported and
sales tax paid thereon before the completed aircraft can be registered.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 437 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
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: | Re: MT Propeller weights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
> Each propeller is a 72" diameter propeller with complete spinner assembly
> installed; ready to mount on an RV with a 1 1/2" cowl spacing and a
Lycoming 360
> engine.
>
> The 2 blade MTV-9-B/183-50 weighed 43 1/4 pounds.
>
> The 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59d weighed 46 pounds.
>
> The aluminum blade 2 blade MTV-15-B/183-402 weighed 57 pounds.
>
> I don't know the 2 blade Hartzell propeller weight. Unfortunately, they
> normally give their propeller weight without a spinner and bulkheads.
Jim,
The Hartzell complete with painted spinner weighs 59 lbs. See
www.rv-8.com/Prop.htm for details and other data.
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 368 hrs
www.rv-8.com
EAA Technical Counselor
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: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Before I answer this I want to say that inspite of every attempt to make
this one FAA diferent regions sometimes have different policies for a
variety of factors.
I will say that within our region the policy is thus. We do not consider
the inspection only of the pitot-static system and the transponder/encoder
to need the aircraft specific requirement for maintenance on an experiemtnal
by a repair station. That gooblety-goop being said here is what it means.
When a repair station is pereforming an inspection they are not performing
maintenance. If the repair station inspects the pitot-static and
transponder checks required by FAR 91.411 and 413 and finds a leak or
something wrong with the system they cannot fix the problem without having
that particular aircraft added to there Operations Specifications. They
would, therefore , simply tell you that the inspection failed. They can
even give you what is wrong but then you would have to figure how to get it
fixed. it may be as simple as pulling out the transponder and handing that
to them to fix (which they can do once its taken out of the aircraft) or you
may have to track down a leak in the pitot or static lines and fix it
yourself. You then would take the aircraft back to the repair Station for
the re-inspection and cetification.
Is that clear as mud. The bottom line is: The repair station may inspect
the pitot-staic system/transponder system but may not repair anything they
find wrong. This is kinda the exemption to the FAR 145 Repair Station
requiement. Inspecting is NOT maintaining.
I hope I have not confused the issue, which is even confusing to us on
occassion.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: Rvsearey@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:40:23 EST
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Rvsearey@aol.com
>
>I was talking to the FAA today about changing my operating limitations and
>the subject came up about who is doing my transponder checks. I told them
>the
>name of the repair station/avionics shop and he said that they were not
>authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to make
>an
>application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on each
>specific
>experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type) I asked him
>how all
>the experimentals are flying around with transponders and he didn't have an
>answer. I did contact the EAA and they are working on an answer. Did this
>FAA
>guy just give me a bunch of bull or what? Does anybody have the real
>skinny?
>
> Dan Decker
> RV-4
>
>
Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN.
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
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 |
|
| Subject: | Wire Sizes in the wing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
This is good info. I would like to add one more thing. AC 43.13-1B has two
very good pitures/charts that tell you exactly which wire to use for a given
application. They are fires 11-2 and 11-3. These charts whn first looked
at seem confusing but when you study them for just a few minutes they become
very clear. They will give you exactly the wire size you need for a given
voltage, amperang, and length of wire run.
Mike Robertson
>From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: "Rv-List" <rv-list@matronics.com>, "Rv9-List" <rv9-list@matronics.com>,
> "Rv8-List" <rv8-list@matronics.com>, "Rv7-List"
><rv7-list@matronics.com>, "Rv6-List" <rv6-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Wire Sizes in the wing
>Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:32:34 -0600 SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>
>Hi Guys,
>
>Just a quick note about something that I've seen in the past month or two
>that is a little confusing. I've had no less than at least 6 people ask me
>for some AWG10 wire to use in their wings. Seems someone "out there" has
>recommened AWG10 or AWG12 for running to the landing lights.
>
>To anyone who is currently wiring your plane, don't fall into the trap that
>some people do.....that being "if some is perfect, more must be better" -
>with wire sizes, this is just a huge waste of money, weight, resources,
>etc.. If the recommened wire is AWG16 or AWG18, there is NO reason to use
>an AWG10.
>
>Just a quick FYI, an AWG10 wire running the approximate length of a RVxx
>wing, will carry something in the area of 800+ Watts. Who has a landing
>light requiring that much power?!?! Heck, an AWG16 wire should carry well
>over 180 Watts in that length.
>
>Here's the simple breakdown before adding in resistance per 1K.
>AWG10 - 70amps current carrying capacity
>AWG12 - 50amps
>AWG14 - 40amps
>
>So, if you are one of those people running those huge AWG10 wires to your
>wingtips, ask yourselves why?!? Two big reasons NOT to are:
>
>1). Cost--AWG16-18 averages around $.17/ft & AWG10 is around $.50/ft (300%
>higher).
>2). Weight--AWG16-18 averages .005 lbs/ft, where AWG10 = .03lbs/ft.
>Meaning, for an average set of wings at 2 wires x 18' = 36' x 2 wings = 72'
>of wire. At AWG16 or 18 the weight would only be about 8oz's total. AWG10
>would be over 2 POUNDS!!
>
>Anyway, sorry about the rant...I just thought it might be a good idea to
>bring this to the surface. Somehow, somewhere, there is a movement to put
>fat wires into the wings, and I don't know why. If you are one of those
>people, please enlighten me and the rest of us!
>
>FYI, I do have AWG12 on up, and will stock some AWG10 in the future, but in
>all reality, there isn't much need for it.
>
>Cheers,
>Stein Bruch
>RV6's, Minneapolis
>
>http://www.steinair.com
>
>
Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here.
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: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
I looked into this to some extent, basically look until you find the answer
you like!
FAR state (from memory) that the manufacture or a certified shop must
perform the by yearly inspection of the transponder with the appropriate
equipment. the transponder and primary altimeter in the aircraft must be
with in 125 feet of each other.
SO as the manufacture of the aircraft you can do the inspection and log book
entry your self as long as you can prove that the altimeter set at 29.92 and
the transponder are with in 125 feet. So set the altimeter and look on the
front of the SL-70, micro air, Garmin 330,or higher, CNX-80 with SL-70R) at
the altitude it is sending out, (it dose a BIT test to insure the antenna is
connected and altitude information is being received every time you turn it
on).
Hope I save someone a $500.00 bill.
Noel (Flame proof shirt on, just don't mess up the hair :>)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Brown <acrojim@cfl.rr.com>
Dan,
I suspect that you may be getting bunch of BULL. I have had two
transponder, and static systems check on my Experimental Europa. One
check was done in Billings Montana, in 2000, and two years later in 2002
at another avionics shop in Ocala Florida..
Once the a/c is licensed, why would Avionics shops need license to
inspect each different type of plane. Transponders are the same either
installed in Factory a/c or in home builts.
Just my two cents worth.
Jim Brown
RV 7A
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: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Actually he is not far off the mark. A certificated repair station has
something similar to the Operating Limitations that your aircraft has. It
is called Operations Specifications. We call them OpsSpecs for short. A
repair station is issued a set of OpsSpecs by the FAA that tells them what
they are allowed to work on. That is called their ratings. There are Class
ratings and Limited ratings. Class ratings authorize a whole class (i.e.,
all airframes that are made of metal, or all communications radios).
Limited ratings are just that-limited. On these type of ratings they must
list by make and model what aircraft/radios/engines they are authorized to
work on.
Now...lets bring experiemtnal aircraft into this equation. Seeing as how
each experimental aircraft has its make listed as the builder, that would
make every experimental amateur-built aircraft a different make and model,
which would have to be listed on the OpsSpecs of the repair stations before
he can perform maintenance.
I can go on and on and totally get everyone confused, so I better just stop
here.
Fortunately for everyone, we don't make our own radios and transponders.
Therefore you can take your experimental aircraft to a properly rated repair
station to have work done on your transponders and radios. They can't work
on the aircraft itself but they can on the radios. Now, the way some of the
repair stations get around this is by having an A&P on staff. The repair
station can then sign off the work on the radio and the A&P can sign off the
work on the aircraft. That is how they usually do installations.
OK...enough?? I hope I've shed some light.
Mike Robertson
>From: JNice51355@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:00:10 EST
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 2/12/04 7:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>sisson@consolidated.net writes:
>
> > he said that they were not
> > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to
>make
> > an
> > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on
>each
> > specific
> > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type)
>
>Me thinks this individual is either guilty of a bad joke or a total idiot.
>An avionics shop does not have to get approval to work on each specific
>type
>certificated aircraft, and they use the same equiptment to do all of their
>checks no matter what kind of airplane. Why would experimental aircraft be
>"any"
>different??
>do not archive
>
>
Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed
Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
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: Transponder Checks (Humor) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> FAR state (from memory) that the manufacture or a certified shop must
> perform the by yearly inspection of the transponder with the appropriate
> equipment. the transponder and primary altimeter in the aircraft must be
> with in 125 feet of each other.
My altimeter and transponder are about 12 inches from each other in my
panel. Does that count?
LOL :-)
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
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: Vans orders. Web or call em? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
One big exception re sales tax...Colorado specifically exempts all sales
taxes on airplane parts...state law passed when trying to get United to
establish an overhaul base in Denver...that failed, but the law is still on
the books...we home-builders in Colorado pay no tax on the airplane or its
parts....purchase of a commercial plane like a Cessna etc, are fully taxed
however.
John at Salida, CO
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
That might be the FAA hook line and sinker approach . In reality, a repair
station will tell you that your RV-n static check has failed. You then as
the builder can fix it and they will re-inspect and certify. At least that
what has happened in the past at my FBO several times.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> Before I answer this I want to say that inspite of every attempt to make
> this one FAA diferent regions sometimes have different policies for a
> variety of factors.
>
> I will say that within our region the policy is thus. We do not consider
> the inspection only of the pitot-static system and the transponder/encoder
> to need the aircraft specific requirement for maintenance on an
experiemtnal
> by a repair station. That gooblety-goop being said here is what it means.
> When a repair station is pereforming an inspection they are not performing
> maintenance. If the repair station inspects the pitot-static and
> transponder checks required by FAR 91.411 and 413 and finds a leak or
> something wrong with the system they cannot fix the problem without having
> that particular aircraft added to there Operations Specifications. They
> would, therefore , simply tell you that the inspection failed. They can
> even give you what is wrong but then you would have to figure how to get
it
> fixed. it may be as simple as pulling out the transponder and handing
that
> to them to fix (which they can do once its taken out of the aircraft) or
you
> may have to track down a leak in the pitot or static lines and fix it
> yourself. You then would take the aircraft back to the repair Station for
> the re-inspection and cetification.
> Is that clear as mud. The bottom line is: The repair station may inspect
> the pitot-staic system/transponder system but may not repair anything they
> find wrong. This is kinda the exemption to the FAR 145 Repair Station
> requiement. Inspecting is NOT maintaining.
>
> I hope I have not confused the issue, which is even confusing to us on
> occassion.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
>
> >From: Rvsearey@aol.com
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:40:23 EST
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Rvsearey@aol.com
> >
> >I was talking to the FAA today about changing my operating limitations
and
> >the subject came up about who is doing my transponder checks. I told
them
> >the
> >name of the repair station/avionics shop and he said that they were not
> >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to make
> >an
> >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on each
> >specific
> >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type) I asked him
> >how all
> >the experimentals are flying around with transponders and he didn't have
an
> >answer. I did contact the EAA and they are working on an answer. Did
this
> >FAA
> >guy just give me a bunch of bull or what? Does anybody have the real
> >skinny?
> >
> > Dan Decker
> > RV-4
> >
> >
>
> Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN.
> http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Thank you for RV-ator offers |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland@rkymtnhi.com>
Thanks you to everyone who offered old RV-ator issues to help us put
together the next 24 year edition. I now have all that are needed.
I'm hoping to have the project done by early May. And, yes, we will have an
update program for those who currently have older editions.
Andy
do not archive
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: Transponder Checks (Humor) |
--> RV-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
Tom,
That will work just fine, as your 12 inches is well within Noel's 125 feet. Simple
math.
do not archive this ever
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Gummo
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks (Humor)
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> FAR state (from memory) that the manufacture or a certified shop must
> perform the by yearly inspection of the transponder with the appropriate
> equipment. the transponder and primary altimeter in the aircraft must be
> with in 125 feet of each other.
My altimeter and transponder are about 12 inches from each other in my
panel. Does that count?
LOL :-)
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
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 |
|
| Subject: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Mike,
Can you comment on the previous email on the builder doing the check.
In short, it said to set the altimeter to 29.92 and (assuming that
you've got a transponder that has an altitude readout) insure that the
altitudes match within the specified tolerance.
Would this approach pass muster?
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com]
Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Actually he is not far off the mark. A certificated repair station has
something similar to the Operating Limitations that your aircraft has.
It
is called Operations Specifications. We call them OpsSpecs for short.
A
repair station is issued a set of OpsSpecs by the FAA that tells them
what
they are allowed to work on. That is called their ratings. There are
Class
ratings and Limited ratings. Class ratings authorize a whole class
(i.e.,
all airframes that are made of metal, or all communications radios).
Limited ratings are just that-limited. On these type of ratings they
must
list by make and model what aircraft/radios/engines they are authorized
to
work on.
Now...lets bring experiemtnal aircraft into this equation. Seeing as
how
each experimental aircraft has its make listed as the builder, that
would
make every experimental amateur-built aircraft a different make and
model,
which would have to be listed on the OpsSpecs of the repair stations
before
he can perform maintenance.
I can go on and on and totally get everyone confused, so I better just
stop
here.
Fortunately for everyone, we don't make our own radios and transponders.
Therefore you can take your experimental aircraft to a properly rated
repair
station to have work done on your transponders and radios. They can't
work
on the aircraft itself but they can on the radios. Now, the way some of
the
repair stations get around this is by having an A&P on staff. The
repair
station can then sign off the work on the radio and the A&P can sign off
the
work on the aircraft. That is how they usually do installations.
OK...enough?? I hope I've shed some light.
Mike Robertson
>From: JNice51355@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:00:10 EST
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 2/12/04 7:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>sisson@consolidated.net writes:
>
> > he said that they were not
> > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have
> > >to
>make
> > an
> > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work
> > >on
>each
> > specific
> > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type)
>
>Me thinks this individual is either guilty of a bad joke or a total
>idiot. An avionics shop does not have to get approval to work on each
>specific type certificated aircraft, and they use the same equiptment
>to do all of their checks no matter what kind of airplane. Why would
>experimental aircraft be "any"
>different??
>do not archive
>
>
Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed
Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
I want to know what happens if you don't have it checked and you get
caught...
-Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
That might be the FAA hook line and sinker approach . In reality, a repair
station will tell you that your RV-n static check has failed. You then as
the builder can fix it and they will re-inspect and certify. At least that
what has happened in the past at my FBO several times.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> Before I answer this I want to say that inspite of every attempt to make
> this one FAA diferent regions sometimes have different policies for a
> variety of factors.
>
> I will say that within our region the policy is thus. We do not consider
> the inspection only of the pitot-static system and the transponder/encoder
> to need the aircraft specific requirement for maintenance on an
experiemtnal
> by a repair station. That gooblety-goop being said here is what it means.
> When a repair station is pereforming an inspection they are not performing
> maintenance. If the repair station inspects the pitot-static and
> transponder checks required by FAR 91.411 and 413 and finds a leak or
> something wrong with the system they cannot fix the problem without having
> that particular aircraft added to there Operations Specifications. They
> would, therefore , simply tell you that the inspection failed. They can
> even give you what is wrong but then you would have to figure how to get
it
> fixed. it may be as simple as pulling out the transponder and handing
that
> to them to fix (which they can do once its taken out of the aircraft) or
you
> may have to track down a leak in the pitot or static lines and fix it
> yourself. You then would take the aircraft back to the repair Station for
> the re-inspection and cetification.
> Is that clear as mud. The bottom line is: The repair station may inspect
> the pitot-staic system/transponder system but may not repair anything they
> find wrong. This is kinda the exemption to the FAR 145 Repair Station
> requiement. Inspecting is NOT maintaining.
>
> I hope I have not confused the issue, which is even confusing to us on
> occassion.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
>
> >From: Rvsearey@aol.com
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:40:23 EST
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Rvsearey@aol.com
> >
> >I was talking to the FAA today about changing my operating limitations
and
> >the subject came up about who is doing my transponder checks. I told
them
> >the
> >name of the repair station/avionics shop and he said that they were not
> >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to make
> >an
> >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on each
> >specific
> >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type) I asked him
> >how all
> >the experimentals are flying around with transponders and he didn't have
an
> >answer. I did contact the EAA and they are working on an answer. Did
this
> >FAA
> >guy just give me a bunch of bull or what? Does anybody have the real
> >skinny?
> >
> > Dan Decker
> > RV-4
> >
> >
>
> Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN.
> http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Does it matter if I only fly VFR vs. IFR?
Dan RV-7A N766DH almost finished.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
I thought thats what I said. Maybe I was too wordy.
Mike
>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:21:03 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
>That might be the FAA hook line and sinker approach . In reality, a repair
>station will tell you that your RV-n static check has failed. You then as
>the builder can fix it and they will re-inspect and certify. At least that
>what has happened in the past at my FBO several times.
>
>Cy Galley
>Editor, EAA Safety Programs
>cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Before I answer this I want to say that inspite of every attempt to make
> > this one FAA diferent regions sometimes have different policies for a
> > variety of factors.
> >
> > I will say that within our region the policy is thus. We do not
>consider
> > the inspection only of the pitot-static system and the
>transponder/encoder
> > to need the aircraft specific requirement for maintenance on an
>experiemtnal
> > by a repair station. That gooblety-goop being said here is what it
>means.
> > When a repair station is pereforming an inspection they are not
>performing
> > maintenance. If the repair station inspects the pitot-static and
> > transponder checks required by FAR 91.411 and 413 and finds a leak or
> > something wrong with the system they cannot fix the problem without
>having
> > that particular aircraft added to there Operations Specifications. They
> > would, therefore , simply tell you that the inspection failed. They can
> > even give you what is wrong but then you would have to figure how to get
>it
> > fixed. it may be as simple as pulling out the transponder and handing
>that
> > to them to fix (which they can do once its taken out of the aircraft) or
>you
> > may have to track down a leak in the pitot or static lines and fix it
> > yourself. You then would take the aircraft back to the repair Station
>for
> > the re-inspection and cetification.
> > Is that clear as mud. The bottom line is: The repair station may
>inspect
> > the pitot-staic system/transponder system but may not repair anything
>they
> > find wrong. This is kinda the exemption to the FAR 145 Repair Station
> > requiement. Inspecting is NOT maintaining.
> >
> > I hope I have not confused the issue, which is even confusing to us on
> > occassion.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> > Das Fed
> >
> >
> > >From: Rvsearey@aol.com
> > >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > >Subject: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> > >Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:40:23 EST
> > >
> > >--> RV-List message posted by: Rvsearey@aol.com
> > >
> > >I was talking to the FAA today about changing my operating limitations
>and
> > >the subject came up about who is doing my transponder checks. I told
>them
> > >the
> > >name of the repair station/avionics shop and he said that they were not
> > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to
>make
> > >an
> > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on
>each
> > >specific
> > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type) I asked
>him
> > >how all
> > >the experimentals are flying around with transponders and he didn't
>have
>an
> > >answer. I did contact the EAA and they are working on an answer. Did
>this
> > >FAA
> > >guy just give me a bunch of bull or what? Does anybody have the real
> > >skinny?
> > >
> > > Dan Decker
> > > RV-4
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN.
> > http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
>
>
Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and
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 |
|
| Subject: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Short answer is "NO" it won't.
Long answer is that we have to look at FAR 91.411 and 91.413. In both of
these regs it does say that the manufacturer may conduct the test but we
have to look further and see to what standards that have to be tested to.
In those regs they lead us to Part 43, App E and F. When you read through
those two parts you will see very quickly that you need to do a lot more
than what he is saying and it requires specific testing equipment.
Mike Robertson
>From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:40:41 -0800
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
><bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
>Mike,
>
>Can you comment on the previous email on the builder doing the check.
>In short, it said to set the altimeter to 29.92 and (assuming that
>you've got a transponder that has an altitude readout) insure that the
>altitudes match within the specified tolerance.
>
>Would this approach pass muster?
>
>Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com]
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
>Actually he is not far off the mark. A certificated repair station has
>something similar to the Operating Limitations that your aircraft has.
>It
>is called Operations Specifications. We call them OpsSpecs for short.
>A
>repair station is issued a set of OpsSpecs by the FAA that tells them
>what
>they are allowed to work on. That is called their ratings. There are
>Class
>ratings and Limited ratings. Class ratings authorize a whole class
>(i.e.,
>all airframes that are made of metal, or all communications radios).
>Limited ratings are just that-limited. On these type of ratings they
>must
>list by make and model what aircraft/radios/engines they are authorized
>to
>work on.
>Now...lets bring experiemtnal aircraft into this equation. Seeing as
>how
>each experimental aircraft has its make listed as the builder, that
>would
>make every experimental amateur-built aircraft a different make and
>model,
>which would have to be listed on the OpsSpecs of the repair stations
>before
>he can perform maintenance.
>
>I can go on and on and totally get everyone confused, so I better just
>stop
>here.
>
>Fortunately for everyone, we don't make our own radios and transponders.
>
>Therefore you can take your experimental aircraft to a properly rated
>repair
>station to have work done on your transponders and radios. They can't
>work
>on the aircraft itself but they can on the radios. Now, the way some of
>the
>repair stations get around this is by having an A&P on staff. The
>repair
>station can then sign off the work on the radio and the A&P can sign off
>the
>work on the aircraft. That is how they usually do installations.
>
>OK...enough?? I hope I've shed some light.
>
>Mike Robertson
>
>
> >From: JNice51355@aol.com
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:00:10 EST
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
> >
> >In a message dated 2/12/04 7:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> >sisson@consolidated.net writes:
> >
> > > he said that they were not
> > > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have
> > > >to
> >make
> > > an
> > > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work
> > > >on
> >each
> > > specific
> > > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type)
> >
> >Me thinks this individual is either guilty of a bad joke or a total
> >idiot. An avionics shop does not have to get approval to work on each
> >specific type certificated aircraft, and they use the same equiptment
> >to do all of their checks no matter what kind of airplane. Why would
> >experimental aircraft be "any"
> >different??
> >do not archive
> >
> >
>
>Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed
>Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
>
>
>==
>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>==
>==
>==
>
>
Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium
Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/
Message 27
| 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: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
If you get caught you could be violated (read that as fined or have license
suspended). FAR 91.411 and 91.423 very clearly start out as "No person may"
operate or use unless the inspections required by those parts are conducted
and found to comply with the appropriate appendix of FAR 43.
Lets avoid going there. I hate being the bad guy.
Mike Robertson
>From: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:26 -0700
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
>
>I want to know what happens if you don't have it checked and you get
>caught...
>
>-Bill
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
>That might be the FAA hook line and sinker approach . In reality, a repair
>station will tell you that your RV-n static check has failed. You then as
>the builder can fix it and they will re-inspect and certify. At least that
>what has happened in the past at my FBO several times.
>
>Cy Galley
>Editor, EAA Safety Programs
>cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Before I answer this I want to say that inspite of every attempt to make
> > this one FAA diferent regions sometimes have different policies for a
> > variety of factors.
> >
> > I will say that within our region the policy is thus. We do not
>consider
> > the inspection only of the pitot-static system and the
>transponder/encoder
> > to need the aircraft specific requirement for maintenance on an
>experiemtnal
> > by a repair station. That gooblety-goop being said here is what it
>means.
> > When a repair station is pereforming an inspection they are not
>performing
> > maintenance. If the repair station inspects the pitot-static and
> > transponder checks required by FAR 91.411 and 413 and finds a leak or
> > something wrong with the system they cannot fix the problem without
>having
> > that particular aircraft added to there Operations Specifications. They
> > would, therefore , simply tell you that the inspection failed. They can
> > even give you what is wrong but then you would have to figure how to get
>it
> > fixed. it may be as simple as pulling out the transponder and handing
>that
> > to them to fix (which they can do once its taken out of the aircraft) or
>you
> > may have to track down a leak in the pitot or static lines and fix it
> > yourself. You then would take the aircraft back to the repair Station
>for
> > the re-inspection and cetification.
> > Is that clear as mud. The bottom line is: The repair station may
>inspect
> > the pitot-staic system/transponder system but may not repair anything
>they
> > find wrong. This is kinda the exemption to the FAR 145 Repair Station
> > requiement. Inspecting is NOT maintaining.
> >
> > I hope I have not confused the issue, which is even confusing to us on
> > occassion.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> > Das Fed
> >
> >
> > >From: Rvsearey@aol.com
> > >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > >Subject: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> > >Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:40:23 EST
> > >
> > >--> RV-List message posted by: Rvsearey@aol.com
> > >
> > >I was talking to the FAA today about changing my operating limitations
>and
> > >the subject came up about who is doing my transponder checks. I told
>them
> > >the
> > >name of the repair station/avionics shop and he said that they were not
> > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to
>make
> > >an
> > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on
>each
> > >specific
> > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type) I asked
>him
> > >how all
> > >the experimentals are flying around with transponders and he didn't
>have
>an
> > >answer. I did contact the EAA and they are working on an answer. Did
>this
> > >FAA
> > >guy just give me a bunch of bull or what? Does anybody have the real
> > >skinny?
> > >
> > > Dan Decker
> > > RV-4
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN.
> > http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
>
>
Keep up with high-tech trends here at "Hook'd on Technology."
Message 28
| 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: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Yes. If you only fly VFR you don't have to do the Pitot-Static inspection
every two years. But there is a but here. If you have a transponder and
altitude encoder installed you have to do those inspecitons every two years.
That requires the static system to be checked for leaks. It is not much
more to do the whole check. Don't get me wrong, thee is more to it, but
once you're there why not do the rest for not a lot more expense.
Mike Robertson
>From: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:20:36 EST
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>Does it matter if I only fly VFR vs. IFR?
>
>Dan RV-7A N766DH almost finished.
>
>
Click here for a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee.
Message 29
| 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: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Mike,
You've NEVER been the "bad guy". I know my thoughts are echoed by a lot
of other folks when I say "You've been a blessing" when it comes to helping
us understand the FARS/Regs; and thereby enlightened us on how to avoid
violating them. Which I'm sure makes us all a heck of a lot safer in the
long run. Thanks,
Chuck
*this one can be "archived"
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> If you get caught you could be violated (read that as fined or have
license
> suspended). FAR 91.411 and 91.423 very clearly start out as "No person
may"
> operate or use unless the inspections required by those parts are
conducted
> and found to comply with the appropriate appendix of FAR 43.
>
> Lets avoid going there. I hate being the bad guy.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>
> >From: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:11:26 -0700
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
> >
> >I want to know what happens if you don't have it checked and you get
> >caught...
> >
> >-Bill
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
> >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> >
> >That might be the FAA hook line and sinker approach . In reality, a
repair
> >station will tell you that your RV-n static check has failed. You then as
> >the builder can fix it and they will re-inspect and certify. At least
that
> >what has happened in the past at my FBO several times.
> >
> >Cy Galley
> >Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> >cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >
> >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
<mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Before I answer this I want to say that inspite of every attempt to
make
> > > this one FAA diferent regions sometimes have different policies for a
> > > variety of factors.
> > >
> > > I will say that within our region the policy is thus. We do not
> >consider
> > > the inspection only of the pitot-static system and the
> >transponder/encoder
> > > to need the aircraft specific requirement for maintenance on an
> >experiemtnal
> > > by a repair station. That gooblety-goop being said here is what it
> >means.
> > > When a repair station is pereforming an inspection they are not
> >performing
> > > maintenance. If the repair station inspects the pitot-static and
> > > transponder checks required by FAR 91.411 and 413 and finds a leak or
> > > something wrong with the system they cannot fix the problem without
> >having
> > > that particular aircraft added to there Operations Specifications.
They
> > > would, therefore , simply tell you that the inspection failed. They
can
> > > even give you what is wrong but then you would have to figure how to
get
> >it
> > > fixed. it may be as simple as pulling out the transponder and handing
> >that
> > > to them to fix (which they can do once its taken out of the aircraft)
or
> >you
> > > may have to track down a leak in the pitot or static lines and fix it
> > > yourself. You then would take the aircraft back to the repair Station
> >for
> > > the re-inspection and cetification.
> > > Is that clear as mud. The bottom line is: The repair station may
> >inspect
> > > the pitot-staic system/transponder system but may not repair anything
> >they
> > > find wrong. This is kinda the exemption to the FAR 145 Repair Station
> > > requiement. Inspecting is NOT maintaining.
> > >
> > > I hope I have not confused the issue, which is even confusing to us on
> > > occassion.
> > >
> > > Mike Robertson
> > > Das Fed
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Rvsearey@aol.com
> > > >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > > >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > > >Subject: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> > > >Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:40:23 EST
> > > >
> > > >--> RV-List message posted by: Rvsearey@aol.com
> > > >
> > > >I was talking to the FAA today about changing my operating
limitations
> >and
> > > >the subject came up about who is doing my transponder checks. I told
> >them
> > > >the
> > > >name of the repair station/avionics shop and he said that they were
not
> > > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to
> >make
> > > >an
> > > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on
> >each
> > > >specific
> > > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type) I asked
> >him
> > > >how all
> > > >the experimentals are flying around with transponders and he didn't
> >have
> >an
> > > >answer. I did contact the EAA and they are working on an answer.
Did
> >this
> > > >FAA
> > > >guy just give me a bunch of bull or what? Does anybody have the real
> > > >skinny?
> > > >
> > > > Dan Decker
> > > > RV-4
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My
MSN.
> > > http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Keep up with high-tech trends here at "Hook'd on Technology."
>
>
Message 30
| 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: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: Gary Zilik <zilik@excelgeo.com>
That's a hypothetical question, correct? :-)
Bill VonDane wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
>
>I want to know what happens if you don't have it checked and you get
>caught...
>
>-Bill
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
>That might be the FAA hook line and sinker approach . In reality, a repair
>station will tell you that your RV-n static check has failed. You then as
>the builder can fix it and they will re-inspect and certify. At least that
>what has happened in the past at my FBO several times.
>
>Cy Galley
>Editor, EAA Safety Programs
>cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>>
>>Before I answer this I want to say that inspite of every attempt to make
>>this one FAA diferent regions sometimes have different policies for a
>>variety of factors.
>>
>>I will say that within our region the policy is thus. We do not consider
>>the inspection only of the pitot-static system and the transponder/encoder
>>to need the aircraft specific requirement for maintenance on an
>>
>>
>experiemtnal
>
>
>>by a repair station. That gooblety-goop being said here is what it means.
>>When a repair station is pereforming an inspection they are not performing
>>maintenance. If the repair station inspects the pitot-static and
>>transponder checks required by FAR 91.411 and 413 and finds a leak or
>>something wrong with the system they cannot fix the problem without having
>>that particular aircraft added to there Operations Specifications. They
>>would, therefore , simply tell you that the inspection failed. They can
>>even give you what is wrong but then you would have to figure how to get
>>
>>
>it
>
>
>>fixed. it may be as simple as pulling out the transponder and handing
>>
>>
>that
>
>
>>to them to fix (which they can do once its taken out of the aircraft) or
>>
>>
>you
>
>
>>may have to track down a leak in the pitot or static lines and fix it
>>yourself. You then would take the aircraft back to the repair Station for
>>the re-inspection and cetification.
>>Is that clear as mud. The bottom line is: The repair station may inspect
>>the pitot-staic system/transponder system but may not repair anything they
>>find wrong. This is kinda the exemption to the FAR 145 Repair Station
>>requiement. Inspecting is NOT maintaining.
>>
>>I hope I have not confused the issue, which is even confusing to us on
>>occassion.
>>
>>Mike Robertson
>>Das Fed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Rvsearey@aol.com
>>>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>>>Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:40:23 EST
>>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Rvsearey@aol.com
>>>
>>>I was talking to the FAA today about changing my operating limitations
>>>
>>>
>and
>
>
>>>the subject came up about who is doing my transponder checks. I told
>>>
>>>
>them
>
>
>>>the
>>>name of the repair station/avionics shop and he said that they were not
>>>authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to make
>>>an
>>>application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on each
>>>specific
>>>experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type) I asked him
>>>how all
>>>the experimentals are flying around with transponders and he didn't have
>>>
>>>
>an
>
>
>>>answer. I did contact the EAA and they are working on an answer. Did
>>>
>>>
>this
>
>
>>>FAA
>>>guy just give me a bunch of bull or what? Does anybody have the real
>>>skinny?
>>>
>>> Dan Decker
>>> RV-4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN.
>>http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 31
| 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: | Dynon - Rethink Internal Battery |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
I have been flying my Dynon for about 30 hours now (3 under the hood) and
love it. I just ran into a problem that may not be wide spread but I will
share it. While flying yesterday, I stopped to fuel up and when I
restarted, the Dynon stuck on the load screen.....the dreaded blue screen
with "Dynon" on it. Since I have the internal battery, I could not turn it
off to "reboot." I flew home and let it sit overnight causing the internal
battery to drain down until the unit shut off. When I powered it up again,
it worked fine.
I spoke with them this morning and am sending my unit in for inspection.
(What a PITA!!!!) I asked if there was any way to hook up a "reboot" switch
to the Dsub so I could do a reboot in the field. The answer was no.
I am seriously considering removing my internal battery to have a reboot
capability.
Another issue I was having with the unit is that upon bootup, I had missing
characters on the display. This would get resolved by restarting it.
Like I said, I love the unit. Flying under the hood was a pleasure.
Ross Mickey
N9PT
Message 32
| 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: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Thanks for a concise answer! I hate to spend the money but I'd hate
even more to find out the hard way that there was an issue. Also,
pretty easy to see how an insurance company might note that you're not
in compliance if there was a claim...
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com]
Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Short answer is "NO" it won't.
Long answer is that we have to look at FAR 91.411 and 91.413. In both
of
these regs it does say that the manufacturer may conduct the test but we
have to look further and see to what standards that have to be tested
to.
In those regs they lead us to Part 43, App E and F. When you read
through
those two parts you will see very quickly that you need to do a lot more
than what he is saying and it requires specific testing equipment.
Mike Robertson
>From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:40:41 -0800
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
><bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
>Mike,
>
>Can you comment on the previous email on the builder doing the check.
>In short, it said to set the altimeter to 29.92 and (assuming that
>you've got a transponder that has an altitude readout) insure that the
>altitudes match within the specified tolerance.
>
>Would this approach pass muster?
>
>Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com]
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>--> <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
>Actually he is not far off the mark. A certificated repair station has
>something similar to the Operating Limitations that your aircraft has.
>It is called Operations Specifications. We call them OpsSpecs for
>short. A
>repair station is issued a set of OpsSpecs by the FAA that tells them
>what
>they are allowed to work on. That is called their ratings. There are
>Class
>ratings and Limited ratings. Class ratings authorize a whole class
>(i.e.,
>all airframes that are made of metal, or all communications radios).
>Limited ratings are just that-limited. On these type of ratings they
>must
>list by make and model what aircraft/radios/engines they are authorized
>to
>work on.
>Now...lets bring experiemtnal aircraft into this equation. Seeing as
>how
>each experimental aircraft has its make listed as the builder, that
>would
>make every experimental amateur-built aircraft a different make and
>model,
>which would have to be listed on the OpsSpecs of the repair stations
>before
>he can perform maintenance.
>
>I can go on and on and totally get everyone confused, so I better just
>stop here.
>
>Fortunately for everyone, we don't make our own radios and
>transponders.
>
>Therefore you can take your experimental aircraft to a properly rated
>repair
>station to have work done on your transponders and radios. They can't
>work
>on the aircraft itself but they can on the radios. Now, the way some
>of the repair stations get around this is by having an A&P on staff.
>The repair
>station can then sign off the work on the radio and the A&P can sign
off
>the
>work on the aircraft. That is how they usually do installations.
>
>OK...enough?? I hope I've shed some light.
>
>Mike Robertson
>
>
> >From: JNice51355@aol.com
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:00:10 EST
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
> >
> >In a message dated 2/12/04 7:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> >sisson@consolidated.net writes:
> >
> > > he said that they were not
> > > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have
> > > >to
> >make
> > > an
> > > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work
> > > >on
> >each
> > > specific
> > > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type)
> >
> >Me thinks this individual is either guilty of a bad joke or a total
> >idiot. An avionics shop does not have to get approval to work on each
> >specific type certificated aircraft, and they use the same equiptment
> >to do all of their checks no matter what kind of airplane. Why would
> >experimental aircraft be "any" different??
> >do not archive
> >
> >
>
>Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed
>Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
>
>
>==
>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>==
>==
>==
>
>
Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium
Internet Software.
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
Message 33
| 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: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
Hypothetically*** what if the altitude readout from your RMI microEncoder is the
only altimeter in the aircraft? You are then essentially flying the encoded
mode C altitude readout (plus or minus the digital Kollsmann window setting)
which is the same data the transponder is squawking.
Even if a test were to show that there was disagreement between the encoder and
the xponder (which could only happen on days when Congress declares that 0=1
or 1=0, thus suspending all digital computing operations until further notice)
there would be no way to "fix" this problem. It is digitally-electronically
impossible for a discrepancy to arise anyway. When the Altimeter window is set
to 29.92, the Mode C data sent to the transponder will be exactly what is shown
on the altimeter display.
Hypothetically*** I believe we can assume that those of us flying with digital
encoders as the "sole reference altimeter" have no need to do such a check nor
any way to adjust anything. The altimeter is the encoder is the altimeter, and
it always "corresponds" to itself, by whichever name it goes.
Enough circular reasoning for now. As Electric Bob used to say, "go ahead, show
me where I'm wrong..."
-Bill B
do not archive
Message 34
| 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: Dynon - Rethink Internal Battery |
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>>I am seriously considering removing my internal battery to have a reboot
capability.
Another issue I was having with the unit is that upon bootup, I had missing
characters on the display. This would get resolved by restarting it.
Like I said, I love the unit.<< snip>>
Wow, Ross. Gives me pause before sending my 2k check to Dynon.
I am glad there are brave soulds such as yourself doing Dynon's beta-testing (under
the hood, no less!) so maybe I won't have to experience "the leans" or worse
if I own one later on.
My plnae may not be all glass cockpit yet, but I have no EMI issues and my electric
horizon is remaining faithful for now. I guess I will keep it that way until
more of this sorts itself out.
-Bill B
interested, but just tire-kicking with Dynon for now...
do not archive
Message 35
| 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: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
Of course... ;)
-Bill
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Zilik" <zilik@excelgeo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
--> RV-List message posted by: Gary Zilik <zilik@excelgeo.com>
That's a hypothetical question, correct? :-)
Bill VonDane wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
>
>I want to know what happens if you don't have it checked and you get
>caught...
>
>-Bill
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
>That might be the FAA hook line and sinker approach . In reality, a repair
>station will tell you that your RV-n static check has failed. You then as
>the builder can fix it and they will re-inspect and certify. At least that
>what has happened in the past at my FBO several times.
>
>Cy Galley
>Editor, EAA Safety Programs
>cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>>
>>Before I answer this I want to say that inspite of every attempt to make
>>this one FAA diferent regions sometimes have different policies for a
>>variety of factors.
>>
>>I will say that within our region the policy is thus. We do not consider
>>the inspection only of the pitot-static system and the transponder/encoder
>>to need the aircraft specific requirement for maintenance on an
>>
>>
>experiemtnal
>
>
>>by a repair station. That gooblety-goop being said here is what it means.
>>When a repair station is pereforming an inspection they are not performing
>>maintenance. If the repair station inspects the pitot-static and
>>transponder checks required by FAR 91.411 and 413 and finds a leak or
>>something wrong with the system they cannot fix the problem without having
>>that particular aircraft added to there Operations Specifications. They
>>would, therefore , simply tell you that the inspection failed. They can
>>even give you what is wrong but then you would have to figure how to get
>>
>>
>it
>
>
>>fixed. it may be as simple as pulling out the transponder and handing
>>
>>
>that
>
>
>>to them to fix (which they can do once its taken out of the aircraft) or
>>
>>
>you
>
>
>>may have to track down a leak in the pitot or static lines and fix it
>>yourself. You then would take the aircraft back to the repair Station for
>>the re-inspection and cetification.
>>Is that clear as mud. The bottom line is: The repair station may inspect
>>the pitot-staic system/transponder system but may not repair anything they
>>find wrong. This is kinda the exemption to the FAR 145 Repair Station
>>requiement. Inspecting is NOT maintaining.
>>
>>I hope I have not confused the issue, which is even confusing to us on
>>occassion.
>>
>>Mike Robertson
>>Das Fed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Rvsearey@aol.com
>>>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>>>Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:40:23 EST
>>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Rvsearey@aol.com
>>>
>>>I was talking to the FAA today about changing my operating limitations
>>>
>>>
>and
>
>
>>>the subject came up about who is doing my transponder checks. I told
>>>
>>>
>them
>
>
>>>the
>>>name of the repair station/avionics shop and he said that they were not
>>>authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have to make
>>>an
>>>application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work on each
>>>specific
>>>experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type) I asked him
>>>how all
>>>the experimentals are flying around with transponders and he didn't have
>>>
>>>
>an
>
>
>>>answer. I did contact the EAA and they are working on an answer. Did
>>>
>>>
>this
>
>
>>>FAA
>>>guy just give me a bunch of bull or what? Does anybody have the real
>>>skinny?
>>>
>>> Dan Decker
>>> RV-4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN.
>>http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 36
| 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: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
I just helped out our local Transponder Certifier Guy here with an -8, and
there are some very specialized tools he had for setting the encoder, and
checking the pitot and static systems...
We had to adjust both the high and low pots on the encoder.....and you need
to set these with the encoder thinking that it is actually at the high and
low altitudes, so you need another machine that fools the encoder via the
static port...
He charges $200, but he checks everything, is very exact in his encoder
settings, and if something is wrong he will let you fix it right there while
he's doing the tests...
Oh, and he's building an RV-4...
-Bill VonDane
EAA Tech Counselor
RV-8A ~ N8WV ~ Colorado Springs
www.vondane.com
www.creativair.com
www.epanelbuilder.com
Message 37
| 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: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
Mike,
Thank you! you are as always correct. part 43 appendix F - ATC transponder
test and inspections" state that you also have to check for interrogation
rate and triggering rates so it is more than an altitude reporting.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Robertson
Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Short answer is "NO" it won't.
Long answer is that we have to look at FAR 91.411 and 91.413. In both of
these regs it does say that the manufacturer may conduct the test but we
have to look further and see to what standards that have to be tested to.
In those regs they lead us to Part 43, App E and F. When you read through
those two parts you will see very quickly that you need to do a lot more
than what he is saying and it requires specific testing equipment.
Mike Robertson
>From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:40:41 -0800
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
><bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
>Mike,
>
>Can you comment on the previous email on the builder doing the check.
>In short, it said to set the altimeter to 29.92 and (assuming that
>you've got a transponder that has an altitude readout) insure that the
>altitudes match within the specified tolerance.
>
>Would this approach pass muster?
>
>Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com]
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
>Actually he is not far off the mark. A certificated repair station has
>something similar to the Operating Limitations that your aircraft has.
>It
>is called Operations Specifications. We call them OpsSpecs for short.
>A
>repair station is issued a set of OpsSpecs by the FAA that tells them
>what
>they are allowed to work on. That is called their ratings. There are
>Class
>ratings and Limited ratings. Class ratings authorize a whole class
>(i.e.,
>all airframes that are made of metal, or all communications radios).
>Limited ratings are just that-limited. On these type of ratings they
>must
>list by make and model what aircraft/radios/engines they are authorized
>to
>work on.
>Now...lets bring experiemtnal aircraft into this equation. Seeing as
>how
>each experimental aircraft has its make listed as the builder, that
>would
>make every experimental amateur-built aircraft a different make and
>model,
>which would have to be listed on the OpsSpecs of the repair stations
>before
>he can perform maintenance.
>
>I can go on and on and totally get everyone confused, so I better just
>stop
>here.
>
>Fortunately for everyone, we don't make our own radios and transponders.
>
>Therefore you can take your experimental aircraft to a properly rated
>repair
>station to have work done on your transponders and radios. They can't
>work
>on the aircraft itself but they can on the radios. Now, the way some of
>the
>repair stations get around this is by having an A&P on staff. The
>repair
>station can then sign off the work on the radio and the A&P can sign off
>the
>work on the aircraft. That is how they usually do installations.
>
>OK...enough?? I hope I've shed some light.
>
>Mike Robertson
>
>
> >From: JNice51355@aol.com
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:00:10 EST
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
> >
> >In a message dated 2/12/04 7:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> >sisson@consolidated.net writes:
> >
> > > he said that they were not
> > > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have
> > > >to
> >make
> > > an
> > > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work
> > > >on
> >each
> > > specific
> > > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type)
> >
> >Me thinks this individual is either guilty of a bad joke or a total
> >idiot. An avionics shop does not have to get approval to work on each
> >specific type certificated aircraft, and they use the same equiptment
> >to do all of their checks no matter what kind of airplane. Why would
> >experimental aircraft be "any"
> >different??
> >do not archive
> >
> >
>
>Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed
>Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
>
>
>==
>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>==
>==
>==
>
>
Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium
Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/
Message 38
| 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: TCM FADEC for the Lycoming |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
See
www.fadec.com
Then let the quiestions begin!
ERic--
GodSpeed Aviation
----Original Message Follows----
From: RV8ter@aol.com
Subject: TCM FADEC for the Lycoming
Eric, what luck to know you were a part of that FADEC design.
I heard someone say recently that with a FADEC system installed on a O-360,
you bring that Lycosaur design up to modern times in that you can burn mogas
as
well as 100LL, appreciable fuel burn rate reduction, measurably smoother,
etc, etc.
But someone else coutered with something like "maybe, but you have to more
careful with prop selection (power pulses very different?) and that's if you
can
get it to work right, etc". Apparently fielded units are supposedly
received
with mixed results?
Anyway, it's all new and news to me.
Does it only work with an IO setup?
Can you clear the fog up on that FADEC system and give us your inside
opinion
on the practical pros and cons of buying that option and it's proper use and
care and whether it's what you would do?
If that's all spelled out somewhere then sorry for the bother and could you
send me a link? :-)
thanks,
lucky
In a message dated 2/13/2004 9:26:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ericparlow@hotmail.com writes:
also did the work on the TCM FADEC for the Lycoming IOF-360 that Mattituck
sells.
This is my only experience with how the Lycomig performs.
The major issue is designing a turbine wastegate to regulate the boost.
I assume you want to turbo normalize. i.e. maintain 160 bhp to 17,500ft.
Give me call and let's talk.
ERic--
GodSpeed Aviation
(828) 777-7976
Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN.
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
Message 39
| 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: Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
The flaw here is tht the encoder/altimeter may be off and that could only be
found with an inspection. Say your altimeter read 7500 feet at 29.92 but
you are actually at 8000 feet. You would think that by reading the alimeter
you were perfectly cruising along at a VFR altitude when in actually you are
flying along at an IFR altitude going against traffic. YIKES!
The encoder check required every two years will help find these errors.
Mike Robertson
>From: SportAV8R@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:59:16 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
>Hypothetically*** what if the altitude readout from your RMI microEncoder
>is the only altimeter in the aircraft? You are then essentially flying the
>encoded mode C altitude readout (plus or minus the digital Kollsmann window
>setting) which is the same data the transponder is squawking.
>
>Even if a test were to show that there was disagreement between the encoder
>and the xponder (which could only happen on days when Congress declares
>that 0=1 or 1=0, thus suspending all digital computing operations until
>further notice) there would be no way to "fix" this problem. It is
>digitally-electronically impossible for a discrepancy to arise anyway.
>When the Altimeter window is set to 29.92, the Mode C data sent to the
>transponder will be exactly what is shown on the altimeter display.
>
>Hypothetically*** I believe we can assume that those of us flying with
>digital encoders as the "sole reference altimeter" have no need to do such
>a check nor any way to adjust anything. The altimeter is the encoder is
>the altimeter, and it always "corresponds" to itself, by whichever name it
>goes.
>
>Enough circular reasoning for now. As Electric Bob used to say, "go ahead,
>show me where I'm wrong..."
>
>-Bill B
>
>do not archive
>
>
Let the advanced features & services of MSN Internet Software maximize your
online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/
Message 40
| 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: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
What happens if there is a incident and the insurance company finds out
system inspections were not done?
At 11:57 AM 2/13/04 -0800, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
><bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
>Thanks for a concise answer! I hate to spend the money but I'd hate
>even more to find out the hard way that there was an issue. Also,
>pretty easy to see how an insurance company might note that you're not
>in compliance if there was a claim...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com]
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
>Short answer is "NO" it won't.
>
>Long answer is that we have to look at FAR 91.411 and 91.413. In both
>of
>these regs it does say that the manufacturer may conduct the test but we
>
>have to look further and see to what standards that have to be tested
>to.
>In those regs they lead us to Part 43, App E and F. When you read
>through
>those two parts you will see very quickly that you need to do a lot more
>
>than what he is saying and it requires specific testing equipment.
>
>Mike Robertson
>
>
>>From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:40:41 -0800
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
>><bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>>
>>Mike,
>>
>>Can you comment on the previous email on the builder doing the check.
>>In short, it said to set the altimeter to 29.92 and (assuming that
>>you've got a transponder that has an altitude readout) insure that the
>>altitudes match within the specified tolerance.
>>
>>Would this approach pass muster?
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com]
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>>
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>>--> <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>>
>>Actually he is not far off the mark. A certificated repair station has
>
>>something similar to the Operating Limitations that your aircraft has.
>>It is called Operations Specifications. We call them OpsSpecs for
>>short. A
>>repair station is issued a set of OpsSpecs by the FAA that tells them
>>what
>>they are allowed to work on. That is called their ratings. There are
>>Class
>>ratings and Limited ratings. Class ratings authorize a whole class
>>(i.e.,
>>all airframes that are made of metal, or all communications radios).
>>Limited ratings are just that-limited. On these type of ratings they
>>must
>>list by make and model what aircraft/radios/engines they are authorized
>>to
>>work on.
>>Now...lets bring experiemtnal aircraft into this equation. Seeing as
>>how
>>each experimental aircraft has its make listed as the builder, that
>>would
>>make every experimental amateur-built aircraft a different make and
>>model,
>>which would have to be listed on the OpsSpecs of the repair stations
>>before
>>he can perform maintenance.
>>
>>I can go on and on and totally get everyone confused, so I better just
>>stop here.
>>
>>Fortunately for everyone, we don't make our own radios and
>>transponders.
>>
>>Therefore you can take your experimental aircraft to a properly rated
>>repair
>>station to have work done on your transponders and radios. They can't
>>work
>>on the aircraft itself but they can on the radios. Now, the way some
>>of the repair stations get around this is by having an A&P on staff.
>>The repair
>>station can then sign off the work on the radio and the A&P can sign
>off
>>the
>>work on the aircraft. That is how they usually do installations.
>>
>>OK...enough?? I hope I've shed some light.
>>
>>Mike Robertson
>>
>>
>> >From: JNice51355@aol.com
>> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:00:10 EST
>> >
>> >--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
>> >
>> >In a message dated 2/12/04 7:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>> >sisson@consolidated.net writes:
>> >
>> > > he said that they were not
>> > > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have
>
>> > > >to
>> >make
>> > > an
>> > > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work
>
>> > > >on
>> >each
>> > > specific
>> > > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type)
>> >
>> >Me thinks this individual is either guilty of a bad joke or a total
>> >idiot. An avionics shop does not have to get approval to work on each
>
>> >specific type certificated aircraft, and they use the same equiptment
>
>> >to do all of their checks no matter what kind of airplane. Why would
>
>> >experimental aircraft be "any" different??
>> >do not archive
>> >
>> >
>>
>>Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed
>
>>Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
>>
>>
>>==
>>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>>==
>>==
>>==
>>
>>
>
>Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium
>Internet Software.
>http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/
>
>
>==
>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>==
>==
>==
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
Message 41
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: DAVAWALKER@aol.com
Fitting the slider canopy to the frame. At the rear center line the
plexiglass appears to flare upward for a distance of approximately 2 inches from
the
inside ( toward the front ) of the rear mold line which is 3/4 inches wide. It
would seem that if the canopy were cut anywhere in this upward sloping area it
would cause the aft skirts to angle upward and away from the aft top fuselage
skin rather than rather than conform to the taper of the aft fuselage.
Any advice on how far forward of this rear mold line to cut will be greatly
appreciated.
Dale Walker
RV 7
Message 42
| 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: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
They could deem the aircraft as being not in a condition for safe operation
(un-airworthy). Not saying that would happen to you but I have seen it
happen to others.
Mike
DO NOT ARCHIVE
>From: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:57:16 -0800
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>What happens if there is a incident and the insurance company finds out
>system inspections were not done?
>
>At 11:57 AM 2/13/04 -0800, you wrote:
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
> ><bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
> >
> >Thanks for a concise answer! I hate to spend the money but I'd hate
> >even more to find out the hard way that there was an issue. Also,
> >pretty easy to see how an insurance company might note that you're not
> >in compliance if there was a claim...
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com]
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >
> >Short answer is "NO" it won't.
> >
> >Long answer is that we have to look at FAR 91.411 and 91.413. In both
> >of
> >these regs it does say that the manufacturer may conduct the test but we
> >
> >have to look further and see to what standards that have to be tested
> >to.
> >In those regs they lead us to Part 43, App E and F. When you read
> >through
> >those two parts you will see very quickly that you need to do a lot more
> >
> >than what he is saying and it requires specific testing equipment.
> >
> >Mike Robertson
> >
> >
> >>From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
> >>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >>Subject: RE: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:40:41 -0800
> >>
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
> >><bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
> >>
> >>Mike,
> >>
> >>Can you comment on the previous email on the builder doing the check.
> >>In short, it said to set the altimeter to 29.92 and (assuming that
> >>you've got a transponder that has an altitude readout) insure that the
> >>altitudes match within the specified tolerance.
> >>
> >>Would this approach pass muster?
> >>
> >>Bob
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569@hotmail.com]
> >>To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >>Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >>
> >>
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
> >>--> <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> >>
> >>Actually he is not far off the mark. A certificated repair station has
> >
> >>something similar to the Operating Limitations that your aircraft has.
> >>It is called Operations Specifications. We call them OpsSpecs for
> >>short. A
> >>repair station is issued a set of OpsSpecs by the FAA that tells them
> >>what
> >>they are allowed to work on. That is called their ratings. There are
> >>Class
> >>ratings and Limited ratings. Class ratings authorize a whole class
> >>(i.e.,
> >>all airframes that are made of metal, or all communications radios).
> >>Limited ratings are just that-limited. On these type of ratings they
> >>must
> >>list by make and model what aircraft/radios/engines they are authorized
> >>to
> >>work on.
> >>Now...lets bring experiemtnal aircraft into this equation. Seeing as
> >>how
> >>each experimental aircraft has its make listed as the builder, that
> >>would
> >>make every experimental amateur-built aircraft a different make and
> >>model,
> >>which would have to be listed on the OpsSpecs of the repair stations
> >>before
> >>he can perform maintenance.
> >>
> >>I can go on and on and totally get everyone confused, so I better just
> >>stop here.
> >>
> >>Fortunately for everyone, we don't make our own radios and
> >>transponders.
> >>
> >>Therefore you can take your experimental aircraft to a properly rated
> >>repair
> >>station to have work done on your transponders and radios. They can't
> >>work
> >>on the aircraft itself but they can on the radios. Now, the way some
> >>of the repair stations get around this is by having an A&P on staff.
> >>The repair
> >>station can then sign off the work on the radio and the A&P can sign
> >off
> >>the
> >>work on the aircraft. That is how they usually do installations.
> >>
> >>OK...enough?? I hope I've shed some light.
> >>
> >>Mike Robertson
> >>
> >>
> >> >From: JNice51355@aol.com
> >> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
> >> >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 03:00:10 EST
> >> >
> >> >--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
> >> >
> >> >In a message dated 2/12/04 7:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> >> >sisson@consolidated.net writes:
> >> >
> >> > > he said that they were not
> >> > > >authorized to do the checks and that any avionics shop would have
> >
> >> > > >to
> >> >make
> >> > > an
> >> > > >application to the FAA for authorization and get approval to work
> >
> >> > > >on
> >> >each
> >> > > specific
> >> > > >experimental aircraft by N number. (not just a general type)
> >> >
> >> >Me thinks this individual is either guilty of a bad joke or a total
> >> >idiot. An avionics shop does not have to get approval to work on each
> >
> >> >specific type certificated aircraft, and they use the same equiptment
> >
> >> >to do all of their checks no matter what kind of airplane. Why would
> >
> >> >experimental aircraft be "any" different??
> >> >do not archive
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed
> >
> >>Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
> >>
> >>
> >>==
> >>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> >>==
> >>==
> >>==
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium
> >Internet Software.
> >http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
> >==
> >direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> >==
> >==
> >==
> >
> >
>
>
>Scott Bilinski
>Eng dept 305
>Phone (858) 657-2536
>Pager (858) 502-5190
>do not archive
>
>
overload! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
Message 43
| 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: Dynon - Rethink Internal Battery |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Ross Mickey wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
>
> I have been flying my Dynon for about 30 hours now (3 under the hood) and
> love it. I just ran into a problem that may not be wide spread but I will
> share it. While flying yesterday, I stopped to fuel up and when I
> restarted, the Dynon stuck on the load screen.....the dreaded blue screen
> with "Dynon" on it. Since I have the internal battery, I could not turn it
> off to "reboot." I flew home and let it sit overnight causing the internal
> battery to drain down until the unit shut off. When I powered it up again,
> it worked fine.
>
> I spoke with them this morning and am sending my unit in for inspection.
> (What a PITA!!!!) I asked if there was any way to hook up a "reboot" switch
> to the Dsub so I could do a reboot in the field. The answer was no.
>
> I am seriously considering removing my internal battery to have a reboot
> capability.
>
> Another issue I was having with the unit is that upon bootup, I had missing
> characters on the display. This would get resolved by restarting it.
>
> Like I said, I love the unit. Flying under the hood was a pleasure.
>
> Ross Mickey
> N9PT
The possibility of some sort of scenario that you described, plus the
fact that my plane is wired per "Lectric Bob's dual bus architecture is
the reason I decided not to use the internal battery in my Dynon. If
there is an electrical fault during flight serious enough to require
shutting off the master solenoid, I will turn on the essential bus which
should provide sufficient battery power to allow a safe conclusion to
the flight. It is my opinion that having the internal battery offers
more potential problems than solutions (and unnecessary expense) to
those of us using the dual bus systems.
Ross, the fault you experienced sounds a lot like what I saw when I was
messing around with the remote mag during some troubleshooting for
Dynon. There was a scenario where I could get the system to hang during
software upgrade since I was powering the remote mag on a separate feed
from the EFIS. Do you have the remote magnetometer? Is it on a different
power bus from the Dynon? Could it be that the mag remained powered up
during the fuel stop which caused a crash when the EFIS came back on line?
If not, you probably just have a sick unit and I am sure a healthy one
is on the way to you.
Sam Buchanan
Message 44
| 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: | Formation in Wisconsin? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chris Good" <chrisjgood@lycos.com>
Any RVers in Wisconsin interested in formation flying? I could use some more practice
before the Ohio Formation Clinic in April.
Regards,
Chris Good,
West Bend, WI
RV-6A
Do not archive.
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
Message 45
| 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: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Does adjusting the encoder integrated into the Dynon present any special
challenges?
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill VonDane [mailto:bill@vondane.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 3:33 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
>
> I just helped out our local Transponder Certifier Guy here
> with an -8, and there are some very specialized tools he had
> for setting the encoder, and checking the pitot and static systems...
>
> We had to adjust both the high and low pots on the
> encoder.....and you need to set these with the encoder
> thinking that it is actually at the high and low altitudes,
> so you need another machine that fools the encoder via the
> static port...
>
> He charges $200, but he checks everything, is very exact in
> his encoder settings, and if something is wrong he will let
> you fix it right there while he's doing the tests...
>
> Oh, and he's building an RV-4...
>
> -Bill VonDane
> EAA Tech Counselor
> RV-8A ~ N8WV ~ Colorado Springs
> www.vondane.com
> www.creativair.com
> www.epanelbuilder.com
>
>
> ============
> Matronics Forums.
> ============
> ============
> ============
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 46
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
I placed the plastic upside down on the bench and slid the slider frame
fore and aft to find the best fit for the center tube to the glass and
then marked the position of the front bow. With the slider back on the
fuselage, I put the glass on top and lined up the mark again. That told
me about where I wanted it to end up. I trimmed just inside the skin
line at the back and then started trimming the front a little at a time
until it sat down on the frame. At first, it looked a little iffy at the
rear as you described, but worked out fine.
Ed Holyoke
6 canopy skirts
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
DAVAWALKER@aol.com
Subject: RV-List: Canopy
--> RV-List message posted by: DAVAWALKER@aol.com
Fitting the slider canopy to the frame. At the rear center line the
plexiglass appears to flare upward for a distance of approximately 2
inches from the
inside ( toward the front ) of the rear mold line which is 3/4 inches
wide. It
would seem that if the canopy were cut anywhere in this upward sloping
area it
would cause the aft skirts to angle upward and away from the aft top
fuselage
skin rather than rather than conform to the taper of the aft fuselage.
Any advice on how far forward of this rear mold line to cut will be
greatly
appreciated.
Dale Walker
RV 7
==
==
==
==
Message 47
| 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: Dynon - Rethink Internal Battery |
--> RV-List message posted by: N67BT@aol.com
If this continues to be a problem why not splice a switch into the internal
battery lead and bring the wire out through the cover?
Bob Trumpfheller
<I asked if there was any way to hook up a "reboot" switch
to the Dsub so I could do a reboot in the field. The answer was no.>
Message 48
| 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: | Vans orders. Web or call em? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Mike,
I do both, BUT .....
I have a note on file that says something like "always ship UPS 2-day" (or
something to that effect). A Southeast hub for UPS is here in Columbia.
When I call, I know that if it is near 3PM it will not make it out that day
(not a problem in your case).
When it is internet, I **think** they pull those orders once per day (at
least I think someone there told me that). Again, should not be a problem
with your 3AM PST ordering.
Another point I seem to recall is that they try to minimize the default
shipping costs to us and thus they allow it to take "several" days to keep
our costs down.
Since I was experiencing delays I did not like some time in the past (just
as you ... if I ordered it during the week, I REALLY wanted it by the
weekend), I had the adder to my file as mentioned above. Of course that
means that I pay more for shipping but it flags them that if I have called
something in I probably want it "last week" :-). This seems to work.
Hope this helps as I understand the frustration.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stewart, Michael
> (ISS Atlanta)
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:03 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Vans orders. Web or call em?
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> Current builders ordering a lot......
>
> Can you advise on whether, from a timing perspective, you use the web or
> call vans when placing an order?
>
> In the past days, say 4 years ago, my experience was there was no
> difference between calling and ordering on the web.
>
> However, my last three web orders take 3 days to ship.
>
> I enter web order Monday morning, 3am pst. And it does not ship till
> Wednesday. And I get it 5 days later. Which means I cant order it on a
> Monday and have it for the weekend. ARGH!
>
> I generally don't want to call them as this just keeps prices up and can
> be much less efficient. But if this is now common, then I will call for
> my orders, if calling means it ships that day.
>
>
> Advice?
>
>
> Michael Stewart
>
> Repeat offender loving this PP stuff.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 49
| 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: | Transponder Checks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Consistent with Bill's comments ....
A few months back we were having "encoder problems". The local ATC got to
the point of asking "do you have Mode C in that thing??". Well that was not
good ... to get a reputation for not being in "compliance" and have all the
controllers know you by voice (name) and/or N-number. So off to the major
FBO to get this taken care of.
Results ...
After I had taken the transponder out and then the encoder out and had each
bench tested, I found both to be just fine. So I then took the airplane over
and the following occurred.
1. We found the slightly bent pins (2) in the transponder tray and their A&P
fixed them. These had cause SOME altitudes to not be reported correctly.
They also fixed a broken GPS connector. Note though .. there were *two* sets
of people working here. One was the "altimeter inspection crew" and the
other was the "A&P fix stuff crew". And oh, there was me to do stuff as
required.
2. A full "IFR" check was done on the whole system with the "special
equipment". As I recall it was from -1000 feet up to 25,000 feet in
increments of 500 feet (up to a magic point and then in increments of 1000
feet) and then back down in increments of 1000 feet or something to that
efffect. Each step required recording what the altimeter said it thought the
plane was at vs what the "special equipment" was saying the plane really
WOULD HAVE BEEN AT. These had to be within (I think) 1xx feet of each other.
Of course this process required providing the correct "static" pressure for
each altitude.
3. A "leak rate" on airspeed was assessed in this testing as well. (Pitot
pressure supplied)
All of this probably cost about $200 (I think).
Oh, I almost forgot. It was also deemed very important to make sure the
transponder was seeing 13.8-14.2 volts as opposed to the approximately 12
that the battery would provide. This had to do with some measurement of the
transponder that I forget.
In any case, as mentioned elsewhere, the full test is not a simple 10 minute
process. Given what was I done, I think it was a $200 or so that was well
spent as I now am a little less likely to be cruising along unknowingly at
the wrong and thereby same altitude as someone coming in the opposite
direction.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill VonDane
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 3:33 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Transponder Checks
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
>
> I just helped out our local Transponder Certifier Guy here with an -8, and
> there are some very specialized tools he had for setting the encoder, and
> checking the pitot and static systems...
>
> We had to adjust both the high and low pots on the
> encoder.....and you need
> to set these with the encoder thinking that it is actually at the high and
> low altitudes, so you need another machine that fools the encoder via the
> static port...
>
> He charges $200, but he checks everything, is very exact in his encoder
> settings, and if something is wrong he will let you fix it right
> there while
> he's doing the tests...
>
> Oh, and he's building an RV-4...
>
> -Bill VonDane
> EAA Tech Counselor
> RV-8A ~ N8WV ~ Colorado Springs
> www.vondane.com
> www.creativair.com
> www.epanelbuilder.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! --
|