Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - We can't build our own avionics

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

We can't build our own avionics
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we 

can't work on our own avionics.  There's some mental gymnastic type 

'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early 

in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't 

solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a 

board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the 

original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the 

form of the FAA and the FCC.  There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's 

audio panel.  What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?



Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help 

we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?

john(at)ballofshame.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 9:07 am Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

My dad once told me:  There are 3 kinds of people in this world.  Those

who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who

wonder "What happened?"



Apparently there's a 4th kind that writes columns.



-John

www.ballofshame.com



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>



 The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we

 can't work on our own avionics.  There's some mental gymnastic type

 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early

 in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't

 solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a

 board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the

 original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the

 form of the FAA and the FCC.  There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's

 audio panel.  What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?



 Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help

 we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?

Ed Anderson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 475

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

Hear! Hear!



I agree Earnest.  The EAA is now all about suppressing (gently of course) 

any true experimentation because:



1.  They now cater to the Commercial establishment not the small 

experimenter (you know where the real  $$ comes from)

2.  All the experimenter contributes to the EAA coffers are his subscription 

dues - pennies compared to what they get from the commercial establishment.

3.  Experimenters are an endangered minority in the EAA community - so they 

and their viewpoints count for little

4.  You just might embarrass EAA by showing you can build something better 

and cheaper or worst showing  them to be wrong.

5.  While I do believe the EAA supports general aviation, they have surely 

lost sight of their roots.

  The above remarks are made are tongue in cheek (sort of)



I am blind in one eye and pushing 68 years of age.  I Just learned to use 

surface mount components on my PC boards. Like many I thought you had to 

have tons of expensive equipment and specialized knowledge.  I found out all 

one has to do is  search the internet and you would find at least a half 

dozen different ways to do surface mounts at home - very cheaply in fact. 

No need for a $13000 reflow oven when a $38 GE from Target does the job just 

perfectly.  Same for rework stations, in case you need to repair a surface 

mount board, a little ingenuity and you can have one that will do the job 

for less than $100.

No need for $200+ metal stencils for flowing solder paste when a $35 made 

out of Mylar does the job just fine.



Now all of that pertains to a "hobbyist" or small production type operation. 

Yes, when you have orders for a 100,000 units then there is a time for the 

expensive equipment.



But, look at it this way, Earnest, those who unquestionable heed and follow 

such "logic" as you cited will simply stay out of our way {:>).



Ed

---

_________________
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

Ed, et al, For several years now I have railed against the fact that when renewing my Expensive Aircraft Association dues, the question "Why are you joining/renewing?" does not have "building an experimental aircraft" as a reason. Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? 



Rick



PS On the other hand, the latest issue of Sport Pilot has a great article on using the McCulloch engine for LSA's. I guess one slips through now and then despite their best efforts to the contrary. 



On 5/21/07, Ed Anderson <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com (eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com)> wrote:[quote] --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com (eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com)>



Hear! Hear!



I agree Earnest.  The EAA is now all about suppressing (gently of course) 

any true experimentation because:



1.  They now cater to the Commercial establishment not the small

experimenter (you know where the real  $$ comes from)

2.  All the experimenter contributes to the EAA coffers are his subscription 

dues - pennies compared to what they get from the commercial establishment.

3.  Experimenters are an endangered minority in the EAA community - so they

and their viewpoints count for little

4.  You just might embarrass EAA by showing you can build something better 

and cheaper or worst showing  them to be wrong.

5.  While I do believe the EAA supports general aviation, they have surely

lost sight of their roots.

  The above remarks are made are tongue in cheek (sort of) 



I am blind in one eye and pushing 68 years of age.  I Just learned to use

surface mount components on my PC boards. Like many I thought you had to

have tons of expensive equipment and specialized knowledge.  I found out all 

one has to do is  search the internet and you would find at least a half

dozen different ways to do surface mounts at home - very cheaply in fact.

No need for a $13000 reflow oven when a $38 GE from Target does the job just 

perfectly.  Same for rework stations, in case you need to repair a surface

mount board, a little ingenuity and you can have one that will do the job

for less than $100.

No need for $200+ metal stencils for flowing solder paste when a $35 made 

out of Mylar does the job just fine.



Now all of that pertains to a "hobbyist" or small production type operation.

Yes, when you have orders for a 100,000 units then there is a time for the

expensive equipment. 



But, look at it this way, Earnest, those who unquestionable heed and follow

such "logic" as you cited will simply stay out of our way {:>).



Ed

---

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:25 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

Ernest Christley wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>



 The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why

 we can't work on our own avionics.  There's some mental gymnastic type

 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early

 in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't

 solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing

 a board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in

 the original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in

 the form of the FAA and the FCC.  There's even a veiled attack of Jim

 Weir's audio panel.  What is it with these people and their can't do

 attitudes?


	


    I read the article last night, and was somewhat amused as well. 

Basically, as the author states early on, apparently none of it applies

to experimental aircraft, which leads one to wonder why it was published

in the EAA magazine...



    From my own research, which I freely admit may be flawed, I've

determined that none of the stuff that goes into my panel is required to

be TSO'ed (my random thoughts can be found on my website at

<http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/tso.html> if anyone is

interested).  (Presuming) If it does not need to be TSO'ed, then what

requirement would there be for the owner/builder to not be able to work

on it?  Does anyone know of a FAR or other rule specifically saying that

we could not do this work?  Or would this restriction just apply to

working on equipment that *is* TSO'ed?  I'm curious.  I figure that with

no TSO requirement, one is free to design, build, and fly with anything

you'd want in your panel, and presumably be able to repair and/or modify

as desired.



    In the case of transmitters, there are likely FCC rules that need to

be followed, which may include who may perform work on the device.  If

anyone has any information about this I'd greatly appreciate it



Thanks,



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ

http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

Ed Anderson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 475

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

So true, Rick.

  

 I renew for much of the same reason(s).  I do believe  the EAA plays a strong role in defending our rights against those who would take  them away.  Just wish they would throw us a few more bones more frequently  {:>)

  

 Ed

 [quote]   ---

_________________
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com

robh(at)hyperion-ef.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios.  Until the demise of it's

electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many

ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham

radio operators.  Other than the required license for operating a

transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio builders.

The original Heathkit from the then-named Heath Aeroplane Company was not an

electronics kit but an airplane, the Heath Parasol.

Best regards,



Rob Housman

Irvine, California

Europa XS Tri-Gear

S/N A070

Airframe complete

--

Michael Wynn

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 148
Location: San Ramon, CA

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

I had no idea that Heath started as an airplane builder.  I used to do  factory repair of Heathkits when i was in college.  Amazing how few people  can 1) solder properly and 2) follow directions.  Most of the errors where  cold solder joints and misplaced componets.   

 Michael  Wynn

RV 8 Fuselage

San Ramon, CA





See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

_________________
Michael Wynn
RV 8
San Ramon, CA

dwieck(at)cafes.net
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

Rob Housman wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios. 


	


Depends on how you are using them. It is still OK to build ham radios ( 

and kits are still available just not from Heathkit any more)

  Until the demise of it's

 	  Quote: 	
		   electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many

 ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham

 radio operators.  Other than the required license for operating a

 transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio builders.


	


The FCC will not let you build an aircraft transmitter or work on one. 

You have to have a GROL ( General Radiotelephone Operator License) or at 

least be signed off by someone with one.



Here is a summary of when you need a commercial license (GROL):



"You need a commercial radio operator license to repair and maintain the 

following:



     * All ship radio and radar stations.

     * All coast stations.

     * All hand carried units used to communicate with ships and coast 

stations on marine frequencies.

     * All aircraft stations and aeronautical ground stations

     * including hand-carried portable units) used to communicate with 

aircraft.

     * International fixed public radiotelephone and radiotelegraph 

stations."



this is not just a FCC requirement but an international requirement.

Dennis

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

Rob Housman wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios.  Until the demise of it's

 electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many

 ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham

 radio operators.  Other than the required license for operating a

 transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio builders.

 The original Heathkit from the then-named Heath Aeroplane Company was not an

 electronics kit but an airplane, the Heath Parasol.


	


Hi Rob,

	I agree there is no problem for radios operating in the Ham bands (I've

had my ham license for about 17 years or so) since one of the reasons

for establishing the ham bands was for experimenting, but generally it

is a different beast when talking about other frequencies.  Anyone know

if you can legally build and use a transmitter in the aircraft bands in

an experimental aircraft?  How about fixing and returning to service a

TSO'ed commercially produced aircraft band transmitter that is used in

an experimental aircraft?  Any differences between these two scenarios?



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118

http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/



"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"

jetboy

Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 233

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: Re: We can't build our own avionics

Articles like that just increase the challenge....

http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/avionics/avionics.html



deserves congratulations for putting so much together.

_________________
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:57 am Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

Ernest: 

  

Ditto, that is what I got out of the article as well, but.......

   

  I was waiting for him to say if you work on your avionics the terrorist 

will win. 

   

  None of  this applies to experimentals except for may be ELT's and 

transponders. Yes FCC is another story. Gray area? Yes.  

   

   

  However, I disagree w/ your EAA comment. They do more than any  

group for all GA, especially experimental. EAA is 100's more active 

AOPA which is in the pocket of the aviation industry and 

than manufactures. 

   

  Don't Bash EAA, simply write and send the editor your complaints.

   

  Further contact EAA legal and tell them you think that this article 

is full of fallacies. The EAA single handily rights the wrongs of the 

FAA that misinterprets FAR's and makes  up inconcistant policy 

as they go. They will research it and tell you the law, not make it 

up.



  I just can't emphasise how much the EAA protects our right to fly

and build.



   

   

  Sincerely George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME

   

   

   

  >From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com (echristley(at)nc.rr.com)>

 	  Quote: 	
		  Subject: We can't build our own avionics



The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why 

we can't work on our own avionics.  There's some mental gymnastic 

type 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early 

in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't 

solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing 

a board would require a resistor or diode from the same  lot used in 

the original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in 

the form of the FAA and the FCC.  There's even a veiled attack of 

Jim Weir's audio panel.  What is it with these people and their can't 

do attitudes?



Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help 

we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?


	




        Be a better Globetrotter. [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48254/*http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/_ylc=X3oDMTI5MGx2aThyBF9TAzIxMTU1MDAzNTIEX3MDMzk2NTQ1MTAzBHNlYwNCQUJwaWxsYXJfTklfMzYwBHNsawNQcm9kdWN0X3F1ZXN0aW9uX3BhZ2U-?link=list&sid=396545469]Get better travel answers [/url]from someone who knows.

Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.   [quote][b]

Ed Anderson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 475

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:22 am Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

That's interesting, Dennis.



Way back a long time ago, I got a Commercial Radio telephone and Telegraph 

operators license from the FCC - 16 years old at the time, thinking I could 

get a job as radio operator aboard a US registered ship which at that time 

were required by law to have a radio telegraph operator  on board.  But, as 

soon as I got my ticket, they changed the law and they were no longer 

required - so no career as a merchant ship radio operator {:>)



But, it sounds like I could legally build my transmitter (not that I would 

want to).



Ed

---

_________________
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com

dwieck(at)cafes.net
Guest

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

That's interesting, Dennis.



Way back a long time ago, I got a Commercial Radio telephone and Telegraph

operators license from the FCC - 16 years old at the time, thinking I could get a

job as radio operator aboard a US registered ship which at that time were

required by law to have a radio telegraph operator  on board.  But, as soon as I

got my ticket, they changed the law and they were no longer required - so no

career as a merchant ship radio operator {:>)



But, it sounds like I could legally build my transmitter (not that I would want to).

Sort of. You would have to have it approved by the FCC.



Sec.  87.39  Equipment acceptable for licensing.

    Transmitters listed in this part must be certificated for a 



particular use by the Commission based upon technical requirements 



contained in subpart D of this part.

 

All of this does not mean you cant build some of your own avionics, just that

anything that transmits would require a license.



Dennis

cfi(at)conwaycorp.net
Guest

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

Although I don't always see things the way  gmcjetpilot "George" sees them, I must agree with him on his stance about the  EAA.  If the EAA was to be a purely "experimenters" organization,  it would be a very, very small group.   Don't forget that plans  built and kit built planes are STILL experimental as  well.  Without the EAA, we might not have nearly  as many folks building their own electrical systems for OBAM  aircraft.  The EAA constantly reminds me that I can do it and it's worth  it.  I challenge you to tell me of another organization that better  supports our efforts with OBAM aircraft.   Just becuase the EAA is  imperfect does not mean they're the enemy.

  

 Now with that said, I will have to agree with many  other's opinion that the EAA does not support a lot of electrical  systems knowledge.  It would be nice to have somebody volunteer to present  a series of FACTUAL lectures at AirVenture to futher the cuase (hint,  hint).  As of right now, the only folks who regularly present  electrical systems subject matter at AirVenture are from Blue Moutain  avionics.  I think they have a few good ideas, but have a very  different approach to aircraft electical systems than 'lectic Bob. I prefer  Bob's roll-your own method, which is why I'm here.  This group fills the  gap.

  

  

  

 ---

echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:11 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

Michael Hinchcliff wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    The EAA constantly reminds me that I can do it and it's worth it.  I 

 challenge you to tell me of another organization that better supports 

 our efforts with OBAM aircraft.  

"You CAN do it.  Just buy the parts from any of our vendors and plug 
	


them in.  See how nice that looks?  You're such a sweet boy, Michael.  

No, you can do that part, Michael.  That's to difficult for you.  You 

have to have a kit to that.  Look at all the pretty advertisements.  You 

wouldn't want to fly in something that looks like you built it at home 

would you?  Of course not.  You just need to buy some things, because 

they're too hard for you."



I can do without that sort of support, thank you.  The article was 

exactly that patronizing, and was solely written to dissuade people who 

might consider obtaining the skills to build their own.  How someone 

could insult such a large group of people at once is beyond me.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Just becuase the EAA is imperfect does not mean they're the enemy.

  

Any person, group, or organization that would choose to reign in the 
	


creativity or industry of homebuilders are to be marked enemy.  Any 

claim that "you can't" that is not backed by instructions in simple 

physics must be met with fierceness and without prejudice. 



The guy claimed that you can't solder surface mount device, for Pete's 

sake.  I worked in a custom electronics shop as a technician for four 

years.  After it passed through the oven, my job was to test the board.  

The most prevalent problem was that one of the devices was never put on, 

or was broken off.  After testing, I would put a replacement part back 

on...WITH A HANDHELD SOLDERING IRON.  Two lead parts were easy (tin one 

pad, stick the part to that side, then solder the other side), but I 

regularly repaired 40-pin, high-density IC's (lots of flux, drag a ball 

of molten solder across the leads...that one takes some practice).  For 

someone to claim that is isn't possible to do at home is insulting, 

creates an oppressive can't-do atmosphere, and is most definitely not 

supportive.  We are not sheep to be lined up by the EAA to be fleeced by 

their vendors.



Now, I've got to put-up or shut-up.  The can't-doers have had their 

say.  The can-doers deserve equal air time.  I've built one of Jim 

Weir's audio panel kits, and a display for an engine monitor.  I've also 

experimented with some techniques for building LED position and tail 

lights.  I know a few others I know have projects that would be perfect 

for putting the lie to this article.  I'm volunteering to write an 

article entitled "Yes We Can" (I reluctantly will leave off the Da**-It, 

but it deserves to be there).  I will specifically be trying to drive 

home the point that the EAA has no place trying to pointlessly limit 

what can be done.  I have some data on what the FCC will allow.  But I'd 

like to add pictures of components that others have built that 

specifically counter the no-you-can't points, and give descriptions of 

how it is accomplished.  I'd like a few list members to volunteer as 

editors to help me avoid making a complete fool of myself.  I would like 

to make a timely response, so please don't hesitate to speak up.

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:40 pm Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

At 08:33 AM 5/22/2007 -0500, you wrote:



<snip>



Now with that said, I will have to agree with many other's opinion that the 

EAA does not support a lot of electrical systems knowledge.  It would be 

nice to have somebody volunteer to present a series of FACTUAL lectures at 

AirVenture to futher the cuase (hint, hint).  As of right now, the only 

folks who regularly present electrical systems subject matter at AirVenture 

are from Blue Moutain avionics.  I think they have a few good ideas, but 

have a very different approach to aircraft electical systems than 'lectic 

Bob. I prefer Bob's roll-your own method, which is why I'm here.  This 

group fills the gap.



    I attended OSH for 12 years running and produced two

    seminars every year . . . a one-hour gig during the day

    and an evening session that ended when the EAA folks came

    out and pulled the plug. I also wrote about a dozen articles

    for Sport Aviation.



    Long 'bout fall of '98, Cox sent me an article

    written by one Mr. Paul Burgher. He said a number of

    folks had looked it over and thought some of the ideas

    were "fishy" . . . I read the article, did a two page

    review on it and returned it to Sport Aviation and

    recommended that it not be published.



    Nevertheless, about May of 1999, the article pops up

    in Sport Aviation anyhow. Mr. Burgher took issue with

    my review and apparently, somebody in the EAA hierarchy

    agreed with him and directed the magazine to publish the

    thing anyhow.



    So given that I was mentioned in the article, I felt that

    it was only fitting that I explain myself . . .

    which I did and published on AeroElectric.com



http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html



    I decided that it was not a good use of my time to

    swim upstream in that current so I ceased donating

    the articles to the 'cause'.



    A few years later, the new editor (Spangler?) wrote

    me an e-mail or called after somebody turned him on

    to the critical review of Burgher's piece. He expressed

    some dismay that such poorly written material would be

    printed in the EAA's flagship publication. I told him I might

    be interested in writing for SA again but that a decent

    article took 8-10 hours. He said that he now had a budget

    to pay for good work.  I told him I'd dig through the

    works in progress and finish up one or more for his

    consideration.



    A few days later, I got a call from him asking if I

    had anything I could do quickly. Seems someone on tap

    for the next issue wasn't going to perform and he needed

    a piece in a hurry. So, I went to the keyboard and turned

    some test data I had on AA alkaline cells into an article.



http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf



    I guess it filled the bill. It appeared in the next issue

    of SA. However, in years since, no remuneration has been

    received from SA nor have I had any requests to continue

    the relationship. In the mean time, other articles of

    questionable pedigree have been published.  Like this

    little jewel . . .



http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Wired_for_Disaster.pdf



    I've since decided that my time is better spent here

    on the List than massaging the folks at Sport Aviation.

    It's sad but typical of many publishing ventures that

    graduated up from 4 pages of mimeographed hard data

    and no advertising to 150 pages of 4-color, computer

    aided, gee-whiz graphics, lots of advertising and

    management that believes one should have a certain

    number of but not too many pages of "knowledge" to

    print along with the ads.



    Last time I counted pages in an issue of SA, I think it

    was about 130 pages long and I found 10 pages of information

    on how to build airplanes. This was certainly not Paul's

    vision of what the magazine should be . . . nonetheless,

    that's where it is today.



    I went to OSH a couple of years ago and did a couple

    of gigs at some kit-dinners. I don't recall if I got a

    slot in the tents or not . . . I think they offered me

    an early slot early in the week. If I accepted it, there

    weren't many folks there yet. No hard feelings but certainly

    a sense of sadness to watch it devolve over the years.



    Bob . . .

sreynard

Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 13
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: We can't build our own avionics

 	  Quote: 	
		  Sort of. You would have to have it approved by the FCC.



Sec. 87.39 Equipment acceptable for licensing.

Transmitters listed in this part must be certificated for a



particular use by the Commission based upon technical requirements



contained in subpart D of this part. 	




Sorry I'm late to the party!   



Reading the latest EAA article I had to check a couple times it didn't say AOPA on the cover!  It seemed like a lot of cr*p to me.  I can build an EFIS from scratch but I can't change a power FET on a stupid AM radio?  Have to pull parts from the manufacturers stock?  What is that happy horse. . . .  They did a life-time buy on every single component and comprehensively tested each one, right?!?  I don't think so!  I've seen commercial and industrial grade components, but I've never seen "aircraft resistors" for sale anywhere.  And if I do use "Officially Authorized" transistors they are going to guarantee them not to fail right?  Then why do avionics ever need to be serviced?!?  Silliness!  



I have been interested in the idea of building my own avionics for some time.  I think it was Kitplanes that had some articles on the subject.  Having worked on receiver and source test equipment projects, the idea of designing and building a radio would seem like a reasonable place to start.  Shoot, with current ADC's and DAC's about the only RF needed would be a low pass filter.  Software Defined Radio here we come!  It's certainly a lot easier than building an airplane!



Looking over the FCC regs here's something a little interesting:

 	  Quote: 	
		                         TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION



 



              CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



 



PART 15_RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents



 



                            Subpart A_General



 



Sec. 15.23  Home-built devices.



    (a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not 



marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of 



five or less for personal use.



    (b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built 



equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for 



determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder 



is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified 



technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions 



of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment. 	


I'm not a lawyer, but this seems pretty clear to me.  My thinking is that if you keep on frequency, within the bandwidth limits, and make a reasonable attempt at any other spec's, you should be good to go as long as you don't try to sell them.  This agrees with the ARRL news letters I've seen over the years.  People get in trouble for trying to sell unlicensed transmitters or causing interference to others, not building their own.

Steven Reynard

Workshop prep/RV-7 Planning

sreynard

Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 13
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: Re: We can't build our own avionics

 	  Quote: 	
		  Articles like that just increase the challenge....

http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/avionics/avionics.html



deserves congratulations for putting so much together.

	




Now that is impressive!  Food for thought. . . .

dwieck(at)cafes.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: We can't build our own avionics

-> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "sreynard" <sreynard(at)sbcglobal.net>

 	  Quote: 	
		   > Articles like that just increase the challenge....

 > http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/avionics/avionics.html

 > 

 > deserves congratulations for putting so much together.

 > 


	




 	  Quote: 	
		  Now that is impressive!  Food for thought. . . .   


	


Yes he has some neat stuff but he is not using it in the US ( under FCC rules)



Dennis 

N4ZKR

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum