Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Battery box being demanded

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

Battery box being demanded
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

RayStL

Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 36

Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:41 pm Post subject: Battery box being demanded

Help. I have a homebuilt CH701. A DOT Inspector (Canada) is trying to force me to retrofit a battery box on my sealed Power Sonic battery attached to the cockpit side of the firewall.   I need to convince him it complies with an applicable aviation standard. I am having a hard time finding anything concrete out there. Any suggestions?



Thanks.

--ray

_________________
Ray St-Laurent
701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine

Flydad57(at)neo.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:06 pm Post subject: Battery box being demanded

Would it be reasonable for you to ask the good inspector the applicable 

aviation standard to which you were in violation?  This would save some time 

and would give him the opportunity to "disengage".



Just askin'.



Bob Taylor

TigerCub N657RT



--------------------------------------------------

From: "RayStL" <raystl(at)nbnet.nb.ca>

Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 6:41 PM

To: <aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Battery box being demanded



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Help. I have a homebuilt CH701. A DOT Inspector (Canada) is trying to 

 force me to retrofit a battery box on my sealed Power Sonic battery 

 attached to the cockpit side of the firewall.   I need to convince him it 

 complies with an applicable aviation standard. I am having a hard time 

 finding anything concrete out there. Any suggestions?



 Thanks.

 --ray



 --------

 Ray St-Laurent

 701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330059#330059

RayStL

Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 36

Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: Battery box being demanded

Here are his words...

"you have not provided specific "accepted aviation standard practices" references or documentationÂ required to meet Canadian Aviation Regulation Standard 549.5(b). " 

I am not sure what the FAR equivalent is.

--ray

_________________
Ray St-Laurent
701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine

RayStL

Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 36

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:07 am Post subject: Re: Battery box being demanded

An STC of an equivalent installation might be the easiest way to convince. I think that would be an unvented AGM inside the cabin.  I see there are some under seat Cub STC's that might do. Does anyone have details. If so then I just need to convince him that my battery is equivalent to that specified.

--ray

_________________
Ray St-Laurent
701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:30 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

The problem is that specs here in Canada seldom if ever keep up with

technology.  The best thing to do is get yourself a box similar to either

Tupperware or Rubbermaid which loosely fits the battery then add into the

box some Styrofoam as bump protection.  What he is looking for is

containment of the acid and a possible short circuit in case of an accident.

An installation which can withstand a minimum of 3G forward acceleration is

also important for anything in or behind the panel.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

klehman(at)albedo.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:36 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

Would he be amenable to discussing this with an MDRA inspector since 

MDRA does most of the amateur built Canadian inspections? My MDRA 

inspector never batted an eyelash even with one of my AGM batteries 

sitting on its side on the cockpit side of the firewall. An MOT 

inspector may not be familiar with AGM technology as they don't usually 

do initial inspections.



I was under the impression that a battery vent port had to be routed 

overboard when it was in a battery box??  Impossible to do when the 

battery doesn't even have a vent port. Does Concord say anything about 

boxes for their certified AGM batteries?



When dealing with bureaucracy it might be just as well to fabricate a 

temporary box but then I suppose this guy might want flow through box 

venting if he looks at it closely. Remove the electrical system 

temporarily?  ;(



Ken



On 2/7/2011 6:41 PM, RayStL wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 "RayStL"<raystl(at)nbnet.nb.ca>



 Help. I have a homebuilt CH701. A DOT Inspector (Canada) is trying to

 force me to retrofit a battery box on my sealed Power Sonic battery

 attached to the cockpit side of the firewall.   I need to convince

 him it complies with an applicable aviation standard. I am having a

 hard time finding anything concrete out there. Any suggestions?



 Thanks. --ray

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:02 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

Ok here it is: 



549.5 Construction 



(a) Aircraft, including those supplied in kit form, will be designated as

amateur-built aircraft, where the major portion of the aircraft (more than

50%) is fabricated from raw material and assembled by an individual or a

group of individuals on a non-commercial, non-production basis for

educational or recreational purposes 



Information Note: 



(Ref. AMA 549/1A, para. 5). 



(b) Methods of fabrication and assembly, and workmanship shall be

appropriate and should conform to accepted aviation standard practices. 

 	  Quote: 	
		  From this what he wants to see is the fact you and any other owners of the

kit did more than 50 % of the construction of the plane.  If the Plane is a
	


kit then all you need is the paperwork from the kit supplier stating that

more than 50% of the work to build must be done by the builder to complete

the plane.  Most, if not all U.S. kits will pass this requirement.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:04 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

Just noticed in your case you have a CH 701 with Pegastol wings...  You may

need two certificates for the 50% rule.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

bakerocb

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:10 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

2/8/2011



Hello Fellow Builders,



Ray St-Laurent wrote: "I need to convince him it  complies with an 

applicable aviation standard."



Ray, you might go through this Concorde RG7 SERIES AIRCRAFT BATTERY 

OWNER/OPERATOR MANUAL for aircraft RG batteries and find enough evidence to 

convince your inspector. Please let us know how you make out.



http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/5-0324-rg-manual.pdf



Bob Taylor wrote: "Would it be reasonable for you to ask the good inspector 

the applicable

aviation standard to which you were in violation?"



and Ray responded: "Here are his words..."you have not provided specific 

"accepted aviation standard practices" references or documentation required 

to meet Canadian Aviation Regulation Standard 549.5(b)."



Here is what Part V - Airworthiness Manual Chapter 549 - Amateur-Built 

Aircraft

549.5(b) says:



http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-549-sub-a-1785.htm



Note that the word "experimental" does not appear in this Part V. I have two 

questions:



A) I wonder if the very first composite construction amateur built aircraft 

in Canada met their

then existing "accepted aviation standard practices" ?



B) I wonder if Ray's Suzuki engine meets Canadian "accepted aviation 

standard practices"?



I am grateful to the EAA and many amateur building predecessors here in the 

USA that I don't have to abide by Canadian regulations.



'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to 

gather and understand knowledge."



PS: I have an Odyssey PC-680 RG battery in my KIS TR-1 baggage compartment 

behind the right seat. No battery box per se, just sound structural 

mounting.



===========================================================



Time: 05:06:44 PM PST US

From: "Robert Taylor" <Flydad57(at)neo.rr.com>

Subject: Re: Battery box being demanded



Would it be reasonable for you to ask the good inspector the applicable

aviation standard to which you were in violation?  This would save some time

and would give him the opportunity to "disengage".



Just askin'.



Bob Taylor

TigerCub N657RT



--------------------------------------------------

From: "RayStL" <raystl(at)nbnet.nb.ca>

Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 6:41 PM

Subject: Battery box being demanded



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Help. I have a homebuilt CH701. A DOT Inspector (Canada) is trying to

 force me to retrofit a battery box on my sealed Power Sonic battery

 attached to the cockpit side of the firewall.   I need to convince him it

 complies with an applicable aviation standard. I am having a hard time

 finding anything concrete out there. Any suggestions?



 Thanks.

 --ray



 --------

 Ray St-Laurent

 701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine

RayStL

Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 36

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:44 am Post subject: Re: Battery box being demanded

Thanks for your help so far.



Let me give more background. The aircraft has been flying for over 3 years. The MDRA inspector was fine with the battery.



My aircraft has been grounded since the inspection last August. There were 2 issues they had. The battery is one. The second was because I have a variable pitch prop (Ivo) regulations say I need a manifold pressure gauge. My engine is a â€˜modernâ€™ car engine that continuously measures manifold pressure, throttle position, rpm, air temperature, exhaust oxygen and uses that to control fuel and ignition. A separate manifold gauge would be a distraction at best.



Yes it would have been easier to knuckle under to their inappropriate requests. (I would like to Nuckolls them. Grrr.) 



They finally relented on the manifold pressure issue. Only the battery issue remains. 



The easiest way is to find something approved that will fit in their pigeon hole. Otherwise I have been told I have go through a full technical analysis (and  test?) to justify it. 



On a homebuilt!!!???

_________________
Ray St-Laurent
701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine

sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:49 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

Ridiculous-sounding stuff on their part.  I'm guessing that later removal of said battery box would not constitute a "major change."  More like ongoing experimentation in your experimental aircraft.  Still a hassle to build the box in the first place.  When my pink Gill battery was replaced by an Odyssey, the loss of the battery box was not a reported event.  So it shall remain. 



-Bill B



On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:44 AM, RayStL <raystl(at)nbnet.nb.ca (raystl(at)nbnet.nb.ca)> wrote:

[quote] --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RayStL" <raystl(at)nbnet.nb.ca (raystl(at)nbnet.nb.ca)>

 

 Thanks for your help so far.

 

 Let me give more background. The aircraft has been flying for over 3 years. The MDRA inspector was fine with the battery.

 

 My aircraft has been grounded since the inspection last August. There were 2 issues they had. The battery is one. The second was because I have a variable pitch prop (Ivo) regulations say I need a manifold pressure gauge. My engine is a ‘modern’ car engine that continuously measures manifold pressure, throttle position, rpm, air temperature, exhaust oxygen and uses that to control fuel and ignition. A separate manifold gauge would be a distraction at best.

  

 Yes it would have been easier to knuckle under to their inappropriate requests. (I would like to Nuckolls them. Grrr.)

 

 They finally relented on the manifold pressure issue. Only the battery issue remains.

 

 The easiest way is to find something approved that will fit in their pigeon hole. Otherwise I have been told I have go through a full technical analysis (and  test?) to justify it.

 

 On a homebuilt!!!???

 

 --------

 Ray St-Laurent

 701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330169#330169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:50 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

The section and subsection he quoted you have nothing whatsoever to do with

battery location or installation.  Contact the nearest chapter of the RAA (

Recreational Aircraft Association for clarification.  Their mandate is not

to keep you out of the air just to make you safe when you do fly.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

terry.mortimore(at)shaw.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:25 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

Hi Ray, I'm curious as to how you got to be dealing with the DOT inspector?



If the MDRA inspector did the final inspection and the airplane was flying, how did the DOT get involved?



Any way of getting the DOT inspector out of the loop by going back to MDRA?

                                                                Terry.

---

RayStL

Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 36

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:32 am Post subject: Re: Battery box being demanded

MDRA is only involved in the building process. I had an engine failure at a controlled airport. That got DOTâ€™s attention (thatâ€™s fair). The cause was from radiant heat cooking my fuel pumps (They have heat shields on them now). They did not snag the revised fuel pump setup but...



The DOT inspector was somewhat annoyed that the MDRA inspector had not flagged the battery. It was clear the DOT inspector had never heard of a sealed lead acid battery, AGM, recombinant gas or any the synonym I could think of.  



--ray

_________________
Ray St-Laurent
701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:44 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

I wonder why he stated to you the Section V standard...  It doesn't jibe.  I would ask him again to give the exact standard he wants followed.  



With that you can google Canadian Aviation Regulations and download the whole mess in PDF.  The first number in the part he wants you to follow is usually written as a capitol roman numeral.  The second number is either a 0 or a 2.  If it is a 0 then it is a regulation.  If it is a 2 it is a standard or method to fulfil the regulation.  The third number is the subsection and then the decimal point.  After the decimal point is the specific rules in the subsection.



You can also read the cars in more of an organised mode at:   



http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/menu.htm



I agree with your assessment of the manifold pressure gauge but if they were really sticky on it you could have one installed easily.  It the most it would have meant is drilling and welding a boss onto the intake manifold close to the throttle body...  there is probably one there already.



I think what he wants to see is a box capable of withstanding a +3G forward impact with the weight of the battery in it and also be able to contain the contents of the battery in the case of an accident.  A normal covered plastic battery box... to fit and be properly secured should satisfy him.  Crappy tire (a Canadian thing)could probably help.

Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:20 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

 	  Quote: 	
		  I think what he wants to see is a box capable of withstanding a +3G 

forward impact with the weight of the battery in it and also be able 

to contain the contents of the battery in the case of an 

accident.  A normal covered plastic battery box... to fit and be 

properly secured should satisfy him.


	


      The crash safety hold-down rules here

      call for 10G of tear-away resistance

      for rearward acceleration. For a 25#

      SVLA this translates to 250 pounds of

      tensile strength for retainers.



      We did some studies on 6" strips of

      Velcro on 1" wide straps at HBC and

      measured tensile strengths in the many

      hundreds of pounds depending on how well

      the installer 'mashed' the fasteners

      together.



      On that basis, I've recommended several

      times in the past that SVLA batteries

      might be strapped down in shallow trays

      having lips on the order of 1/2" with

      two Velcro closed web-straps. This kind

      of attention would indicated if the

      battery were aft of crew space.



      If the battery is on the forward side of

      the firewall, it's not going to be a

      missile-hazard.

   Bob . . .

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:47 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

In my experimental I used the group 24 box shown here. 

http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=102091&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&storeId=11151&storeNum=10109&subdeptNum=10548&classNum=10551 

I run a Optima 1000CCA battery to light off my V-8. I needed extra ballast in the rear of the fuselage to offset the slightly heavier engine anyway and the massive amount of electrical storage this battery provides gives me about 11 hours of enough voltage to fire the ignition. That is assuming I am dumb enough to land and refuel 3 times after an alternator failure. 

do not archive 



Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



--------

RayStL

Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 36

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: Re: Battery box being demanded

Thanks to all have responded.  From communications with the DOT inspector, it is clear that the quickest solution will be to reference a STC for a cub or similar that uses an underseat strap down of an AGM battery. I know Concorde has STCs but I have not tracked down yet if that includes elimination of the battery box. 



There is a broader, much more disturbing side to this issue. A DOT inspector wants to revoke approval for something that has already passed inspection. The installation has not changed. That means any (Canadian) homebuilt could theoretically revoke approval for any previously approved installation. It also unjustly (I believe) questions the validity of any previous inspection through MDRA.



I know of other Canadian homebuilts using AGMs without battery boxes but I am not about to cite those as examples. 



--ray

_________________
Ray St-Laurent
701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine

raymondj(at)frontiernet.n
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:49 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

I am not familiar with how the Canadian system works, but I assume a 

bureaucrat is a bureaucrat.  Perhaps the MDRA inspector that approved 

the initial inspection would be offended by the DOT inspectors 

implication that his work was in someway lacking.  Perhaps he might be 

motivated to go to bat for you and for HIS reputation.  The most likely 

way this will be resolved in your favor is if you can get someone else 

in the government to bring pressure on the DOT guy to change his opinion.



Raymond Julian

Kettle River, MN



On 02/09/2011 11:15 AM, RayStL wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Thanks to all have responded.  From communications with the DOT inspector, it is clear that the quickest solution will be to reference a STC for a cub or similar that uses an underseat strap down of an AGM battery. I know Concorde has STCs but I have not tracked down yet if that includes elimination of the battery box.



 There is a broader, much more disturbing side to this issue. A DOT inspector wants to revoke approval for something that has already passed inspection. The installation has not changed. That means any (Canadian) homebuilt could theoretically revoke approval for any previously approved installation. It also unjustly (I believe) questions the validity of any previous inspection through MDRA.



 I know of other Canadian homebuilts using AGMs without battery boxes but I am not about to cite those as examples.



 --ray



 --------

 Ray St-Laurent

 701/Pegastol wings/Suzuki engine





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=330294#330294

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:52 am Post subject: Battery box being demanded

 	  Quote: 	
		  

As far as the battery is concerned though, I think it is a pretty 

good idea to have it in a securely mounted corrosion proof box just 

for your own good.


	


   What degree and style of "bad" would you expect to

   be held at bay by a "corrosion proof box"?

   Bob . . .

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