From: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Summary: Upgrading airplane to instrument avionics (long)
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:17:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science

Here is the summary of replies I received regarding upgrading my
airplane to instrument status by installing new avionics.  I asked
about the relative quality of the various brands and about
installation.

Several thoughts:

1. King dominates the avionics market in basic equipment.  King is
also the most expensive.

2. Narco is not reccomended.

3. I was disappointed not to learn very much about the newer Terra
stuff.  Either there is very little or nobody wanted to reply.

4. It is possible to install your own equipment with the cooperation
of the right shops.

5. DME seems to reduce pilot workload for doing IFR, but maybe not as
important for IFR training.  I flip-flop whether to get it or not.

Mike Ciholas
mikec@lcs.mit.edu

(responses follow)

**************************************************************
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:15:24 -0400
From: "Peter S. Vines" <psv2b@poe.acc.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: New Avionics
Organization: University of Virginia

I just completed IA training and did not have access to any planes with
DME.  It means that I've never done a DME arc but there are no limitations
on my license.  Someday I'll have access to a DME equipped plane and will
practice such an approach.
I prefer the 2 VORs in line with each other vertically, with the GS on top.
These tend to be the primary navigation instruments, with the ADF off to
the side.
Enjoy the training, it's well worth the effort!


-- 
- Peter Vines : vines@virginia.edu : (804) 924-4644 : University of Virginia

**************************************************************
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 12:10:46 PDT
From: jkf@frisky.franz.com (Sean Foderaro)
To: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Subject: New Avionics

 
>> 1. Should DME be in my panel for instrument training?  Can I simulate
>> it with my GPS?  What happens if you never train for DME arc
>> approaches, do you have a limitation on your license?

 I'll just answer this one.  You should get a DME.  While I've got a loran
and thus don't use the DME for enroute navigation, the DME is very useful for 
approaches both as a point for determining step-down fixes and 
determine the MAP.   The alternative (using a second VOR) isn't
as accurate or as easy to use.    As for the DME arc question, there is 
no limitation on your license for not having proven you can do a DME arc.
With extensive radar coverage and thus radar vectoring, the DME arc is
not used much around here (the SF bay area) (I did one but I had to 
go out of my way to get set up in a position to use it).
 One day there will be also be GPS approaches but approaches using DME will 
probably be around for a long long time.
 

**************************************************************
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 14:57:32 -0500
From: bass@neptune.convex.com (Brad F. Bass)
To: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New Avionics
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

>1. Should DME be in my panel for instrument training?
It couldn't hurt.  I get along just fine without it.

> Can I simulate it with my GPS?
Not legally.  It's not very useful on an ILS because the database will reference
the airport lat&lon instead of the location of the localizer antenna.  Therefore,
you can't use it to identify the missed-approach point, for example.

> What happens if you never train for DME arc approaches, do you have a limitation on your license?
No.  You only have to fly the arc +/- 1 mile.  I should be able to do that.

>2. How should I arrange the two VOR indicators and ADF indicator for
>the best scan?

I like:
	ASI	AI	ALT	vor1
	TC	DG	VSI	vor2
			adf?	adf?

With the ADF, it's more important that the indicator is big enough to read
easily and close enough to minimize parallax error.  My King ADF has the
indicator built into the tuner and is located in the main radio stack.  It's
a little on the small side and I'd want it no farther away than that. I've
seen cockpits with the ADF indicator on the copilot's side, which renders it
too far out of the instrument scan for my taste.

>1. Can anyone offer comments on the realtive quality of avionics made
>by King, Narco, and Terra?

King is the best, of course.  I don't have any experience for the rest.

>Anyone used their Tri-Nav digital VOR indicator?

I don't much like it because I want to see the full compass card on the
VOR indicator.  That way, I don't have to work nearly as hard to visualize
whether I'm ahead/behind a radial or north/south/east/west of my course.

-- 
Brad Bass		It is a well-known phenomenon that computer programs,
bass@convex.com		left to themselves, will cease to work. This is known
Convex Computer Corp.	as "Bit Rot".  Programs NOT left to themselves also
Richardson, Texas	cease to work.  This is known as "enhancement".

**************************************************************
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 20:49:12 PDT
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
To: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New Avionics
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated

In article <1992Aug17.173929.13116@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> you write:
>1. Should DME be in my panel for instrument training?  Can I simulate
>it with my GPS?  What happens if you never train for DME arc
>approaches, do you have a limitation on your license?

You *definitely* need DME for your IFR.  Not only for DME arcs, but
you will also (1) encounter DME-required approaches (e.g., ILS-DME,
LOC-DME, and VOR-DME), for which the DME is the *only* legal way to
fly the approach, and thus likely the only legal way your CFII and DE
will allow you to fly them, and (2) you'll want DME for many other
approaches where it helps very much to reduce the workload.  Dealing
with a database GPS, no matter how well designed, just is not as
convenient and fast.  (I have a full King panel w/ DME, plus a
Northstar M2 Loran/GPS in my Mooney, and notwithstanding the legal
issues, would never consider trying to substitute GPS for DME when
flying a real DME-required approach.  Definitely a higher workload,
and that you don't need while doing your IFR.)

Get the IFR practical test standards.  You'll have to demonstrate a
DME arc to get your ticket.  No exceptions.

>2. How should I arrange the two VOR indicators and ADF indicator for
>the best scan?

Not sure what fits on your panel, but I'll offer the following advice:
Get the primary OBS (the one with CDI plus Glide Slope) as close to
directly in front of you as possible. You'll want it very close to
your "core" scan during precision approaches.

Second, get the ADF pointer as close as possible, after the #1 OBS
display, to your scan as possible to eliminate parallax error.  NDB
approaches suck in general, and the last thing you need to complicate
them is dealing with a significant disruption in your scan plus a
parallax error.


I can't offer much advice on the brands -- my experience is pretty
much all King.  I can say that I really like the King stuff, but I'm
not sure it offers the best "price/performance".

Enjoy!

pmf



**************************************************************
To: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New Avionics
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 20:00:09 PDT
From: Jordan Brown <jbrown@qdeck.com>

We bought Narco.  Buy King.

Not that Narco is _that_ bad, but we have had some problems and from all
reports King is better, and it's not all that much more expensive.

For actual, practical use, get a DME and skip the ADF.  ADFs have two uses -
IFR training and listening to the radio.  The DME is far more useful
in real life, at least around here.

Don't know what the situation is like if you take a checkride in an
airplane with no ADF, though.

Installing avionics is No Fun, and your life depends on it being right.
We had a pro shop do it.

**************************************************************
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 09:07:16 EDT
From: vines@bombay.eedsp.gatech.edu (Greg Vines)
To: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Subject: Re: New Avionics


Hi, DME is not required for instrument training, if you have it, then
the DE can ask you to fly DME holds & approaches, if not, then he
can not (!)  It is a nice feature & a fair number of approaches use it.
I'd think the only problem of you `simulating' the DME with your GPS is
that once you start flying `real' IFR, you will be mighty tempted to
use you GPS for DME...

Most planes I've flown have (in a vertical stack, top to bottom) Nav1 Nav2 then
ADF

I have been kicking around the idea of building a kitplane & talked to several
radio shop guys about avionics & they all say you can't beat King for quality.
The Terra series (& others) are mighty temping because of the tremendous
price differences, but these guys say all the cheaper brands are not built
to take it.  I'd be real interested to hear what other people tell
you; my knowledge is all second hand.  (and more of that:) I think
when you buy King stuff for an experimental, you have to go to the radio
shop & they install it.  King is real picky about making sure their
equipment is installed correctly (which helps keep their reputation clean)

Good luck with the instrument rating, it is definately worthwhile!!!

- greg

**************************************************************
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 12:02:20 mdt
From: Dave Allen <davea@col.hp.com>
To: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Subject: Re: New Avionics

> After ~330 hours as PP ASEL, I have a sudden uncontrollable urge to
> outfit my airplane with avionics and get an instrument rating.  I have

Sounds like a very healthy urge. :-)

> 1. Should DME be in my panel for instrument training?  Can I simulate
> it with my GPS?  What happens if you never train for DME arc
> approaches, do you have a limitation on your license?

I don't think you have to fly an arc for the checkride, but they're pretty
handy in real life, and the only way to do them legally (safely?) is with DME.

> 2. How should I arrange the two VOR indicators and ADF indicator for
> the best scan?

Don't know. Most are way down low or off to the side. You'll be scanning them
less than your flight instruments. Ie, if I'm holding the right heading,
the needle should stay centered. Of course it won't, but the main idea is
holding a heading and correcting it based on glances at the nav needles.

> 1. Can anyone offer comments on the realtive quality of avionics made
> by King, Narco, and Terra?  I like the small Terra digital display

I have King DME (KN-64 I think) Marco Mark12D and Terra transponder.
All are great when they work. The King is your best quality, but it's been
in the shop (it took about a year) because high-voltage got loose from the
display and zapped the rest of the box. The Narco had two manufacturing
defects - setscrew was loose on the OBS card and started slipping after a
month or two. And the antenna connection on the tray was bad (solder joint).
The OBS setscrew cost me $15 for .5 hours at an avionics shop. The bad solder
joint cost me about $80 to fix it MYSELF. If this doesn't make sense, see
below...

> 2. How is service for the various avionics brands?  It seems that I
> can get King service everywhere, and that Terras must be shipped back
> to the factory.  How about Narco?

Narco will do EVERYTHING they can to get out of honoring ANY warranty.
First, they WILL NOT tell you how to get warranty service. On the OBS knob,
I called, they gave me the names of nearby dealers for warranty service,
I took it in, they fixed it. Then Narco wouldn't pay them. After TWO WEEKS
of phone calls, I FINALLY FORCED the story out of them -- warranties for
self-installation are ONLY handled at the factory. And an upper manager
explained that the only reason there's a one-year warranty at all for self-
installations is that Pennsylvania law requires it.

So when the transmitter power went down to about zero, I thought I knew what
to do - send it to the factory. Sure. No problem. Yes, they pay return
shipping - by mule - expect 3-4 weeks for the return trip. Turn-around
time at the factory? Oh, these units get last priority - 2-6 weeks at least.
So if you want your radio back THIS YEAR, add $20 for 2-day UPS, and $60
"incentive" for the factory to look at it within a week. Yes, you get to
pay for your own warranty service.

Sigh. After all this, the tech calls and says the transmitter is fine.
So I say the only thing left is the connector in the slide-in tray.
He says yes, they've had trouble with them.
I tear it out of the plane, tear into the connector, and sure enough, some
yo-yo who shouldn't be allowed near a soldering iron had just left a blob
of cold solder where a joint should have been.

> 3. I plan to install the avionics myself.  I am told that you cannot
> buy King stuff without having an authorized King dealer install it.
> How do homebuilders get it?  I forsee less trouble with Terra or
> Narco.

I think you would have to buy the King stuff used to install it yourself,
and probably without warranty. Forget Narco warranty if you stall yourself.
I bet Terra has a decent program, since they cater to the homebuilder.

Whew. I mean I REALLY LIKE my Mark12D, but Narco management is full of
a**holes (and I only use that term in DIRE circumstances). Now, if you
have a problem and get through the operators and crap to a technician,
you have found gold.

So, after all this... I'm looking for an ADF. My choice is Terra, for price
and (hopefully) customer service. I'm going to stay with self-installation.
A friend just had an autopilot installed. He's A&P/AI, but thought he'd have
it done right. Ha. Half the plane wasn't put together, the other half was
all loose screws. Panels were stepped on and mangled. And it didn't work
worth beans. Thanks, I'd rather do it myself.

dave allen, colorado springs - Fly because you love it.


**************************************************************
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 12:10:08 MDT
From: egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf)
To: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Subject: RE: New Avionics

I have a KX-155 and a Terra TXN-920 in my Cherokee-235.

   1. Can anyone offer comments on the realtive quality of avionics made
   by King, Narco, and Terra?  I like the small Terra digital display
   series due to its low power, small size, and cost effectiveness.
   Anyone have one of these setups?  Anyone used their Tri-Nav digital
   VOR indicator?

The audio quality on the KX-155 is better. For the money, it should be.
My KX-155 is about 1-degree off on its OBS. The Terra is dead accurate.
This is after tweaking the adjustment under the upper screw for best
accuracy on the KX-155.

The Terra digital display yakes a bit of getting used to, but it
really grows on you. It is more precise than the King (or other analog
units) and shows variation earlier than the analog model. The most
important and least talked about fetaure of the Terra is the mode
where you get a digital radial readout. This is only available on the
KX-165 (much more expensive than the KX-155). When you need to fly
"direct XYZ VOR" you just flip the switch on the Terra's OBS to
"TO". You see (e.g) "273" indicating that you are "TO" on the 93
degree radial (you see "93" if you hit the switch to "FROM" and "273"
if you switch to "TO"). As you initiate the turn to 273 degrees, you
hit the OBS button and you are set up tracking inbound.

   3. I plan to install the avionics myself.  I am told that you cannot
   buy King stuff without having an authorized King dealer install it.
   How do homebuilders get it?  I forsee less trouble with Terra or
   Narco.

Terra also only allows warranty if installed by a dealer. Many shops
will install in a homebuilt and let the owner assist. Many
homebuilders just say "screw the warranty" and do it themselves. The
FAA has some things to say about owner-maintenance of certificated
aircraft where the maintenance would change the CG.

   4. Anyone have the Terra audio panel with built in intercom? (model
   350?)  Do you like it?

I have the audio panel. The intercom is just a short between the two
headsets (or something). It works only for two mikes of identical
impedence, and then not too well. The best investment you will make
is a good intercom with seperate squelch on each channel. I have a
PS-Engineering PM-1000 and recommend this line highly. DON'T SCRIMP
ON THE INTERCOM!!!!

   I will summarize for the net, so send me email.

Please feel free to use any remarks here in such a followup.

					Skip Egdorf
					hwe@lanl.gov
					N8849W

**************************************************************
From: "Mike E. Ciholas" <mikec@lcs.mit.edu>
To: egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov
Cc: mikec@lcs.mit.edu
Subject: New Avionics


mikec@lcs.mit.edu
   egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov
      mikec@lcs.mit.edu

Thanks for your comments!  They have been the most helpful so far.

   I have a KX-155 and a Terra TXN-920 in my Cherokee-235.
   
      1. Can anyone offer comments on the realtive quality of avionics made
      by King, Narco, and Terra?  I like the small Terra digital display
      series due to its low power, small size, and cost effectiveness.
      Anyone have one of these setups?  Anyone used their Tri-Nav digital
      VOR indicator?
   
   The audio quality on the KX-155 is better. For the money, it should be.
   My KX-155 is about 1-degree off on its OBS. The Terra is dead accurate.
   This is after tweaking the adjustment under the upper screw for best
   accuracy on the KX-155.
   
More noise in the audio?  Hums?

   The Terra digital display yakes a bit of getting used to, but it
   really grows on you. It is more precise than the King (or other analog
   units) and shows variation earlier than the analog model. The most
   important and least talked about fetaure of the Terra is the mode
   where you get a digital radial readout. This is only available on the
   KX-165 (much more expensive than the KX-155). When you need to fly
   "direct XYZ VOR" you just flip the switch on the Terra's OBS to
   "TO". You see (e.g) "273" indicating that you are "TO" on the 93
   degree radial (you see "93" if you hit the switch to "FROM" and "273"
   if you switch to "TO"). As you initiate the turn to 273 degrees, you
   hit the OBS button and you are set up tracking inbound.

I tried to figure out how to use the switches by looking at the sales
literature, it sure wasn't obvious, but now it seems easy.  Is the
"to/obs/from" switch spring loaded so that it settles back to the obs
reading?  How about hitting the OBS button by mistake losing your
previous setting?
   
      3. I plan to install the avionics myself.  I am told that you cannot
      buy King stuff without having an authorized King dealer install it.
      How do homebuilders get it?  I forsee less trouble with Terra or
      Narco.
   
   Terra also only allows warranty if installed by a dealer. Many shops
   will install in a homebuilt and let the owner assist. Many
   homebuilders just say "screw the warranty" and do it themselves. The
   FAA has some things to say about owner-maintenance of certificated
   aircraft where the maintenance would change the CG.

Note quite the story I got from Terra.  They said that they will start
the warranty from the day you test fly your homebuilt or the day the
form 337 (major alteration) is signed.  Seem like an extraordinarily
nice approach, but then I was speaking to a marketing guy :-).  I
don't intend to install the units without having a mechanic involved,
I just want to do the panel alterations and wiring myself.  As long as
the W&B is done properly, the panel is mechanically sound, and the
wiring meets the needs, then I should be okay.  This all depends on a
sympathetic mechanic, of course.  Then I take the whole mess over to
the radio shop to have them do correspondence checks, etc (for which
they usually have up front prices for).
   
      4. Anyone have the Terra audio panel with built in intercom? (model
      350?)  Do you like it?
   
   I have the audio panel. The intercom is just a short between the two
   headsets (or something). It works only for two mikes of identical
   impedence, and then not too well. The best investment you will make
   is a good intercom with seperate squelch on each channel. I have a
   PS-Engineering PM-1000 and recommend this line highly. DON'T SCRIMP
   ON THE INTERCOM!!!!

Please tell me more on the intercom.  I am only marginally pleased
with a portable unit I have.
   
      I will summarize for the net, so send me email.
   
   Please feel free to use any remarks here in such a followup.

Thanks!
   
   					Skip Egdorf
   					hwe@lanl.gov
   					N8849W

**************************************************************
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 14:45:15 MDT
From: Skip Egdorf <egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov>
To: mikec@lcs.mit.edu
Subject: New Avionics

   Thanks for your comments!  They have been the most helpful so far.

Glad to help...

   More noise in the audio?  Hums?

More of a slight crackle. The sound quality is not bad, it is more that the
audio of the KX-155 is really very good. The Terra has better quality than
the Mark-12 that it replaced for example.

   I tried to figure out how to use the switches by looking at the sales
   literature, it sure wasn't obvious, but now it seems easy.  Is the
   "to/obs/from" switch spring loaded so that it settles back to the obs
   reading?  How about hitting the OBS button by mistake losing your
   previous setting?

The to/obs/from switch is not spring loaded. In fact, I usually use
the KX-155's indicator to track the course and use the radial readout
of the Terra to give me a cross-bearing from an off-course VOR. This
is particularly useful coming down an ILS (for example) as a cross
check on the position of the outer marker and for identifying
intersections.

The OBS button is small enough that it is actually a bit hard to push.
I have never hit it by mistake. It is hard enough that I often just
spin the normal OBS knob to get to the bearing. The OBS knob is also a
bit different.  It is connected to a small coil/generator. The faster
you spin the knob, the more current is generated.  and the faster the
bearing numbers change. It takes a moment of getting used to, but is
very nice once you get used to it. A fast twist (like trying to spin a
top) gets you around 180 degrees immedietly. a slower twist lets you
fine tune.

It is also nice to have the approach timer built into the instrument.
It puts a lot of information right where you need it.

   Note quite the story I got from Terra.  They said that they will start
   the warranty from the day you test fly your homebuilt or the day the
   form 337 (major alteration) is signed.  Seem like an extraordinarily
   nice approach, but then I was speaking to a marketing guy :-)

Terra has been nice to me. They are about 60 miles south of me in
Albuquerque, so I drop in from time to time. You shouldn't really have
problems with what you described.

   Please tell me more on the intercom.  I am only marginally pleased
   with a portable unit I have.

I wrote the following message about a year ago (the referance to "last
year's Oshkosh is to Oshkosh-90) as a response to a flurry of "who has
the best intercom" messages. I wouldn't change much except to note
that the unit also drives my Peltor-7002's without a problem. These
have Carbon mikes and have been generally talked down on the net due
to problems with other intercoms. The PM-1000 has that all-important
squelch control for each mike, and I have had no trouble using a wide
variety of headsets. Even if you only buy one set of headsets that are
"just right" for your Softcom or Flightcom or whatever, it is nice to
be able to let your instructors use their favorites on you next BFR,
or use a loaner if one of yours goes belly up...

---

Last year's Oshkosh was primarily Intercom-Shopping time. I had tried
a Telex, Flightcom, Softcom, One home-made whose brand I can't remember,
and the built-in hot-mike mode on my Terra audio panel in my noisy
1964 Cherokee-235. I spent the best part of a week looking, trying,
and talking at everything at Oshkosh-90.

My requirements were:

1. Built-in, not portable.

2. Four place.

3. Individual squelch and volume control, or, restated,

3a. Ability to drive my Telex TC2000s with electret mike as well as my D-950s
   with carbon mikes, as well as the next off brand brought on board by an
   instructor or friend.

4. Ability to isolate the back seat in order to let the Kids in back chatter
   while I talk to someone on the radio.

5. (possible) music input.

3a has been the downfall of most of those intercoms that I had tried. If you
even COULD get them to squelch in flight and turn on when spoken to, then
trying to use a mix of mikes would cause them to fail to work properly.
Many of them had very poor sound quality as well.

I decided that I was tired of getting screwed by my Intercom choices.
I had purchased two other brands only to have them fail to actually
work in flight. (well, one worked, but sound quality was so poor, and
background noise so high that I gave up on it.)
So, I decided to get the BEST I could find. Price was not (too much) of
a factor.

I finally chose the PS-Engineering PM-1000 and have been very happy with it.

Price was not too much more than other brands, and having tried some of the
others, I don't regret a penny of it. The quality is excellent! I believe
that the improvement provided by ANY intercom over the gesticulate and
shout method of communication is so great that many folks feel quite
satisfied with your softcoms and flightcoms and such. For those of you so
satisfied, Please DON'T try the PM-1000. I don't want you to be forever
unhappy with second best.

It is TSO'd, which is not really important to me, but it does mean that
my avionics shop had instructions they could actually follow. I was a
little worried in that the connection is with an RS-232 plug, and many
radio shops might have trouble wiring it. In fact, my shop (Robertson
Aviation in Albuquerque) was familiar with the plug and had no trouble.

The unit has worked for (almost) a year now with a wide variety of headsets.

For an independent assessment, you might dig up the August 1990 AOPA Pilot.
When I got back from Oshkosh with my new PM-1000, I turned to the product
reviews in the newly arrived magazine, and found MY INTERCOM!

Suffice it to say that AOPA seems to like theirs even better than I do.
The basic result of their review was to junk all their other intercoms
and install PM-1000s in the AOPA aircraft. (according to the article)

I am very pleased, wouldn't trade it for anything, and given a new aircraft,
would buy another without a moment's hesitation.

				Skip Egdorf
				hwe@lanl.gov
				N8849W



**************************************************************
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 14:40:09 MDT
From: i_pi!ingham@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham)
To: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Avionics

Here is a bunch of stuff I saved a while back about installing your own
avionics, as I intend on doing it also.

Kenneth
ingham@i-pi.com

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 12:59:13 -0500
From: Lee Devlin <avo.hp.com!devlin@unmvax.uucp>
To: ingham@vesta.unm.edu
Subject: Re: What license needed to install avionics?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

Ken,

I have a similar question regarding a Nav/Com installation.  In this case,
I'd like to replace a 90 channel Mark 12 with a more modern 760 channel
nav/com.  I've been considering the ICS Plus from Wag-Aero and also have
been thinking about the new KX125.  Have you heard anything pro or con 

about either of these 2 radios?  


Of course, I'm also interested in what the legalities are about replacing
a Nav/Com.  Please pass along any net.wisdom that you get.

Thanks,

Lee Devlin
Piper Colt N4986Z


From: Kenneth Ingham <vesta.unm.edu!ingham@unmvax.uucp>
Subject: Re: What license needed to install (Owner installed avionics)
To: ingham@i_pi.uucp (Kenneth Ingham)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 13:34:26 MST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]

 

XFrom: hgp@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (howard.page)
Subject: Re: What license needed to install avionics? (Owner installed avionics)
Date: 4 Feb 92 14:52:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <kr1g2=f@lynx.unm.edu>, ingham@vesta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham) writes:
> I was looking though trade-a-plane, collecting price info about stuff
> I'll be needing for my upcoming annual (3 weeks---plan ahead and save
> postage).
> 

> I noticed that I can purchase a new King for lots less than what the
> local avionics shops want (although their price includes installation).
> 

>  .
>  .
>  .

Careful! THe manufacturer's warranty may not be valid if the radio is
not installed by a liscensed avionics shop. Read the fine print before
you buy!

From: Kenneth Ingham <vesta.unm.edu!ingham@unmvax.uucp>
Subject: Re: What license needed to install
To: ingham@i_pi.uucp (Kenneth Ingham)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 13:35:36 MST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]

 

XFrom: frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye)
Subject: Re: What license needed to install avionics?
Organization: UIUC Computer-based Education Research Lab
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 19:05:52 GMT

In article <kr1g2=f@lynx.unm.edu> ingham@vesta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham) writes:
>I am a ham and for a while had a FCC Second Class radiotelephone license.
>So I am not unfamiliar with radio equipment.  46L already has the wiring
>and antennas for adding another navcom (with glideslope---IFR training
>coming soon if all works out well).
>
>So, what would it take to get an official blessing for me to install a
>radio myself?

I've always been told that a) there is an avionics technician certificate, and
b) you can only exercise it while working for an approved avionics repair
station.  I'd be tickled pink to hear that I'm wrong, though.

G. David Frye, CFIAI and MS EE Univ of Illinois '85
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET: frye@cerl.uiuc.edu   PLATO: frye / s / cerl   PHONE: (217) 333-7439
  reminder:  I post all email flame back to the newgroup that generated it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kenneth Ingham <vesta.unm.edu!ingham@unmvax.uucp>
Subject: Re: What license needed to install
To: ingham@i_pi.uucp (Kenneth Ingham)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 15:48:03 MST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]

 

XFrom: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
Subject: Re: What license needed to install avionics?
Date: 4 Feb 92 21:16:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Feb4.211652.28730
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <1992Feb4.190552.11350@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> frye@cerl.uiuc.edu
	(G. David Frye)  
writes:
>In article <kr1g2=f@lynx.unm.edu> ingham@vesta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham)
	writes:
>>
>>So, what would it take to get an official blessing for me to install a
>>radio myself?
>
>I've always been told that a) there is an avionics technician certificate, and
>b) you can only exercise it while working for an approved avionics repair
>station.  I'd be tickled pink to hear that I'm wrong, though.

You not going to be tickeled - pink or otherwise.  I have in my hands my
Repairman Certificate - "Valid for Radio and Instrument" but here's the
kicker "While Employed by Aero Air Inc..."

Not only do you need a certificate, but it is only valid while you are
employed by the named licensed avionic shop.  Every time you switch
shops you need to get a new certificate (which is pretty much automatic)
and in theory you can't moonlight since the certificate is only valid while
working for the named shop.  

Even worse is the fact that there is no easy way to get this little
piece of paper.  The regulation basically require 18 months of full
time employment or work at a FAA licensed avionics repair facility.
After that, a recomendation from an existing Avionics repairman, usually
your supervisor, and the license is yours - no test.  As a result I've
seen licensed technicians who didn't know which end of a soldering iron
to hold, and unlicensed electronics whizes who could fix avionics with
their eyes closed..

Oh yes - to do any airframe modifications such as cutting a panel or
installing an antenna you really need a Airframe mechanic's rating also!
And to sign off the 337 you really need an inspectors signature.  Most
managers of avionic shops try to have all three ratings.


-- 

Alan L. Peterman                                   (503)-684-1984 hm
                       al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
It's odd how as I get older, the days are longer, but the years are shorter!

From: Kenneth Ingham <vesta.unm.edu!ingham@unmvax.uucp>
Subject: Re: What license needed to install
To: ingham@i_pi.uucp (Kenneth Ingham)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 15:48:27 MST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]

 

XFrom: carlson@linac.fnal.gov (Kermit Carlson)
Subject: Re: What license needed to install avionics?
Organization: Fermilab, Batavia, IL
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 22:02:33 GMT


In article <1992Feb4.190552.11350@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye)  
writes:
>In article <kr1g2=f@lynx.unm.edu> ingham@vesta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham) writes:
>>I am a ham and for a while had a FCC Second Class radiotelephone license.
>>So I am not unfamiliar with radio equipment.  46L already has the wiring
>>and antennas for adding another navcom (with glideslope---IFR training
>>coming soon if all works out well).
>>
>>So, what would it take to get an official blessing for me to install a
>>radio myself?
>
>I've always been told that a) there is an avionics technician certificate, and
>b) you can only exercise it while working for an approved avionics repair
>station.  I'd be tickled pink to hear that I'm wrong, though.
>
>G. David Frye, CFIAI and MS EE Univ of Illinois '85

     About 10 years ago I checked into what would be required to
open a licensed repair station. Even though you may be quite 

qualified in avionics the FAA would require you to have an IA
on staff to sign the form 337, re-do the weight and balance, and
return the aircraft to service after the work is performed. Check
Part 43 for details or call the FSDO, I found that they were quite
helpful with the questions I had about some of the details. If
you know an IA and have the time, it might be interesting....

                                                cheers, 

                                                    Kermit W9XA
                                                    Cessna N51411



Date: Mon, 3 Feb 92 08:37:17 EST
From: nlm.nih.gov!masys@unmvax.uucp (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
To: ingham@vesta.unm.edu
Subject: Re: avionics manuals
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Cc: 


In article <qr1gwdh@lynx.unm.edu> you write:
>I'd like to get complete manuals for the avionics in 46L (to complement
>my set of manuals for the airframe and engine).  Does anybody have
>recommendations on a best place to purchase them?
>
ESSCO in Akron OH has both operator and installation/repair manuals for
most avionics.  They advertise in Trade-A-Plane.

In reference to your other post, I believe you can install your own
radios (as long as they are off the shelf certificated models), and an
A&P can sign off the installation (yes, A&P, not radio tech).  Functional
tests need to be done, but bench tests are generally not needed.  I 

installed a couple of navcoms and a couple of lorans under such an
arrangement.  The lorans required a lot of paperwork (Form 337s) but
the navcoms were simple and only required an updated weight & balance.

Dan Masys



From: Kenneth Ingham <vesta.unm.edu!ingham@unmvax.uucp>
Subject: Re: installing your own avionics.
To: ingham@i_pi.uucp (Kenneth Ingham)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 14:08:13 MST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]

 

XFrom: bam@bang.uucp (Bret A. Marquis)
Subject: Re: installing your own avionics.
Date: 6 Feb 92 06:15:23 GMT
Organization: Air Bret -  San Diego

In article <1992Feb3.172740.4088@cbnews.cb.att.com> tel@cbnews.cb.att.com  
(thomas.e.lester) writes:
>
>
>	What is your shops stand on experimental aircraft ??
>   These have no "acceptable data".  Will you even work on them ??
>	As a builder, I have installed my own. (sorry) and will 

>   continue to do so.  If absolutely necessary I will have a shop do
>   the test and calibration of vital equipment (mode C, etc.)  but I doubt
>   that the local shops would even want my business.  The local shop
>   (Electrosonics) has been extremely co-operative, giving me schematics,
>   new terminals for the connectors, and a lot of advice.  I fully
>   expect them to do the calibration and check out (for pay of course).
>

I realize that I could have installed my own avionics legally.  With
my background installing/repairing commercial 2 way radio before I
started in computers, I could have done a clean job.

However, I wanted new King radios.  King wants a real shop to install
their radios if they are going to honor their warranties.  Warranties
are nice, but I intend to take my plane into the clouds.  The wiring for
a HSI/loran/nav system is not trivial.  Especially if I want to someday
connect it all to an autopilot.  So I elected to have an authorized shop
do the work.  It was very reassuring to see all the avionics work the
first time.  Power to the bus and everything did what it was supposed
to.  No smoke, fire or errant displays.  

As far as the warranty goes, I've had possession of my radios for over a
year (I was a bit overly enthusiastic about my construction time!!).
Once installed, the shop activated the warranties with King.  Without a
word about how long I've had them vs. time to install, they activated my
warranties for the 2 full years as of last month.  That was certainly a
pleasant surprise.  King upgraded the software in my loran twice during
the past year, including adding the new mid-continent chains.  All at no
additional cost or question.  As soon as I plan to fly the plane, King
will send a new database cartridge for free to start me off as well.  Of
course I'll have to pay to upgrade the database after that.

As far as certifying the installation for IFR, I'll have to fly the
Loran and RNAV courses myself.  The FSDO man in charge is reluctant to
fly in a homebuilt.  So he'll give me a course, landmarks to look for
and instructions and I'll certify accuracy myself.  I'll post the
process when I do it..

As far as what local shops (and manufacturers) are willing to do on a
homebuilt,  you'd be surprised.  Homebuilts are the future for them.
King has published very nice color brochures showing homebuilt panels
(one shows a fancy Glasair III panel).  Both S-Tec and Century are
actively pursuing the homebuilt market.  That is the only real market
for new panels and autopilots.  Most current production craft owners
tend to leave what they have installed..  Maybe install a loran or GPS
or replace an ancient radio or repair a factory installed autopilot but
the real market is the experimental.  (Isn't Van's aircraft shipping
parts for the RV[4-6] at the rate of 30 kits per month!?  That's a lot
of radios even if its only a  nav/com, transponder and maybe a loran!)
I really doubt a shop would chase you away..


Bret Marquis
Venture N3VD (HXC/R)

bam@berkeley.edu
be surprised


From: Kenneth Ingham <vesta.unm.edu!ingham@unmvax.uucp>
Subject: Re: installing your own avionics
To: ingham@i_pi.uucp (Kenneth Ingham)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 14:54:05 MST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]

 

XFrom: elmore@virga.ucar.edu (Kim Elmore)
Subject: Re: installing your own avionics
Date: 10 Feb 92 16:34:52 GMT
Organization: Research Applications Program/NCAR, Boulder, CO

>
>	stuff about installing your own avionics deleted
>

	Claude brings up a point about owner-installed avionics and how
it's perfectly reasonable for folks who know what they're doing to do
so.  I think the point of Greg's post was identical.  Both Claude and
I are amateur radio operators (hams) and quite comfortable with
straighforward avionics installs.  At least to a point.  While I can't
speak for Claude, if there's any question in my mind about the
structural integrity of an installation, you can bet I'll get hold of
someone who knows what they're doing for help.  If a radio falls of of
my automobile installation, it's at least an inconvenience and at
worst costs me repairs to the unit.  If a piece of avionics comes
unglued in flight, it could have some pretty serious consequesnces...

	There are some things that have to be considered concerning
corrosion when avionics are installed, as well.  Many hams I've met
are ignorant of just how fast copper and aluminum can eat each other
up when in contact.  Not only is airframe corrosion a major pain to
repair, but it can cause all sorts of odd intermittent, nearly
non-repeatable problems with avionics.

	Greg is quite helpful to anyone who asks; he's helping me to
repair an old COM 11A (one of those 5-10 year old boxes Claude spoke
of).  He's been quite candid about what kind of older gear I should
consider for my bird and what kind of problems to look for.  One thing
guys like Greg get to see is lots of broken boxes!  Thus, they are
wonderful sources for what breaks and what doesn't and any pattern to
failure modes.  This is probably one of the most useful bits of
information that can be gleaned from any technician when dealing with
older avionics.

	In fact, Greg went way beyond the call of duty when he called
me (on his nickel!) to tell me what the pin-outs were on my old COM
11A.  This guy really is sincere in his desire to help.  Sure, these
guys make money on their installations and they paid some serious
FAA-enforced dues to be able to do their jobs.  But not everybody
wants to ban self-installed avionics or any box manufactured before
1990 and sell only new, 760 channel megabuck VHF AM boxes.  There are
enough out there that if you find somebody who won't speak to you
about owner-installed avionics, drop him like a hot potato and get one
who *will* help.  Then just give 'em the chance to be helpful and
stand back!

					Kim Elmore
					N5OP, PP ASEL/Glider 2232456
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *
*   "All these *WIRES*!!  Why do they call it 'wireless'?"                    *
*		Doc Evans (NQ0I) commenting on his ham radio shack.           *
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *
Replies to: elmore@virga.rap.ucar.edu (wires)
	    44.28.0.67 n5op@n5op.ampr.org (radio)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: Kenneth Ingham <vesta.unm.edu!ingham@unmvax.uucp>
Subject: Re: installing your own avionics
To: ingham@i_pi.uucp (Kenneth Ingham)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 14:52:19 MST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]

 

XFrom: claude@leadsc3.UUCP (Claude Goldsmith)
Subject: Re: installing your own avionics
Date: 8 Feb 92 18:23:55 GMT
Organization: LOCKHEED, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Feb2.014550.14201@news.arc.nasa.gov>
	roberts@orion.arc.nasa.gov (Greg N. Roberts) writes:
}The question of installing your own avionics is a good one. While there is 

}no regulation against installing your own gear, and I see lots of airplanes
}that have obviously installed equipment that was not shop done, I would like
}to point out a few things.
}
}First, when a shop installs a piece of equipment, the install should be
}warranted for both parts and labor. Now sure you save yourself on the labor,
}our shop charges $47.00 an hour, but if we make a mistake and toast a box,
}we pay for it. You toast a box, your on your own.

This really begs the issue. Of course you should know what you are
doing before undertaking to install or even remove a piece of
avionics, but that is true no matter what you are undertaking to do to
or with your airplane; including flying it.  


Buy the installation manual from the manufacturer and follow it.
The wiring is **usually** pretty straight forward.  It also doesn't 

hurt to consult with an experienced and knowledgable tech to find 

out about common gotchas.  You will need to get your work signed off
anyway so you might as well take advantage of who ever is going to be 

approving your installation.  


}Some places do cheap installs and can undercut a lot of shops, this is
}particularly prevalent here in the northeast, but you usually get what we call
}a tail-light warranty. 


Just because a shop charges "big bucks" to install your avionics
doesn't guarantee a great job.  I can't think of a single avionics
installation that I've paid to have done which I haven't had to chase
around after the shop was done to bring it up to my personal
standards.  Oh the stuff usually works OK and unless you like to spend
time with your head behind the panel you might not notice the
difference.  My experience has been that they (the avionics shops)
just can't afford to take the time to make the area behind the panel
just as pretty as the front of the panel.

}For instance, some places can install a blind encoder in about an hour. When
}I install an encoder it takes more than an hour.... 

If you do it yourself, it might take a weekend or a week.  Your own
time is cheap; and besides you are having fun working on your own
airplane.  When the job is done you will know it's done to your
satisfaction.  Think of working on your plane in the same context as
flying your plane.  You can do it yourself or you can pay someone else
to do it.  Just like flying, if you don't know what you are doing,
either pay a professional to do it or teach you to do it.

}All the rage these days are the new LORANS. We sort out at least one problem
}a week. I guess the point is that if you want new avionics, you should at
}least spend a percentage of your budget to have things installed properly.
}This way, its done right, it's signed off, and your covered by at least two
}warranty's, the shops and manufacturers.

Not everybody can afford to buy factory new avionics.  For many of us,
a 5 - 10 year old nav-com, transponder, or even loran may be quite
adequate and a heck of a lot cheaper then the new stuff.  Most of the
used avionics I've purchased has been via mail-order and whatever
limited warrantee that came with it was not tied to installation by a
shop.

Claude Goldsmith, CFI-IA
	<claude%sunfse.ese.lmsc.com@eagle.is.lmsc.lockheed.com>
 twisted-pair (408) 742-7514	      | Opinions expressed are not 

 on the air - WB6UOO                  | necessarily those of my 

 through the air - Mooney N6416U      | employer.

From: Kenneth Ingham <carina.unm.edu!ingham@unmvax.uucp>
Subject: Re: FAA certification for comm
To: ingham@i_pi.uucp (Kenneth Ingham)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 21:21:58 MST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]

 

XFrom: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
Subject: Re: FAA certification for comm shops?
Date: 26 Feb 92 16:17:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Feb26.161741.10401
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <1992Feb25.195328.16061@voa3.VOA.GOV> db@voa3.VOA.GOV
	(Dennis Brewer)  
writes:
>What type of FAA certification is needed for someone to service
>aircraft radios and navigational equipment? A colleague wants to
>do this type of work -- he's an excellent technician and has FCC
>licenses.  He understands that some type of certification from 

>FAA is needed for either him or his equipment but hasn't been able
>to find any more info on the subject.  Also, exactly what type of
>equipment is needed for a small shop of this sort?

Since there are 2 requests for this, and since it seems to be a common
desire of electronics/flying types to want to combine their avocations
into a vocation, I'll pass along my experiences.  I actually went as
far as to become an avionics repairman...and realized it was no way
to try to make a living.

First problem is that to service avionics you need a Repairman's
certificate, and the only way to get that is to put in 18 months
at a certified Avionics Repair shop.  There is no way to test out
of the time requirement.  Even having the Repairman's Certificate
is less than usful, since it is limited to use while employed by
the named Avionics Facility.  In other words to repair radios,
you need to be employed by a FAA licensed Avionics Shop..

To be a FAA licensed Avonics Repair Facility you need to have
"proper" equipment, parts and personnel.  Plus a good fraction
of a ton of paperwork proving that.  Basic equipment might be
gotten used for $50,000 for doing simpler avionics.  All this
test gear must be calibrated each year by means traceable to
standards - usually outside calibration labs.  To do the
basic avionics requires some fairly specialized gear, most
shops use the ATC gear, plus manufacturer's test sets, plus
a few hundred test cables.  Easiest way to get this would be
to buy out an existing shop.  

Next problem is getting manufacturer's parts, books and support.
To do this you must have personnel who have gone through the
classes on equipment, or completed self-training courses.
These are not free.  Neither are the required test gear,
parts supply or facility - usually to be located at a public
airport, and open "normal" hours.  

Oh yeah, you do want 10 million of insurance - after all you
might mess up someone's day if your repair failed while IFR..
and insurance is not cheap either.

Now that you've done all this you can charge about $50 an hour,
of course you could get more for doing VCR's on the kitchen
table - but hey we're in this for the love of airplanes.  That
love may start to errode a bit when you get to try and pull the
radios or indicators from a Mooney or 210 - but you'll find
blood is good lubricant for getting your hand into tight spots.

I'd really recommend that anyone interested in avionics go work
for an avionics shop for a while.  It quickly becomes obvious that
the only way to do the job right and efficiently is to have a fair 

sized operation so the fixed costs can be spread around.  Nonetheless,
it is fun to work on planes - but it's more fun to fly them.


-- 

Alan L. Peterman                                   (503)-684-1984 hm
                       al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
It's odd how as I get older, the days are longer, but the years are shorter!


**************************************************************
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:06 EDT
From: Shawn Prendergast <PRENDER@mps.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: New Avionics (DMEs, ADFs)
To: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu

FIRST OF ALL :-)  I'm "only" a PP-ASEL-IA, so I probably don't know what I'm
talking about, or at least shouldn't be taken seriously! :-)

I (sob!) don't OWN a plane, so I left the "Specific Questions" to others.

>General questions:
>
>1. Should DME be in my panel for instrument training?  Can I simulate
>it with my GPS?  What happens if you never train for DME arc
>approaches, do you have a limitation on your license?

Well, if so, don't tell my DE!  The quote my CFII gave me was "~If it's not in
the plane you take the practical in, you can't do it, right?  The DE can only
tell that you can do what you did, so do that good, and you'll be ok.~"  (The
twiddle-quotes are pseudo-quotes --- this IS from memory, after all)  All you
HAVE to fly (I might be forgetting here...) is an ILS, VOR, NDB, hold, maintain
altitude/heading, and unusual attitudes.

HOWEVER, since you're getting this for YOUR plane, I've found DME to be GREAT
help in general XC (ETA, where-the-@#$%!-IS-that-damn-TCA-anyways?!, etc...).


>2. How should I arrange the two VOR indicators and ADF indicator for
>the best scan?

I trained early in a 152 that had an ADF over below the XPDR, ALL THE WAY on
the right of the cabin, and IT SUCKED!  ADF approaches are THE most difficult
of the "basic three" (in my book, at least; at least, to LEARN and get the hang
of them at first --- and trust me, this stuff WILL all fall into place, GIVEN
TIME!!! :-)  The Cheetah I completed (thank Goddess) training in was MUCH
better with an ADF under the VORs.  Whatever you get, get one NEAR the damn
VORs, preferably under/next-to them, IMHO!

GOOD LUCK, BTW!  I don't know why, but I never FELT like a "pilot" until I got
my IA --- and realized I didn't know how to fly before then either (like I do
now, RIGHT!  :-)  I hope it'll be as much fun (in the long run) for you as it
was for me!

SWP
prender@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
PP-ASEL-IA, COM student

**************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation