Radio buzz

[Robert M. Gary]

I have an MX170 radio that I use to pick up ATIS, etc. Recently it
will occassionally have a buzz in it that is so loud you cannot hear
the transmission. It will buzz on all freq, then later in the flight
it will go away. This unit is no longer supported so I'm wondering if
there is any chance this could be something that could be addressed
without opening the unit (which is now illegal to do ).

-Robert

[mikem]

On Apr 15, 8:11 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> ...Recently it
> will occassionally have a buzz in it that is so loud you cannot hear
> the transmission. It will buzz on all freq, then later in the flight
> it will go away.

What kind of buzz? When it buzzes, is the loudness of the buzz
effected by the vol control? by the squelch control? is the buzz there
even with the power switch off?

[mikem]

On Apr 15, 10:42 pm, "mikem" > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:11 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > ...Recently it
> > will occassionally have a buzz in it that is so loud you cannot hear
> > the transmission. It will buzz on all freq, then later in the flight
> > it will go away.
>
> What kind of buzz? When it buzzes, is the loudness of the buzz
> effected by the vol control? by the squelch control? is the buzz there
> even with the power switch off?


One more question. When it buzzes, can you still tell that there would
be a signal received if it where not for the buzz?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 15, 10:44 pm, "mikem" > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:42 pm, "mikem" > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 15, 8:11 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > > ...Recently it
> > > will occassionally have a buzz in it that is so loud you cannot hear
> > > the transmission. It will buzz on all freq, then later in the flight
> > > it will go away.
>
> > What kind of buzz? When it buzzes, is the loudness of the buzz
> > effected by the vol control? by the squelch control? is the buzz there
> > even with the power switch off?
>
> One more question. When it buzzes, can you still tell that there would
> be a signal received if it where not for the buzz?

I can hear the transmission in addition to the buzz. The buzz is
affected by the volume control. I don't have a squelch control for the
radio that I know of. However, pressing "test" (removing squelch)
doesn't affect the problem.

-Robert

[mikem]

> I can hear the transmission in addition to the buzz. The buzz is
> affected by the volume control. I don't have a squelch control for the
> radio that I know of. However, pressing "test" (removing squelch)
> doesn't affect the problem.

Ok, assuming the radio is "normal" (not buzzing), if you tune the
radio to a quiet channel where no-one is transmitting, with the
squelch switch in the TEST position, what do you hear?

When the radio is buzzing, tune the radio to a quiet channel where no-
one is transmitting, with the squelch switch in the TEST position,
what do you hear?

While it's buzzing, have you every tried pushing on the MX170's front
panel so as to seat it into its tray? I could be that the tray is
poorly mounted, and one-or-more pins in the tray connector are making
intermittent contact.

Does the buzzing follow engine rpm? While its buzzing, what happens if
you turn on/off heavy electrical loads, like nav/taxi/landing lights
and pitot heat?

What about turning off the right mag/left mag briefly in flight?

I'm trying to determine if the buzzing is RFI being received by the
MX170 as an on-channel radio signal (which open's the receiver's
squelch), or if it is something that is originating inside the MX170.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 16, 8:06 am, "mikem" > wrote:
> > I can hear the transmission in addition to the buzz. The buzz is
> > affected by the volume control. I don't have a squelch control for the
> > radio that I know of. However, pressing "test" (removing squelch)
> > doesn't affect the problem.
>
> Ok, assuming the radio is "normal" (not buzzing), if you tune the
> radio to a quiet channel where no-one is transmitting, with the
> squelch switch in the TEST position, what do you hear?
>
> When the radio is buzzing, tune the radio to a quiet channel where no-
> one is transmitting, with the squelch switch in the TEST position,
> what do you hear?
>
> While it's buzzing, have you every tried pushing on the MX170's front
> panel so as to seat it into its tray? I could be that the tray is
> poorly mounted, and one-or-more pins in the tray connector are making
> intermittent contact.
>
> Does the buzzing follow engine rpm? While its buzzing, what happens if
> you turn on/off heavy electrical loads, like nav/taxi/landing lights
> and pitot heat?
>
> What about turning off the right mag/left mag briefly in flight?
>
> I'm trying to determine if the buzzing is RFI being received by the
> MX170 as an on-channel radio signal (which open's the receiver's
> squelch), or if it is something that is originating inside the MX170.

Ok, I'll try that. I know the unit is on its last legs. I've tried to
have it serviced but the one guy that is authorize by the FAA to open
the unit just wants to sell new units and flat our refuses to offer
any serivce/support/parts/etc (makes you want to buy his new unit,
doesn't it;) ).

-Robert

[Chris]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Ok, I'll try that. I know the unit is on its last legs. I've tried to
> have it serviced but the one guy that is authorize by the FAA to ....

Just buy another unit then.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 16, 12:51 pm, "Chris" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Ok, I'll try that. I know the unit is on its last legs. I've tried to
> > have it serviced but the one guy that is authorize by the FAA to ....
>
> Just buy another unit then.

That's the plan. However changing anything in the traying of a Mooney
is very, very, very expensive.

-Robert

[RST Engineering]

That's an interesting heresy and untruth. Mind telling us how you came to
believe this?

Jim



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...


> without opening the unit (which is now illegal to do ).

[The Visitor]

If he opens it up, isn't there some sort of qualifications he needs to
certify it and return it to service?

RST Engineering wrote:
> That's an interesting heresy and untruth. Mind telling us how you came to
> believe this?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>>without opening the unit (which is now illegal to do ).
>
>
>

[RST Engineering]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
> If he opens it up, isn't there some sort of qualifications he needs to
> certify it and return it to service?


You just don't get it, do you? No.





>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> That's an interesting heresy and untruth. Mind telling us how you came
>> to believe this?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>>without opening the unit (which is now illegal to do ).
>>
>>
>>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 19, 7:25 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> That's an interesting heresy and untruth. Mind telling us how you came to
> believe this?
>
> Jim
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > without opening the unit (which is now illegal to do ).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm told you have to have an FAA approved manual for the unit to open
it. The manufactor has keep those manuals secret (like Garmin does) so
you have to send it to the factory. However, the factory will no
longer look at it. Are you saying you would be willing to open the
unit and service it for me???

-Robert

[The Visitor]

RST Engineering wrote:


> You just don't get it, do you? No.
>
>

Well I am not familiar with US rules.
So I was asking. You know what "asking" is, don't you?
But you should not one to shoot your mouth off, are you.

Like there are no fuel injected 172's, wasn't that you?
Wasn't that you, wrong about some other things also?

Problem being friendly?

Having read many of your posts, you shouldn't be acting the way you do.

Thank's for reading....

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . com>,
Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>On Apr 19, 7:25 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>> That's an interesting heresy and untruth. Mind telling us how you came to
>> believe this?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
ooglegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > without opening the unit (which is now illegal to do ).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I'm told you have to have an FAA approved manual for the unit to open
>it. The manufactor has keep those manuals secret (like Garmin does) so
>you have to send it to the factory. However, the factory will no
>longer look at it. Are you saying you would be willing to open the
>unit and service it for me???
>
You initial statement was a bald assertion that opening the unit was
*illegal* for you to do. Now you say that someone (unnamed) told you
this.

Perhaps you could examine the relevant regulations to see what rules
apply in what way.

Merely opening up the case is unlikely to be *illegal* on its face.
It might be that, having opened it up, it can't be put back into
service (as a transmitter) without the blessing of someone with the
appropriate radio credentials. It might be that any repairs that are
made have to be vetted by same credentialed repair person. It might
be an old wives' tale.

I don't know the answer, and I bet Jim does, but you haven't asked
the right question.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad

[The Visitor]

In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a radio.
Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray, technically.
Obviously those get ignored alot but opening the case, hmmmm.
I'm sure his local(or not so local) FSDO will help him out.

John

Michael Houghton wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> In article . com>,
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
>>On Apr 19, 7:25 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>>>That's an interesting heresy and untruth. Mind telling us how you came to
>>>believe this?
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>
ooglegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>without opening the unit (which is now illegal to do ).- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>I'm told you have to have an FAA approved manual for the unit to open
>>it. The manufactor has keep those manuals secret (like Garmin does) so
>>you have to send it to the factory. However, the factory will no
>>longer look at it. Are you saying you would be willing to open the
>>unit and service it for me???
>>
>
> You initial statement was a bald assertion that opening the unit was
> *illegal* for you to do. Now you say that someone (unnamed) told you
> this.
>
> Perhaps you could examine the relevant regulations to see what rules
> apply in what way.
>
> Merely opening up the case is unlikely to be *illegal* on its face.
> It might be that, having opened it up, it can't be put back into
> service (as a transmitter) without the blessing of someone with the
> appropriate radio credentials. It might be that any repairs that are
> made have to be vetted by same credentialed repair person. It might
> be an old wives' tale.
>
> I don't know the answer, and I bet Jim does, but you haven't asked
> the right question.
>
> yours,
> Michael
>
>

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:17:56 -0400, The Visitor
> wrote:

>In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a radio.
>Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray, technically.
>Obviously those get ignored alot but opening the case, hmmmm.
>I'm sure his local(or not so local) FSDO will help him out.
>
>John
>
Could you cite the appropriate CAR please. Those seem like rather
harsh rules for something that's not even required for safe flight.
Am I breaking rules when I remove my ELT and send it out for recert.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 20, 11:03 am, (Michael Houghton) wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> In article . com>,
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 19, 7:25 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> >> That's an interesting heresy and untruth. Mind telling us how you came to
> >> believe this?
>
> >> Jim
>
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> ooglegroups.com...
>
> >> > without opening the unit (which is now illegal to do ).- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >I'm told you have to have an FAA approved manual for the unit to open
> >it. The manufactor has keep those manuals secret (like Garmin does) so
> >you have to send it to the factory. However, the factory will no
> >longer look at it. Are you saying you would be willing to open the
> >unit and service it for me???
>
> You initial statement was a bald assertion that opening the unit was
> *illegal* for you to do. Now you say that someone (unnamed) told you
> this.
>
> Perhaps you could examine the relevant regulations to see what rules
> apply in what way.
>
> Merely opening up the case is unlikely to be *illegal* on its face.
> It might be that, having opened it up, it can't be put back into
> service (as a transmitter) without the blessing of someone with the
> appropriate radio credentials. It might be that any repairs that are
> made have to be vetted by same credentialed repair person. It might
> be an old wives' tale.

This is without a doubt the stupidest reply I've ever seen on USNET.
Gee, if you ever need heart surgery I can do that for you. I can
remove your heart. Apparently you don't think its relevant that I
don't know how to put it back in. Once this unit is opened, it is a
paper weight, there is no one who is legally able to return it to
service so I'll have to live with it working intermitantly unless the
cause is external.
Gees, you'd think there would be an IQ test to use a computer.

-Robert

[The Visitor]

Actually I think elt removeal and re-installation is on TC's list of
pilot approved maintenance.

Drew Dalgleish wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:17:56 -0400, The Visitor
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a radio.
>>Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray, technically.
>>Obviously those get ignored alot but opening the case, hmmmm.
>>I'm sure his local(or not so local) FSDO will help him out.
>>
>>John
>>
>
> Could you cite the appropriate CAR please. Those seem like rather
> harsh rules for something that's not even required for safe flight.
> Am I breaking rules when I remove my ELT and send it out for recert.

[The Visitor]

Drew Dalgleish wrote:

> Could you cite the appropriate CAR please.

Like you, I don't have time to wade through them. And I don't have them
memorized.

But it your concerned you can or give TC a call. Look up the list of
approved pilot maintenance; for those items you can do and make the
logbook entry. Also if you pull a radio or put one it you need to make
the appropriate logbook entry.

If you find anything post it here?

[The Visitor]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Gees, you'd think there would be an IQ test to use a computer.
>

A testimony to Windows and Macs.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

The Visitor > writes:

> > Could you cite the appropriate CAR please.
>
> Like you, I don't have time to wade through them. And I don't have
> them memorized.

That's rich -- after you make the blanket assertion:

>> In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a
>> radio. Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray,
>> technically. [...]

> [...]
> If you find anything post it here?

Certainly.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part6/Standards/a625a.htm

(18) removal and replacement of avionics components that are rack
mounted or otherwise designed for rapid removal and replacement,
where the work does not require testing other than an operational
check;

Next time you feel the need to make a blanket statement, please do
your homework first, or at least when someone calls you on it.


- FChE

[The Visitor]

Hey, don't be a turd.

I was on my way out the door to do a ride.
I tried pointing him in the right direction and did my best under the
time constraints. I thought I started him on the right path in case I
couldn't help him in time. And I was going to follow up on it.

Your quote.
Did you read the second paragraph...at the TOP!!
"For aircraft operated pursuant to Subpart 406* and Part VII, the
applicable tasks listed below are elementary work, provided they are
individually listed in the operator's maintenance control manual and or
operational manual as applicable,"

Subpart 406, isn't that Flight Training Units? (Okay I was going to get
rude, but I won't.)Does he have an operator's maintenance control
manual? No!! Is he a flying school???? No!!

There is a listing of private owner maintenance, (non-experimental) And
I still feel it is not on the list. I don't rule out being wrong, but
hey fella, loose the attitude. I don't think the person asking, is the
owner of a flying school with an approved MCM.

Man what is it with some of you. You play that, "cite the regulation"
game to no end. Don't you have a life of any sort. No? Okay fine, then
there is the work of art such as yourself that jumps, without
understanding (reading) just to score a "kill". When do you jacka@$'$
say "sorry" when you are wrong???? Duh, like now.

As for "blanket statements" and "homework". Man you have it coming in
spades for this boneheaded mistake. Why are you so effing hostile????????

I have helped a lot of people in aviation and don't deserve your brand
of smelly crap, even _if_ I was wrong. Last time I met someone like you,
he was a Ph.D. of basket weaving. I am going to read again what you
wrote, just for a laugh. Well you taught me for trying to be
informative. What a waste of my time. Thank you very much, you have
succeeded in making your problem, my problem. I'm glad I'm not sitting
in the back of your airplane, or even, dare I say, car.

Get lost.

I hope you fly better than you live life. And although it is wasted on
you this day, I hope, one day, you live better than you fly.

Now on the something interesting. Some helicopters that have four main
rotor blades with a blade folding system are constructed that by pulling
some magic expandable bolt out they can be swung around and stowed
together so that space is saved in a hangar. In the US this is commonly
done by the pilot. One manufacturer even markets it as a pilot function.
But in reality it needs to be done, and signed off, by an AME. Strange,
but true. But I don't ever rule out being wrong. And if you are civil I
would enjoy conversing with you. But, be warned, it is true, I gave up
being perfect long ago.

I have had a long day. Kindest regards to the friendly people in this group.

John





*
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART4/Tables/NPA406.htm












Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> The Visitor > writes:
>
>
>>>Could you cite the appropriate CAR please.
>>
>>Like you, I don't have time to wade through them. And I don't have
>>them memorized.
>
>
> That's rich -- after you make the blanket assertion:
>
>
>>>In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a
>>>radio. Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray,
>>>technically. [...]
>
>
>>[...]
>>If you find anything post it here?
>
>
> Certainly.
>
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part6/Standards/a625a.htm
>
> (18) removal and replacement of avionics components that are rack
> mounted or otherwise designed for rapid removal and replacement,
> where the work does not require testing other than an operational
> check;
>
> Next time you feel the need to make a blanket statement, please do
> your homework first, or at least when someone calls you on it.
>
>
> - FChE

[The Visitor]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Gees, you'd think there would be an IQ test to use a computer.


Robert, you have a talent for hitting the nail, square on the head.

I probably don't belong in here(to many pin headed buzzards)but I had to
come back to your post, and pay it homage; one more time.

People's attitudes are so indicative of their life choices.
It is that diversity that makes the world-go-round.

Don't you change.

John

[The Visitor]

Drew, along those lines at a local flying school, (I have nothing to do
with them or any flying school though) an instructor got in trouble for
changing a landing light and going night flying. not because he didn't
do a logbook entry.Turns out there, it has to be changed out by the
shop. Sometimes it doesn't pay to get the job done. But he was supposed
to know the procedure, I think it is outlined in the MCM or something.

Myself, I just get the job done. I imagine there are owners who have
beentheir own avionics technicians. Sure they can't tag a radio
servicable, but then it was not written up defective in a journey log
either. When should someone have a problem with this? If someone else
buys the aircraft.

I see if I dont cite the rules, I am viewed as wrong, trying to escape
something. Lots of people don't have time for this. Like googling things
for people that will not search out the answer themselves. If it is
important to them, then they should dig in and do it themselves. This
tactic is usually used with goverment people, to restrain them. In there
quest "to help". Often they try to make management decisions when really
their job is only to enforce the regulations. So one must always ask for
a reference and make sure the person who pays for the fix, is
interperting the regulations the same way. I am now getting ready to go
out the door and will be flying again, soon. If it is important to you,
do give TC a call and ask to speak to an inspector regarding private
owner maintenance. Or are you sort of fearful that will prompt a
'visit'? (Probably a realistic concern.)It's pretty odd the things one
can and can't do. But has little bearing on what is actually going on. I
don't mind being right, I don't mind being wrong. It's just what I think
I was told some time ago. I have no ego wrapped up in either outcome.
Just to busy doing 'real things' to act like some do-nothing pinhead
over something so incredibly trivial. Just trying to inject something
interesting and wanting to help. Got to go do things now, so I won't
even proof read. (The human spell-checkers and syntax gurus can have a
field day!)

Thanks for reading.

John




Drew Dalgleish wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:17:56 -0400, The Visitor
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a radio.
>>Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray, technically.
>>Obviously those get ignored alot but opening the case, hmmmm.
>>I'm sure his local(or not so local) FSDO will help him out.
>>
>>John
>>
>
> Could you cite the appropriate CAR please. Those seem like rather
> harsh rules for something that's not even required for safe flight.
> Am I breaking rules when I remove my ELT and send it out for recert.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

The Visitor > writes:

> [...] I was on my way out the door to do a ride. I tried pointing
> him in the right direction and did my best under the time
> constraints. I thought I started him on the right path in case I
> couldn't help him in time. And I was going to follow up on it.

That's great, but that was hard to read into your words.

> [...]
> Did you read the second paragraph...at the TOP!!
> "For aircraft operated pursuant to Subpart 406* and Part VII, the
> applicable tasks listed below are elementary work, provided they are
> individually listed in the operator's maintenance control manual and
> or operational manual as applicable,"
>
> Subpart 406, isn't that Flight Training Units? (Okay I was going to
> get rude, but I won't.)Does he have an operator's maintenance control
> manual? No!! Is he a flying school???? No!!

It really is not a complicated text - certainly no worse than other
stuff in the CARs. This paragraph simply means that, even though the
rest of the appendix is the all-inclusive list of "elementary work",
commercial aircraft such as those of flight schools' need to
specifically include them in their OM's in order to apply. The
paragraph in no way implies that the entire list *only applies* to
such commercial aircraft -- almost the opposite.

> There is a listing of private owner maintenance, (non-experimental)

The appendix I linked to is exactly that list.

> And I still feel it is not on the list. I don't rule out being
> wrong [...]

That's wise.

- FChE

[The Visitor]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

>
> The appendix I linked to is exactly that list.
>

It's exactly the list for flight schools with an approved maintenance
manual.
Read the second paragraph.

Here it is....

"For aircraft operated pursuant to Subpart 406 and Part VII, the
applicable tasks listed below are elementary work, provided they are
individually listed in the operator's maintenance control manual and or
operational manual as applicable, along with a reference to the training
to be undertaken by persons authorized to perform them in accordance
with paragraph 571.10(3)(b) of the CARs."




The applicability of that list is explained at the top. You may not
infer other uses for the list. Unless it suits your argument and being
correct isn't important. And do not confuse privately operated with
privately registered. The applicability of that list is clearly
explained. It exists to help flying schools get by without needing an
AME to do everything, which would bust any small operation.

Take your own advice you dished out so arrogantly, and in such an
uncalled for manner.

Waste your time on trivia if that is your specialty.
What's the big deal to you anyway.
But do it on your own, I'm busy.

[The Visitor]

Hey guys and gals. Sorry about my offensive tone. This is gong to be an
argument that never ends and that is not what I do in life. I would
actually feel better if I was wrong, but as it is now, the greater
mystery, I just can't figure some guys out. I try to stay out of these
internet events (picayune games for shut-ins)but I am amazed how easily
one can get suckered in.

Happy flying.





The Visitor wrote:

> Hey, don't be a turd.
>
> I was on my way out the door to do a ride.
> I tried pointing him in the right direction and did my best under the
> time constraints. I thought I started him on the right path in case I
> couldn't help him in time. And I was going to follow up on it.
>
> Your quote.
> Did you read the second paragraph...at the TOP!!
> "For aircraft operated pursuant to Subpart 406* and Part VII, the
> applicable tasks listed below are elementary work, provided they are
> individually listed in the operator's maintenance control manual and or
> operational manual as applicable,"
>
> Subpart 406, isn't that Flight Training Units? (Okay I was going to get
> rude, but I won't.)Does he have an operator's maintenance control
> manual? No!! Is he a flying school???? No!!
>
> There is a listing of private owner maintenance, (non-experimental) And
> I still feel it is not on the list. I don't rule out being wrong, but
> hey fella, loose the attitude. I don't think the person asking, is the
> owner of a flying school with an approved MCM.
>
> Man what is it with some of you. You play that, "cite the regulation"
> game to no end. Don't you have a life of any sort. No? Okay fine, then
> there is the work of art such as yourself that jumps, without
> understanding (reading) just to score a "kill". When do you jacka@$'$
> say "sorry" when you are wrong???? Duh, like now.
>
> As for "blanket statements" and "homework". Man you have it coming in
> spades for this boneheaded mistake. Why are you so effing hostile????????
>
> I have helped a lot of people in aviation and don't deserve your brand
> of smelly crap, even _if_ I was wrong. Last time I met someone like you,
> he was a Ph.D. of basket weaving. I am going to read again what you
> wrote, just for a laugh. Well you taught me for trying to be
> informative. What a waste of my time. Thank you very much, you have
> succeeded in making your problem, my problem. I'm glad I'm not sitting
> in the back of your airplane, or even, dare I say, car.
>
> Get lost.
>
> I hope you fly better than you live life. And although it is wasted on
> you this day, I hope, one day, you live better than you fly.
>
> Now on the something interesting. Some helicopters that have four main
> rotor blades with a blade folding system are constructed that by pulling
> some magic expandable bolt out they can be swung around and stowed
> together so that space is saved in a hangar. In the US this is commonly
> done by the pilot. One manufacturer even markets it as a pilot function.
> But in reality it needs to be done, and signed off, by an AME. Strange,
> but true. But I don't ever rule out being wrong. And if you are civil I
> would enjoy conversing with you. But, be warned, it is true, I gave up
> being perfect long ago.
>
> I have had a long day. Kindest regards to the friendly people in this
> group.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART4/Tables/NPA406.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
>> The Visitor > writes:
>>
>>
>>>> Could you cite the appropriate CAR please.
>>>
>>>
>>> Like you, I don't have time to wade through them. And I don't have
>>> them memorized.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's rich -- after you make the blanket assertion:
>>
>>
>>>> In Canada a pilot isn't even allowed to remove and re-install a
>>>> radio. Actually not even tighten it up in it's tray,
>>>> technically. [...]
>>
>>
>>
>>> [...]
>>> If you find anything post it here?
>>
>>
>>
>> Certainly.
>>
>> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part6/Standards/a625a.htm
>>
>>
>> (18) removal and replacement of avionics components that are rack
>> mounted or otherwise designed for rapid removal and replacement,
>> where the work does not require testing other than an operational
>> check;
>>
>> Next time you feel the need to make a blanket statement, please do
>> your homework first, or at least when someone calls you on it.
>>
>>
>> - FChE
>
>

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

The Visitor > writes:

> > The appendix I linked to is exactly that list.
>
> It's exactly the list for flight schools with an approved
> maintenance manual. Read the second paragraph. [...] The
> applicability of that list is explained at the top. You may not
> infer other uses for the list. [...] It exists to help flying
> schools get by without needing an AME to do everything, which would
> bust any small operation.

I'm afraid you're interpreting it completely the wrong way around.

That paragraph means that the list does not apply to e.g. flight
schools, *unless* their OM essentially transcribes it. And flight
school OMs will probably say that the elementary work needs to be
specially supervised or performed by the maintenance department. This
exactly explains your other anecdote, where a flight instructor got in
trouble for fixing the landing light of a school airplane.

Another way to see this is section 571.02 and .03 of the CARs. It
applies to private airplanes, describes the concept of elementary
work, and (gasp!) it refers to the same subject appendix (standard 625
appendix a) to list them. 571.05 refers to commercial type
operations.

> Waste your time on trivia if that is your specialty. What's the big
> deal to you anyway. But do it on your own, I'm busy.

Next time, please also be busy enough not to post misinformation, then
spray recalcitrant insults at those who correct it.


- FChE

[RST Engineering]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>
>> You just don't get it, do you? No.


When you have the balls to post your real name, let me know and I'll
continue the conversation.

Jim

[RST Engineering]

>
> I'm told you have to have an FAA approved manual for the unit to open
> it.

Really? Find an FAA approved manual for any radio without a TSO. Narco?
King? Icom? Microair? You won't find an "approved" manual for (literally)
hundreds of models from dozens of manufacturers.




The manufactor has keep those manuals secret (like Garmin does) so
> you have to send it to the factory. However, the factory will no
> longer look at it. Are you saying you would be willing to open the
> unit and service it for me???


Not without a service manual, approved or otherwise. Not for legality, but
for tech data necessary to service.


Jim

[The Visitor]

Ah this is where the argument decends into finer and finer minutae of
nothing. I will not bother chasing your leads, because on the surface of
your post I can tell you maintenace items are delt with in the MCM not
an OM. Have you ever been to Canada? Or only on your flight sim?


So again, your own advice applies to the very same post, please be busy
enough not to post misinformation.

Even if I was wrong, it doesn't excuse the way you wrote to me.
It is called acting like a t&$#. But you won't see that, like so many
other things you will miss. I don't even care if I am right or wrong.
You seem pretty wrapped up in something pretty small.

Find someone with _your_ kind of spare time.
Maybe Jim who seems to think anybody can work on their avionics and
return them to service.

[The Visitor]

RST Engineering wrote:
> When you have the balls to post your real name,

Having the balls has nothing to do with it. Only a child/schoolyard
bully would think that way. But take the easy out if you want to.

The real issue still remains. In Canada I suppose if a person worked on
his own avionics he could return them to service if it was some sort of
experimental aircraft. Perhaps not. Perhaps it would need to be marked
as unservicable. Because it could otherwise be sold one day to a person
with a normally registered aircraft.

I was just asking you....

">If he opens it up, isn't there some sort of qualifications he needs to
> certify it and return it to service?"

And I asked because is seems from your post, that a person can. If
clarifying your opinion is too risky, I understand.

Instead of biting my ankles, can't you two keep each other busy. You
seem to have mutual interests.

John

[RST Engineering]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...


> The real issue still remains. In Canada I suppose if a person worked on
> his own avionics he could return them to service if it was some sort of
> experimental aircraft. Perhaps not. Perhaps it would need to be marked as
> unservicable. Because it could otherwise be sold one day to a person with
> a normally registered aircraft.

The OP was from the States. I answered because my expertise is in avionics
as it applies to the States. Canada is not my field and I won't debate the
victorian rules of Canada.

>
> I was just asking you....
>
> ">If he opens it up, isn't there some sort of qualifications he needs to
> > certify it and return it to service?"
>
> And I asked because is seems from your post, that a person can. If
> clarifying your opinion is too risky, I understand.

The States rules specify that the CALIBRATION of radio equipment is a major
repair. There are other sections that specify who can and cannot perform a
major repair. If you don't CALIBRATE the sucker, then all else is minor or
preventive, including fixit.

One of the regular posters in this NG notes with tongue firmly in cheek that
if you connect the radio to the landing light switch, then "repairing broken
circuits in landing light wiring" is specifically permitted in the
preventive maintenance that can be done by the owner.


>
> Instead of biting my ankles, can't you two keep each other busy. You seem
> to have mutual interests.


I've met some real nice Canadians and some real assholes, just like
everywhere else. You tip to the right of the previous sentence.

Jim

[The Visitor]

RST Engineering wrote:


> When you have the balls to post your real name, let me know and I'll
> continue the conversation.
>

(Okay Jimbo, I accept your implication that you do not converse with
anyone who does not use their full name. And also what you think of
them. Wow, I never realized how easy computers are to use.)

I am pretty tired these days but that is just the sort if thing someone
says because they want to divert away from the facts. Sort of a way to
take the offence and back-peddle at the same time. After all, probably
more than half this newsgroup don't use their full name and you seem
okay with them doing so. Oh, perhaps you have gotten yourself in the
corner before with others and reached for the same "out".

Please, you two resolve the issues in this thread. I will believe
whatever mature conclusion you two agree on concerning the technical
aspects of maintaining one's own avionics. It is obviously an issue the
two of you are passionate about.

There are alot of nice people in this newsgroup.
And some I have come to respect and like.
Life is what you look for.

John

[The Visitor]

Impressive response, but my question was not answered.
I will restate it.


">If he opens it up, isn't there some sort of qualifications he needs to
> certify it and return it to service?"



That was my origonal question, you seemed to have a reaction to. I
wasn't trying to tell you anything. But I guess I should have known
better than to ask a question.

In Canada radios get "green tags" and avionics shops have to meet
certain qualifications and be certified to do so. It costs them a lot of
$$$ to do so. They even put stickers on the radio case and withness
paint on the screws. Strangely they did at some of the US shops I have
visited.


That's all, I just didn't know a private owner could return it to
service in the United States.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . com>,
Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>On Apr 20, 11:03 am, (Michael Houghton) wrote:
>> Howdy!
>>
>> In article . com>,
>> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 19, 7:25 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>> >> That's an interesting heresy and untruth. Mind telling us how you came to
>> >> believe this?
>>
>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > without opening the unit (which is now illegal to do ).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >I'm told you have to have an FAA approved manual for the unit to open
>> >it. The manufactor has keep those manuals secret (like Garmin does) so
>> >you have to send it to the factory. However, the factory will no
>> >longer look at it. Are you saying you would be willing to open the
>> >unit and service it for me???
>>
>> You initial statement was a bald assertion that opening the unit was
>> *illegal* for you to do. Now you say that someone (unnamed) told you
>> this.
>>
>> Perhaps you could examine the relevant regulations to see what rules
>> apply in what way.
>>
>> Merely opening up the case is unlikely to be *illegal* on its face.
>> It might be that, having opened it up, it can't be put back into
>> service (as a transmitter) without the blessing of someone with the
>> appropriate radio credentials. It might be that any repairs that are
>> made have to be vetted by same credentialed repair person. It might
>> be an old wives' tale.
>
>This is without a doubt the stupidest reply I've ever seen on USNET.
>Gee, if you ever need heart surgery I can do that for you. I can
>remove your heart. Apparently you don't think its relevant that I
>don't know how to put it back in. Once this unit is opened, it is a
>paper weight, there is no one who is legally able to return it to
>service so I'll have to live with it working intermitantly unless the
>cause is external.

Clearly, you have read very little on USENET.

I'm just responding to your words. Your story keeps changing with
each reply.

Can you cite actual regulations that support your claims? You've been
asked in various ways to do so, but you have shown no inclination to
do so. That speaks poorly of your ability to reason from facts.
You continue to insist that if you open it up, it can never be
returned to service. On what grounds (citations required) do you make
that claim?

I hypothesized a number of possible explanations for your claim, but
have no reason to try to do your homework for you. In addition, I see
no reason for you to get abusive in your reply. The fact that you have
done so speaks volumes of your character.

>Gees, you'd think there would be an IQ test to use a computer.

Would you get special dispensation to not have to take it?

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad