Interesting
reading about the latest from Garmin in your December 2009 issue. A question
from those of us that fly open cockpit: Will the touchscreen work with gloves
on?
My iPhone
won’t. This could be another case where "improvements" take a whole class of
user out of the market.
Gary
Mitchell, via
e-mail
Yes, the aera will
work with gloves on. It’s resistive technology, not the capacitance technology
used by the iPhone and others of its ilk. Although we didn’t try the aera with
gloves on, we used its motorcycle cousin, the zumo. Works fine with gloves.
Now that
touchscreen entry is finally here, can you tap the course line on the new Garmin
aera and drag/edit a segment in real time?
This would be
great when ATC gives you a clearance change while IFR. No need to enter new
fixes by keyboard... just drag your existing course line and have it snap to the
nearest fix as when editing a line segment in a typical vector drawing program.
You didn’t say,
so I’m guessing the answer is "no." Or "not yet."
Mike
Palmer, Glendale,
Arizona
We’ll go with not yet. At press
time, Garmin told us the aera doesn’t currently have this precise capability,
but that there might be a way to do it. When they let us know, we’ll let you
know.
ADS-B Challenge
In the November
2009 sidebar on ADS-B, you said, "But the FAA doesn’t like the idea of ADS-B
parasites not transmitting, so it recently had ITT modify the transmission from
ADS-B ground stations so they only broadcast information about traffic near
participating aircraft. "
That may make a
great conspiracy theory, but it is false. I worked as a private consultant to
one of the firms that was bidding against ITT for the ADS-B contract. What you
describe as "recently" was always part of the FAA requirement.
What is the
point of transmitting in the blind when no participating aircraft are in the
area? The ground-based transceivers receive traffic reports from both UAT and
1090ES and if traffic is detected using both frequencies at the same time and
area, the GBT will duplicate the messages on the opposite frequency.
The GBT also
receives transponder radar targets that are not participating in ADS-B and
formats them into TIS-B transmissions. They are only sent, however, if there is
an aircraft on the frequency with the capability to receive it. The ADS-B Out
includes messages that define the participating aircraft’s capabilities.
Unnecessary
transmissions just congest the frequency, particularly on 1090ES. The FAA ADS-B
design never considered "parasite" receivers (those receivers which do not have
ADS-B Out). I spent considerable time discussing this with the FAA at the time.
Traffic messages can be monitored with a "receiver only," but they will not see
all traffic and cannot control what traffic they will see.
John
Collins, Via
e-mail
Your points are well taken, but
exactly what went on (and is going on) with ADS-B seems to depend on who you
ask. Apparently, the final details weren’t actually final until they went into
ITT’s contract in 2008. That’s recent.
Some people
say it was always the plan, others don’t. We had to pester the FAA for two
weeks to finally get their side of the story and that was after deadline. At the
least, the FAA is not happy about the parasite ADS-B systems and would like to
see them all go away. Now.
MT: Hold The Phone
Nice article on
composite props in the December 2009 issue. I was wondering when articles like
this would begin to hit the streets. Composite props are the current must-have
accessory along with glass-panel displays and fluid de-ice systems.
You may want to
check your source for price between the MT three-blade composite and the
Hartzell three-blade composite. For the Cirrus SR22 (Hartzell item number
J3F30500) the price is $29,229 while the MT is MTV-9-D-198-50 at
$12,450.
This article
also missed the owner feedback you normally ask for in advance and include in
your work. I always look forward to that and missed it here. (Our Website includes several pages
of owner quotes:
http://www.flight-resource.com/Testimonials.aspx
I checked for
STC’d applications of MT and Hartzell composite props. MT Props are STC’d for
install on nearly a thousand models equating to more than 100,000 currently
flying aircraft worldwide. Hartzell composites have only a few STCs approved
covering a much smaller population. I think readers should know this
fact.
Last, the
editorial comment that indicated a personal choice of Hartzell, all other things
equal, may have been made with limited knowledge of what goes into the design of
the MT blade.
If you can’t
make a trip to the MT design and manufacturing facility in Germany, you should
take 16 minutes to watch the company video that shows the steps involved in the
MT build. We have involved the engineering wizards of MT on several occasions to
assist in design of a prop for a specific engine and are always impressed with
the knowledge of the physical characteristics of every material used in the
blades.
They know how
to change, or design in, specific vibration frequency range absorbing
characteristics, stiffness, inertial moment and peak efficiency at the RPMs we
asked for. It is clear why the MT was the only prop that passed all the tests
involved in selecting a prop for the diesel power plants. As the senior partner
in the world’s largest volume MT distributor, yes, I am biased.
John
Nielsen, www.Flight-Resource.com
Telex
Beef
I decided to
get an ANR headset when I bought an airplane 10 years ago and settled on a Telex
ANR-1D after trying and rejecting many others. I paid about $700 for the ANR-1D.
The Telex was big and clunky with tinny audio but it was sturdy and with an
Oregon Aero headband, provided outstanding comfort and noise cancellation.
I flew with it
for years and even sent a letter to the editor of Aviation Consumer about how I felt it had been
treated poorly in the reviews of the magazine. Meanwhile, I had bought a
LightSPEED 25XL and was going to return it, but my son said he preferred it when
flying so I kept it. It mostly stayed in the back seat except for a couple of
minor repairs. The Telex’s electronics went belly up four years ago and I had to
return it for a whopping $400 flat repair. It worked for a while before recently
giving up the ghost again.
This time,
after I sent it to Telex, it was returned to me with a short "INOP OBSOLETE" and
words to the effect that "we no longer repair these headsets." Now pardon me,
but I’ve sent Peltor and LightSPEED headsets back for repair and have always
gotten an excellent repair for a reasonable price. To have Telex first stiff me
for an enormous repair cost and then refuse it altogether it is unbelievable.
Pilots are used
to huge repair bills for avionics, but not for half the value of the item. This
headset was not from the 1950s, it was 10 years old. We are willing to spend a
premium on something if we think we are getting quality that the manufacturer
will support and when you put a huge price tag on something just because it says
"aviation" on the box, you should be prepared to support that product for longer
than 10 years.
Or do what
LightSPEED does. I recently noticed a program for a new Zulu with credit on the
trade-in of my old 25XL. I figured, why not? They support their headsets and now
they want to support their customers with a great deal on a trade-in.
I doubted I
could get $300 for this headset on eBay, so off the 25XL went to Oregon and now
I have a fantastic ANR Zulu headset for $550. The reviewers are all correct. It
is comfortable, the ANR works beautifully and it has cellphone and music
interface.
Best of all, I
have confidence in the customer service of LightSPEED. I’m not sure who at Telex
made the decision to stop supporting the ANR-1D. Maybe they were just breaking
too often, but they could at least have given me something for trade-in on a new
headset.
I’m sure the
new Telex headset works great, but I would caution buyers to consider the
company that makes them. Telex doesn’t value the GA market and believes we
should chuck a $700 headset just because it has a few bad circuits, and buy a
new one. Sorry, guys, you blew it.
Peter
VerLee, Via
e-mail
John Weeks,
sales manager for Telex, provided us with this response: Telex is committed to
providing the very highest level of service and support for its General Aviation
customers and we deeply regret Mr. VerLee’s recent experience with his Telex
headset.
Although
there comes a point at which it is no longer economically viable to manufacture
and maintain an inventory of spare parts for older headsets, this should never
be at the expense of customer satisfaction. To that effect, we are currently
evaluating our repair and exchange policies with the goal of making them more
flexible and affordable for all our customers, especially those with older
products.
Our
headsets are designed to provide years of service and we agree that fair pricing
for repairs or exchanges is central to the value of choosing a Telex
product.
