VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV Ongoing Maintenance Issues
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-31-2016, 11:17 AM
sblack sblack is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,362
Default

My understanding of Canadian rules is that for an experimental airplane the equipment has to be equivalent to TSO in functionality. There is no requirement for it to be certified. I don't know how that is handled by the FAA. I certainly know what I would do, but I would not tell anyone else what they should do unless I thought it was a safety issue. To each his own.
__________________
Scott Black
Old school simple VFR RV 4, O-320, wood prop, MGL iEfis Lite
VAF dues 2019
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-31-2016, 01:39 PM
Noah's Avatar
Noah Noah is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gisnar View Post
You may not like this, but......


According to the E-04 instructions...TSO-C142a PROHIBITS OPENING OR REPLACING CELLS. IF THE BATTERY PACK IS OPENED BY ANYONE EXCEPT THE MANUFACTURER IT IS NO LONGER AIRWORTHY, AND THE WARRANTY IS VOID.

So the answer is that while it's technically possible to replace the batteries, it's not legal to do so....
Not so fast.

Like I said in the bottom of the first post, the TSO doesn't seem to say this at all, check for yourself. Wishful thinking on ACK'S part? As far as voiding the warranty, it's already expired after 5 years.
__________________
Highest Regards,

Noah F, RV-7A

All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men… for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible. -T.E. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-31-2016, 05:45 PM
Canadian_JOY Canadian_JOY is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sblack View Post
My understanding of Canadian rules is that for an experimental airplane the equipment has to be equivalent to TSO in functionality. There is no requirement for it to be certified. I don't know how that is handled by the FAA. I certainly know what I would do, but I would not tell anyone else what they should do unless I thought it was a safety issue. To each his own.
Scott - sorry to disappoint, but the Canadian rules with respect to ELTs require the units to be TSO'd, and to be installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. This is irrespective of the type of airworthiness certificate issued in respect of the aircraft. In fact, the installation and maintenance manuals are controlled documents and form part of the document set which the manufacturer must submit in order to obtain TSO certification. This is how the design / manufacture / installation / maintenance of the product becomes a closed control loop, and it's only in the presence of that closed control loop that a TSO can be issued and kept valid.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-01-2016, 12:22 AM
skylor's Avatar
skylor skylor is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 711
Default ELT TSO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian_JOY View Post
Scott - sorry to disappoint, but the Canadian rules with respect to ELTs require the units to be TSO'd, and to be installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. This is irrespective of the type of airworthiness certificate issued in respect of the aircraft. In fact, the installation and maintenance manuals are controlled documents and form part of the document set which the manufacturer must submit in order to obtain TSO certification. This is how the design / manufacture / installation / maintenance of the product becomes a closed control loop, and it's only in the presence of that closed control loop that a TSO can be issued and kept valid.
This is also true in the US...

Skylor
RV-8
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-10-2016, 08:07 AM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 4,743
Default

An update on this thread - the battery maker SAFT which is the primary source for this type of cell has just been purchased by the French company TotalSA, no word yet on whether the marketing name will change or not. Just be aware they could be marketed by either/or.
__________________
Greg Niehues - PPSEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2019 dues paid
N16GN flying 500 hrs and counting! Built an off-plan 9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-10-2016, 09:25 AM
tim2542 tim2542 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Redding,Ca
Posts: 633
Default

I just replaced mine. I considered replacing the batteries myself but after finding a new one for $125 shipped vs $75-80 for replacements I just ordered new.
What I wanted to add was the new one came with a sticker on it specifically warning against replacing the batteries and voiding the TSO if it the case is opened...they must have seen this thread!
Also, I measured the voltage of the old battery at 12.09, and the new battery at 12.06. I'm not familiar with this type battery so I'm not sure how reverent that is, but I would have hoped the new one would measure higher.
Tim Andres
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-10-2016, 05:49 PM
krwalsh krwalsh is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 314
Default LiSO2 Battery Discharge Profile

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim2542 View Post
Also, I measured the voltage of the old battery at 12.09, and the new battery at 12.06. I'm not familiar with this type battery so I'm not sure how reverent that is, but I would have hoped the new one would measure higher.
Tim Andres
The LiSO2 battery discharge profile is very flat, until it is basically dead:
http://www.saftbatteries.com/system/...pdf?download=1

So open-circuit voltage is not indicative of remaining charge.
__________________
Kevin R. Walsh
Cozy Mk-IV
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-10-2016, 06:41 PM
Carl Froehlich's Avatar
Carl Froehlich Carl Froehlich is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dogwood Airpark (VA42)
Posts: 2,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim2542 View Post
I just replaced mine. I considered replacing the batteries myself but after finding a new one for $125 shipped vs $75-80 for replacements I just ordered new.
Tim Andres
Where did you get this deal?

Carl
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-11-2016, 10:19 AM
tim2542 tim2542 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Redding,Ca
Posts: 633
Default Gulf coast avionics

I bought it from Gulf coast avionics, but I just looked again so I could post a link and it's gone up to $139
Tim Andres
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-29-2016, 02:23 PM
ACK Technologies, Inc. ACK Technologies, Inc. is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3
Default

We have received a number of calls recently asking if it is legal to replace the cells in the ACK E-04 TSO-C142a battery pack. Several callers referred to this thread.

The short answer in no. Opening the battery case,and replacing cells is forbidden by the TSO. The person who posted the instructions as most builders, plots and even mechanics do not have an understanding of the TSO requirements. All modern TSO’s over the last 25 years are simply a general outline of the requirements to be followed in receiving TSO approval, and always refer to a specific document, or documents which the product must be tested to and conform to in order to receive the TSO. Almost all avionic or electronic related TSO’s refer to RTCA documents. In this case the document is RTCA DO-227 Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Lithium Batteries which is 91 pages of test and manufacturing requirements.

I have attached the relevant sections of the document that prohibit replacement of the cells in a battery pack by anyone other than the manufacturer. There are also requirements to have a QC procedure in place that must be followed as a manufacturer, and requires we have certification from the cell manufacturer of each shipment, and have a specific Quality Control systems in place. The photo that shows the expiration date, manufacture date and lot number as required by the FAA provides reference to the Quality Control process documents that were in place when manufactured. One of our competitors ignored these requirements and had all the TSO’s approvals they held revoked. The FAA requested we label the battery with a warning removing the seal on the screws and opening the battery pack renders it un-airworthy.

The FAA and Canadian authorities are extremely concerned about Lithium batteries in aircraft bordering on paranoia. There new testing standards forthcoming that further address requirements for the use of non-rechargeable Lithium batteries in aircraft.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.