Question for those using video cameras in planes
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Thanks John for letting me hire your Malibu, by the way, I know you're not keen on it but there's no law which says I can't plug my __________ into the headphone jack, so I'm going to do it anyway and you can't stop me. After all, I'm paying to hire it so I'll do what I want with it"
First of all, if John had made it clear that he didn't want folk plugging anything other than a TSO's headset into his Malibu's avionics, no sensible person would do so. In this case, it has nothing to do with the law relating to certification, it has to do with whatever conditions the aircraft owner wants to impose as a condition of hire. Assuming the hirer is informed of those conditions, they form part of the contract with the owner (via an aero club or whatever) and ARE the law.
Secondly, if John wants to impose conditions of hire based on nothing more than misinformation, old wives tales and rumour, he is of course entitled to do so - but he is being somewhat stupid if he does, and only displaying his ignorance of his aircraft and it's systems.
When it comes to the risks of allowing your aircraft to be available for rental, what gets plugged into the headphone socket is a long way down the list of possible issues. Just make sure that you are properly insured and that your contract with the hirer is sensible, and the risk is minimal.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but that story is highly unlikely. Show me the receipt for the repair and I might believe you...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing it could POSSIBLY fry is the input section of the pre-amp, which in any case should be either fused or overload-protected. There simply isn't enough voltage coming out of a CD player to do that sort of damage. 20K? Don't think so. What was it plugged into? And unless it was plugged directly into the GNS430, there is no way it could damage that either. Sorry, but that story is highly unlikely. Show me the receipt for the repair and I might believe you...
might email Garmin for a copy of their repair invoice and component list and I'll CC the CEO of Heliflite just to keep him in the loop.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complete nonsense. The "stressed output transistors" are part of the audio amp, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the transmitter section of the radio, other than being connected to it. There is no way on the planet that a failed audio output transistor could interfere with someone else's transmission... quite apart from the fact that pretty much every TSO'd radio has output transistors with full thermal and overload protection. And in any case, if those transistors were to fail despite the protection, they would almost certainly fail open-circuit (ie no output at all).
Remoak, the failed output transistors would render the comms unservicable due to NO audio output.
If ya can't hear ATC then ya can't do much with them. Interference isn't the question.
So while it's true that the POH probably doesn't specify the exact type of headset, it does imply that the comms will be used as per the manufacturers specifications.
You will find a listing of impedance ranges there if you look.
Are you suggesting that you are free to plug in a shorting jack into a headset output ?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank goodness for Google - sorted that one out for me in .28 secs.
Meaning of apocryphal (adjective)
counterfeit; of doubtful authorship or authenticity
I could quite believe a guy got a bill for $24K ... and possibly didn't deserve one quite that big.
I speak from experience.. I have one for $10K myself for not fixing the 'fault' and then when a less apocryphal guy (is that right usage?) found the right fault it cost $180. So yes, I'd agree, we are probably reading some complete garbage from folk who reckon they know what they're on about. Problem is finding the ones who's work is most apocryphal. (Can I end a sentence with apocryphal? How do you say it btw? Great word, has lots of application in GA!)
Meaning of apocryphal (adjective)
counterfeit; of doubtful authorship or authenticity
I could quite believe a guy got a bill for $24K ... and possibly didn't deserve one quite that big.
I speak from experience.. I have one for $10K myself for not fixing the 'fault' and then when a less apocryphal guy (is that right usage?) found the right fault it cost $180. So yes, I'd agree, we are probably reading some complete garbage from folk who reckon they know what they're on about. Problem is finding the ones who's work is most apocryphal. (Can I end a sentence with apocryphal? How do you say it btw? Great word, has lots of application in GA!)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm! We're an avionics technician are we ?
the failed output transistors would render the comms unservicable due to NO audio output.
Are you suggesting that you are free to plug in a shorting jack into a headset output ?
I speak from experience.. I have one for $10K myself for not fixing the 'fault' and then when a less apocryphal guy (is that right usage?) found the right fault it cost $180.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my statement
your response;
Oook I'm glad we agree.
Would you then agree with me that if the said lack of audio output were to occur, the victim of the failed comms equipment might well be unable to communicate ???
That was my point....I thought I had made it pretty clear.
So if you're not an Avionics technician then you really have no legal business mucking around with the avionics of the aircraft.
Neither ethically or more importantly, legally.
Try putting your proposition to a CASA Field rep and see if you get a dissenting view.
the failed output transistors would render the comms unservicable due to NO audio output.
Yes that is exactly what I said...
Would you then agree with me that if the said lack of audio output were to occur, the victim of the failed comms equipment might well be unable to communicate ???
That was my point....I thought I had made it pretty clear.
And it may not become apparent right away, but the stressed output transistors may well fail while some other poor sod is out trying to contact ATC
Neither ethically or more importantly, legally.
Try putting your proposition to a CASA Field rep and see if you get a dissenting view.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it may not become apparent right away, but the stressed output transistors may well fail while some other poor sod is out trying to contact ATC
I'm having a little trouble understanding what your point is.
So if you're not an Avionics technician then you really have no legal business mucking around with the avionics of the aircraft.
Neither ethically or more importantly, legally.
Neither ethically or more importantly, legally.
I'm not sure where ethics comes into it, I have never really investigated the morality of avionics usage, but yeah, whatever floats your boat...
"And it may not become apparent right away, but the stressed output transistors may well fail while some other poor sod is out trying to contact ATC "
Your statement implies that someone OTHER than the victim of the failure may have issues communicating, which further implies that the failure causes interference when it happens. It is exceptionally unlikely to do so (although it is possible).
I'm having a little trouble understanding what your point is.
Your statement implies that someone OTHER than the victim of the failure may have issues communicating, which further implies that the failure causes interference when it happens. It is exceptionally unlikely to do so (although it is possible).
I'm having a little trouble understanding what your point is.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be more concerned with a pilot fiddling with the video camera when they should have their Mk1 Radar scanning instruments and outside the perspex. Passengers can shoot the video, pilots can fly the plane.
Using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous (even if you have a handsfree device), shoot video when flying is most likely even more so.
Using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous (even if you have a handsfree device), shoot video when flying is most likely even more so.
Using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous (even if you have a handsfree device),
Yes, some people are dangerous behind the wheel even attempting to have a conversation. Not a reason to blanket ban everyone...unless there is revenue to be made
Simple description of the problem to be solved...Make the device so that all the comms system sees is the exact same impedance as a headset.
Best description for aviation comms...borrowed from old telephone technology. High impedance headsets and old carbon microphones. Modern gear still mimics these characteristics.
Try looking at a preamp for the lineout. Impedance to look for is about 150 to 300 Ohms.
Test the equipment using a handheld to ensure you will not fry aircraft equipment.
Best description for aviation comms...borrowed from old telephone technology. High impedance headsets and old carbon microphones. Modern gear still mimics these characteristics.
Try looking at a preamp for the lineout. Impedance to look for is about 150 to 300 Ohms.
Test the equipment using a handheld to ensure you will not fry aircraft equipment.
Using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous (even if you have a handsfree device), shoot video when flying is most likely even more so
Dr
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OZBUSDRIVER
Unbelieveable! And what do you do if tower calls late final with your landing clearance?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may not be rocket science, but it is ambiguous (and based on a misunderstanding of how transistors work).
No ambiguity there...you f with the electronics....possibly stress the components and it fails when some other bod is flying the aircraft. doesn't get any simpler than that without resorting to pictures.
And you're telling me ????...
As one who has been working with transistors et al for approx 35 years both in the design and operation phases, it IS possible to fry output stages DESPITE overload protections etc etc.
