Battery Minder Interface Installation

[EricJ]

6 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Who sez?

In my case my municipal hangar landlord includes restrictions on power usage in the rental agreement.   The only things that can be left plugged in unattended are a refrigerator (with restrictions, has to be 18" off the floor, etc.), and an approved battery minder with an approved interface kit.   In this case "approval" rests with the city and they specify this interface kit as the one that you use to connect your airplane to the "approved" minders.   They inspect.   I have an approval letter taped to the wall in my hangar with the airport manager's signature that says my installation and minder were inspected and approved, so I can leave them plugged in unattended. 

Some authorities are higher than the FAA. 

 

[PT20J]

Funny discussion. You can't just add anything to a certified airplane. And parts used must have some basis of approval to satisfy an A&P. It's really up to the A&P to determine what is acceptable as a minor alteration. Some are more lenient than others. But, if you shop around for the most permissive installer and later an IA thinks it is unairworthy during an annual inspection you have a can of worms. That's why I bought the kit. It wasn't that expensive and I won't ever have to argue with an IA about it as there is a basis of approval from the manufacturer.

[Marauder]

Funny discussion. You can't just add anything to a certified airplane. And parts used must have some basis of approval to satisfy an A&P. It's really up to the A&P to determine what is acceptable as a minor alteration. Some are more lenient than others. But, if you shop around for the most permissive installer and later an IA thinks it is unairworthy during an annual inspection you have a can of worms. That's why I bought the kit. It wasn't that expensive and I won't ever have to argue with an IA about it as there is a basis of approval from the manufacturer.

I went through this with a sub panel that an avionics shop installed in my plane in New York (ran out of panel real estate). When my plane was going through another upgrade here, the FSDO was doing an inspection of the shop. They saw the sub panel and told them it had to be removed.

I can see why the experimental market is so hot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

Funny discussion. You can't just add anything to a certified airplane. And parts used must have some basis of approval to satisfy an A&P. It's really up to the A&P to determine what is acceptable as a minor alteration. Some are more lenient than others. But, if you shop around for the most permissive installer and later an IA thinks it is unairworthy during an annual inspection you have a can of worms. That's why I bought the kit. It wasn't that expensive and I won't ever have to argue with an IA about it as there is a basis of approval from the manufacturer.

No one is saying that you can just add  anything to a certified airplane. My question is about authority for approval. My IA was the basis of approving the install with a log book entry.  
What is the basis of approval from  Battery minder? Was there an FAA PMA or TSO stamp on the hardware? Perhaps a letter from the Administrator?

[dominikos]

I saw a pretty cool setup where battery minder port was large audio jack. made connecting very simple. I keep looking for a certified version of something like that. This was the least painful option I came across so far. Anybody else saw similar setup?

[Shadrach]

10 hours ago, Marauder said:

I went through this with a sub panel that an avionics shop installed in my plane in New York (ran out of panel real estate). When my plane was going through another upgrade here, the FSDO was doing an inspection of the shop. They saw the sub panel and told them it had to be removed.

I can see why the experimental market is so hot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Many years ago we did a XeVision HID landing light group buy on the Mooney email list.  XeVision does not have FAA PMA nor TSO authorization but is the OEM supplier to Diamond aircraft for the Twin Star.  Folks were getting field approvals. We all shared our 337s as templates. There was absolutely no consistency to the approvals and denials from FSDO to FSDO. One FSDO even said field approval was unnecessary.  A 337 approved by one FSDO then used as a template by another owner would be denied by a different FSDO. It was actually embarrassing to see how poorly aligned the FSDO branches were at that time in terms of policy. I’m told that things have improved.
A few years later, the FAA stopped doing field approvals for landing lights, yet existing installations were allowed to remain in service. I am grateful for this because the installation is superior in every way to the original light as well as many of the certified options.

[carusoam]

8 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I'm just glad this kind of thinking has not infiltrated medicine...

Pause and think about that for a second….

Just a second.   

 

When I bought my wires to go with the batteryminder…. I called the BatteryMinder people to discuss the options…

They have a good tech guy that gives all the details as you ask for them…

The FAA compliant version uses typical fluoropolymer insulation that the rest of our wires use…. And other details like that…

The experimental version uses typical PVC insulation for cost reasons…

The expensive part is the installation… and GeeBee has nice pics of his! 

 

As far as the saintly pharma business goes… the FDA and other government organizations have a program called Consent Decree…. This is where the government invites themselves into your business to explain what you are doing incorrectly….. and gives you options on how to best correct your deficiencies, with a time line to get it done before their next visit….

Few companies emerge from Consent Decree whole… often there is a change of management, and possibly ownership…. with the induced stock price plummet…

In the most simple cases… manufacturing facilities get shut down… trying to re-start pharma manufacturing for existing products can take more than a year….

 

Boeing seems to have experienced a similar affect with 737Max AP issues….

Hi, we’re from the government, and we’re here to help…. 
 

The special invitation occurs after something has really gone wrong… like people dying….

For fun… Look up Martin Shkreli… aka pharma dude.  Martin decide to enrich himself legally, but completely unethically in the pharma industry….

PP thoughts only, not a pharma engineer…

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

2 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Pause and think about that for a second….

Just a second.   

 

When I bought my wires to go with the batteryminder…. I called the BatteryMinder people to discuss the options…

They have a good tech guy that gives all the details as you ask for them…

The FAA compliant version uses typical fluoropolymer insulation that the rest of our wires use…. And other details like that…

The experimental version uses typical PVC insulation for cost reasons…

The expensive part is the installation… and GeeBee has nice pics of his! 

 

As far as the saintly pharma business goes… the FDA and other government organizations have a program called Consent Decree…. This is where the government invites themselves into your business to explain what you are doing incorrectly….. and give you options on how to best correct your deficiencies, with a time line to get it done before their next visit….

Few companies emerge from Consent Decree whole… often there is a change of management, and possibly ownership…. with the induced stock price plummet…

Boeing seems to have experienced a similar affect with 737Max AP issues….

Hi, we’re from the government, and we’re here to help…. 
 

The special invitation occurs after something has really gone wrong… like people dying….

For fun… Look up Martin Shkreli… aka pharma dude.  Martin decide to enrich himself legally, but completely unethically in the pharma industry….

PP thoughts only, not a pharma engineer…

Best regards,

-a-

I did think about it before I posted it. It was meant to be ambiguous as to whether I was speaking sarcastically or literally. 

[GeeBee]

The point is.......hooking to the hot post of a lead acid battery is very serious business. Using non-conforming wire, methods and protections is often a road that leads to bad outcomes primarily due to the lack of control once electrons go errant. From the post to the first current limiter is basically "no man's land" in terms of protection.  It is not a simple, positive to positive, negative to negative hook up.

Boats have a lot of items on the hot bus, to protect the vessel from sinking at the dock. Things like bilge pumps and bilge, CO and vapor alarms are often on the hot bus. Seen a lot of boat fires from using SAE, untinned wire that ends up corroding, then setting up high resistance, which builds heat, melts the insulation and away we go. 

My airplane is my baby, and I give it the best.

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

No one is saying that you can just add  anything to a certified airplane. My question is about authority for approval. My IA was the basis of approving the install with a log book entry.  
What is the basis of approval from  Battery minder? Was there an FAA PMA or TSO stamp on the hardware? Perhaps a letter from the Administrator?

You'd have to ask the manufacturer. But, since they clearly state on the website that the "automotive style" connector is not approved and the kit is, I'd suppose that they had a discussion with the FAA about it. 

[Marauder]

Pause and think about that for a second….
Just a second.   
 
When I bought my wires to go with the batteryminder…. I called the BatteryMinder people to discuss the options…
They have a good tech guy that gives all the details as you ask for them…
The FAA compliant version uses typical fluoropolymer insulation that the rest of our wires use…. And other details like that…
The experimental version uses typical PVC insulation for cost reasons…
The expensive part is the installation… and GeeBee has nice pics of his! 
 
As far as the saintly pharma business goes… the FDA and other government organizations have a program called Consent Decree…. This is where the government invites themselves into your business to explain what you are doing incorrectly….. and gives you options on how to best correct your deficiencies, with a time line to get it done before their next visit….
Few companies emerge from Consent Decree whole… often there is a change of management, and possibly ownership…. with the induced stock price plummet…
In the most simple cases… manufacturing facilities get shut down… trying to re-start pharma manufacturing for existing products can take more than a year….
 
Boeing seems to have experienced a similar affect with 737Max AP issues….
Hi, we’re from the government, and we’re here to help…. 
 
The special invitation occurs after something has really gone wrong… like people dying….
For fun… Look up Martin Shkreli… aka pharma dude.  Martin decide to enrich himself legally, but completely unethically in the pharma industry….
PP thoughts only, not a pharma engineer…
Best regards,
-a-

Schering-Plough comes to mind…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Many years ago we did a XeVision HID landing light group buy on the Mooney email list.  XeVision not certified for mooney but is the OEM supplier to Diamond aircraft, so folks were getting field approvals. We all shared our 337s as templates. There was absolutely no consistency to the approvals and denials from FSDO to FSDO. One FSDO even said field approval was unnecessary.  A 337 approved by one FSDO used as a template by another owner would be denied by a different FSDO. It was actually embarrassing to see how poorly aligned the FSDO branches were at that time. I told that things have improved.
A few years later, the FAA stopped doing field approvals for landing lights. Existing installations were allowed to remain in service. 

This is a problem with the FAA - they delegate a lot of decisions to the field offices with little guidance so different offices have different interpretations. This is why Rosen has an STC for a simple sun visor and GLAP windshields don't need one. Different FSDOs. The FAA seems to believe that consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.

[carusoam]

8 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Schering-Plough comes to mind…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You had to see it….

Right before launching an OTC product that was a huge RX product already….

-a-

[Marauder]

You had to see it….
Right before launching an OTC product that was a huge RX product already….

-a-

I remember it well. Kind of screwed up my sales quota for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The point is.......hooking to the hot post of a lead acid battery is very serious business. Using non-conforming wire, methods and protections is often a road that leads to bad outcomes primarily due to the lack of control once electrons go errant. From the post to the first current limiter is basically "no man's land" in terms of protection.  It is not a simple, positive to positive, negative to negative hook up.

Boats have a lot of items on the hot bus, to protect the vessel from sinking at the dock. Thinks like bilge pumps and bilge, CO and vapor alarms are often on the hot bus. Seen a lot of boat fires from using SAE, untinned wire that ends up corroding, then setting up high resistance, which builds heat, melts the insulation and away we go. 

My airplane is my baby, and I give it the best.

I’ve got news for you big guy, your set up incorporates what you are referring to as “non-conforming wire”. Like most everyone else here, you’ve just limited it to your baggage compartment. 
 

 

[EricJ]

29 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I’ve got news for you big guy, your set up incorporates what you are referring to as “non-conforming wire”. Like most everyone else here, you’ve just limited it to your baggage compartment. 
 

 

I've not been able to find any regulatory guidance on what "conforming wire" might be for GA alterations.   There's lots of advisory material, but for avionics/electrical there is very little regulation.

[Shadrach]

10 hours ago, carusoam said:

Pause and think about that for a second….

Just a second.   

 

When I bought my wires to go with the batteryminder…. I called the BatteryMinder people to discuss the options…

They have a good tech guy that gives all the details as you ask for them…

The FAA compliant version uses typical fluoropolymer insulation that the rest of our wires use…. And other details like that…

The experimental version uses typical PVC insulation for cost reasons…

The expensive part is the installation… and GeeBee has nice pics of his! 

Best regards,

-a-

Did you happen to ask the good tech guy about the standard alligator clamps that come stock with the battery minder? Do those also use fluoropolymer? You obviously wouldn’t want to use those clamps if the harness was not fabricated from Aviation grade materials. You think battery minder is running two separate manufacturing lines for the wire leads coming off the battery minder yet they only sell aviation ring harnesses as a collection of radio shack parts?

A circuit is only as good as it’s weakest component. Every single one of these aviation set ups utilizes standard automotive components from plug at the plane to the electrical socket providing the current. 
 

I understand why people are doing this from a perceived regulatory standpoint. However the statements regarding “approval”, quality, safety etc…remain unsupported by anything regulatory or logical for that matter. 
 

This is not about me being a CB. This is about a culture in our community that excepts statements like the ones made by Batter Minder as official without any supporting documentation.  If enough Pilots, mechanics and FSDO employees read and accept statements like these, they are legitimized by groupthink with no actual regulatory basis for their legitimacy. 
 

 

 

[Shadrach]

11 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I've not been able to find any regulatory guidance on what "conforming wire" might be for GA alterations.   There's lots of advisory material, but for avionics/electrical there is very little regulation.

Agreed. I believe @GeeBeewas using it as a catchall term to describe what he perceives to be his superior installation… Never mind that everything hanging in his baggage compartment is made of the same materials that are currently hooked up to my lawnmower battery as I write this. I love my zero turn…nothing is too good for my baby.

Much like Battery Minder’s sales and marketing, this whole thread is long on perception and short on supporting documentation.

 

[Shadrach]

10 hours ago, PT20J said:

You'd have to ask the manufacturer. But, since they clearly state on the website that the "automotive style" connector is not approved and the kit is, I'd suppose that they had a discussion with the FAA about it. 

My point out of the gate and now is that battery minder has provided nothing in the way of supporting documentation. They have merely stated their opinion that their “standard harness” is not installable as a minor alteration. They have made provided nothing regulatory to support that assertion nor authority that their alternative harness is “approvable”.

[Fly Boomer]

15 hours ago, EricJ said:

Some authorities are higher than the FAA.

Yikes!  I need to send a thank-you to my hangar administrator for not being too invasive.

[PT20J]

The authority used by installers for making acceptable alterations is AC 43.13-1.

The "automotive style" wiring for the BatteryMinder does not meet the criteria described in AC 43.13-1.

BatteryMinder does not need a PMA for the kit because it is not manufacturing anything; it is merely selling a kit of parts that meet the standards of AC 43.13-1.

There is no requirement to use the kit. The installer may use other acceptable components to fashion an acceptable installation.

Skip

[GeeBee]

Exactly Skip. I've cut into the wire that Battery Minder uses. Nothing more than glorified zip cord and definitely would not be conformal to AC43-13.

I will refer to AC43-13 specifically section 11-77

"Only wire, specifically designed for airborne use, must be installed in aircraft."

Section 11-77 then goes on to describe that specification.

[EricJ]

Yes, there's lots of advisory information on such things in multiple ACs, not just 43.13, but hardly anything regulatory.   I'm not aware of any regulatory guidance specifying wires or connectors or nearly anything related to alterations for GA aircraft.    That may be by design since the technologies tend to change far faster than the regulations.   AC 43.13 has been sorely in need of an update for a long time.

FWIW, many superior technologies were not designed for aviation use, but were designed for other high-reliability harsh-environment applications, like industrial control, marine, etc., etc.  It would not be smart to limit aviation applications to only wire designed for it.   There was a very, very large fleet of US Navy aircraft that were grounded permanently and a number of fatalities in air carriers attributed to the use of wire designed for aviation use with kapton insulation.

So one has to use some discretion in selecting appropriate materials.

 

[A64Pilot]

I don’t think the kit is approved.

I think they are holding out that’s it’s made from materials acceptable to the administrator that an A&P could fabricate something and install it as a minor alteration, but in my opinion it’s awfully expensive for the convenience, and those oversized deans connectors are just silly.

My opinion as an IA is you can do the same for a fraction of the cost, using 12 or 14 ga aircraft wire and a fuse and if you like deans connectors then use them.

Battery tenders are low current, something like 1.5 amps at 12V, that’s 18 watts so only small wire is needed, you must fuse within 1’ of the battery terminal from memory and use aircraft wire, vinyl wire is a non-no.

I figure maybe $10 max? two ring terminals, couple feet of aircraft wire and deans connectors used for RC aircraft are about $2. Oh, and a fuse. Remember we are only talking a couple of amps.

I ran mine out of the external power door on my J model, three or four ft of wire? 

Kapton wire was used on all aircraft, not just military. Many Passenger jets had it. Easy to spot, it was orange, not white

TWA 800 had Kapton wire I believe

 

[Pinecone]

FYI - Charging Current: 8 AMP (for 14 volt systems, 4 amps for 28 volt)

The part the goes from the charger to the big connectors is not permanently installed in the aircraft.  The harness from the battery to that connector is.  Whatever makes you and your IA happy.