Connecting MP 3 player into early Microair radio with no intercom box

[Guest Escadrille]

Hi All.

 

I have read the thread re Ipods into intercom boxes.. I have an early Microair 760 in my jabiru SP 470 which has the RB-02 switch module on the back. This sytem uses sidetone for intercom. There is no provision for an MP3 player input . Microair suggest a parallel line with the headset line quote: "Jointing the two together".:confused:

 

This, apparently, is a fairly simple solution with adaptors etc from Dick Smith or Jaycar. But then the music input is constant which could be very inconvenient at times...

 

It has been suggested I connect an audio adaptor splitter box between the headset jacks and the the airframe mounted headset connection to the radio.

 

Does any one have a circuit for a box which will perform this function and mute or bypass the MP 3 player when an incoming radio call is received or even know of such an animal for sale.

 

Or a solution for this problem at all???

 

?i_dunno

 

Andy

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

How come you have time to listen to an entertainment device airborne, when you are supposed to be keeping a proper listening watch.

 

Please read the thread about the the new radio rules, it ain't optional, in fact never was, but it will now be spelled out far more clearly.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Vorticity]

Can you please direct me to the thread regarding new rules. There is nothing better for me than being out on my own in the front of a drifter at this time of year at 1000ft with the warm air on my face and some good music through my headset. Magic.

 

I had an auto fade function in my setup but there was rarely traffic to interupt my bliss.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Have a look through the general discussion forums, you will find it there.

 

CTAF/CTAF® will cease to have any real meaning, radio will be mandatory operating to and from or in the vicinity of any airfield in the ERSA (which you will now need, plus amendment subscription) or any military or other designated airfield. Note very carefully the definition of "in the vicinity".

 

The regulations are CAR 166/166A. These rules apply to all aircraft.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

... radio will be mandatory operating to and from or in the vicinity of any airfield in the ERSA ...

I don't think this is actually correct Bill - radio is only mandatory at or near certified, military, registered or designated airfields. ERSA includes many uncertified airfields where radio will not be mandatory. Annex B page 6 of the NFRM uses Noosa as an example of such.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Vorticity]

Yes, like a law abiding flyer I carry a radio and monitor the correct frequency. Is there any regulation against using one of the many audio input systems that prioritize the radio traffic and cut the other input?

 

Your argument maybe distraction or adding complexity to the cockpit environment. This is a CRM issue for the individual to manage just the same as managing a passenger.

 

As far as I can see Andy was looking for some advise to do something legal and for his own pleasure, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

Does anyone have the information that he is seeking?

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

I have found the solution to my "problem" Before i expalin however Imust respond to Bills somewaht didactic assertion that i may be doing"the wrong thing".

 

Let me assure you Bill, I would never have an "etertainment device(heaven forbid) wired in to my systam so as I could not receive or send radio calls. There are many commercially available patch leads which do not mute the music input. I have sourced a purpose made device (from the US sadly nothing here)which will mute on the reception of an incoming radio call. In actual fact, as a responsible operator I would, of course , discontinue the use of the music device on approaching or entering a circuit area or any busy area, I like to call it airmanship. In my opinion based on experience in aviation,the srtict adherence to "rules and procedures" is not necessarily the safest way to fly! A good airman (person?) uses the rules wisely even if sometimes the rules are overly prescriptive > I for one am pleased with the new procedures, In fact I have just returned from flying and listening to light aircraft making calls at every stage in the circuit to non existent traffic just clogs the airways and makes listening and making for serious call very difficult anyway!

 

However Bill you are the pilot in charge of your aircraft and I mine, lets hope we can all hear and communicate and see and avoid rather than just hear and obey!

 

Andy

 

 

[sain]

Ignoring the rules side of things.

 

Andy quite a while back I designed a circuit to do what your after. You can find the schematic and parts list over in the kit general discussion section: http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/kit-gen-discussion/7300-electronics-project-audio-mixer-headsets.html

 

It will mute the non-entertainment-system-mp3-player whenever there is noise from the radio.

 

I designed it shortly before starting my Navs. At the time I was pretty much restricted to the often quiet radio environment around Goulburn. Once I started my Navs I realised that normally the radio traffic was far to high to allow for enjoyment of even a very short song.

 

Please note that it has never (to my knowledge) been tested in an aircraft, or with an aircraft radio. It has been tested with an aircraft headset, but thats it. I got my navs in the period between having the initial concept and figuring out how to design and build it.

 

I'd suggest checking out some other designs for audio amps etc - I'm an electronics newb and I may have missed something. Actually thinking about it I've missed termination resistors on each of the inputs. This should be a resistor between each input and ground. The resistor value should be the same as whatever your radio/mp3 player expects. Oh, adding a filter to the power input would probably be a good idea too.

 

Let me know if you want me to update the schematic with those details, or if you need a circuit board layout or something.

 

Alternatives to my design can be found in a couple of places. I think Jim Weir did one for kitplanes (don't remeber the date). S53MV's aircraft projects pages are probably worth looking at too (http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/avionics/avionics.html and specifically (http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/avionics/intercom.html). Also look for vox intercoms for motorcycles.

 

 

[Ultralights]

i quite often listen to my ipod while flying, i have a ANR headset though with separate audio inputs for music players, whenever there is a sound from your own microphone of receiving transmission from the radio, or intercom, the sound volume drops to a inaudible level, and for 2 seconds after the last sound is received, at which point normal music volume is slowly restored.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Cressi,

 

Please go and re-read what the new rules say, come 3 July, and read the definition of "vicinity".

 

Given the number of certified, registered, military and (potentially) designated airfields in ERSA, well over 300 last time I looked, that 10 mile radius of "in the vicinity" is going to catch a lot of people who previously only needed to (legally) concern themselves with CTAF® --- always--- or CTAFs as well, if they carried and were qualified to use a serviceable VHF comm. radio.

 

Folks,

 

For those of you who want to argue about "legally" connecting various audio entertainment advice to comms. radio, I strongly recommend a careful reading of all the regulations surrounding the carriage and use of radio, which assume a whole new importance under the new rules. And an even more careful reading of S.20(a)(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and nobody but nobody has any exemptions from that!!

 

On this site, there are links to both the new CARs 166, and Ian has posted a link to the associated Civil Aviation Advisory Publications, CAAPs, which are acceptable means of compliance with the new rules.

 

Whether you like it or not, the whole game has changed, as far as carriage and use of radio goes. That it is not even more restrictive than the new rules is thanks to a few people in the Rec. aviation world and their lobbying.

 

If the AFAP ever get their way, not only will carriage and use of radio be mandatory for all flying, but there will be a lot more restriction on areas of operations for anybody with less than a current PPL --- and even draconian restrictions on PPLs.

 

But these are far from the only rules for the use of radio, and with the carriage and use of radio now being very close to mandatory for all flights (and all above 5000'--- nothing new here) it becomes vital for everybody to have a working knowledge of all the rules re. radio use.

 

I have close to 25,000 hours, and I still haven't figured out how to guarantee that I will not miss a radio call, in the presence of non-aviation background noise, and anything from an iPod is most certainly non-aviation background noise.

 

Airlines don't have all sorts of rules about "quite cockpits" for nothing!!

 

Regards,

 

 

[Ultralights]

I have close to 25,000 hours, and I still haven't figured out how to guarantee that I will not miss a radio call, in the presence of non-aviation background noise, and anything from an iPod is most certainly non-aviation background noise.

I fly from bankstown almost every day, and still havnt come up with a way to guarantee you dont miss a radio call,

except for keeping a good listening watch, a quality headset. and being aware of the other traffic around you, listen to the tower instructions to other aircraft and generally being situationally aware. and as i tell my students, if in doubt, ask.

 

as for the music, it drops volume when a signal is received from any source, and sometimes the volume will drop and the transmission will be very quite, or unreadable, but by the fact the music paused, means i am now aware of that call. even if it was from someone reporting at a CTAF some 100 miles away and receiving a very week signal which i normally wouldn't have heard over the usual background noise.

 

one memorable day, at YSBk, i heard a transmission but was unsure of its recipient, so i asked the tower.

 

Jabiru **** "can you repeat last transmission please?"

 

YSBK twr " Jabiru **** last transmission was not for you"

 

Jab **** "sorry tower, just like to keep aware of other traffic"

 

Unknown aircraft " good call"

 

and flying from bankstown, im sure you can appreciate the need for awareness on some real busy days. hence, awareness is everything..

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Ultralights,

 

Thanks, you have made my case for me.

 

As you have said, (despite specifications otherwise) sometimes the only reason you are aware of a transmission is that the non-aeronautical noise volume drops ---- but you have still missed a transmission.

 

The the number of AsA retransmissions, particularly weekends, it is hard enough to keep track of what is around you, without non-aviation distractions.

 

Do you actually understand the real extent of the legal responsibilities of the pilot in command ---- and the size of an aircraft is irrelevant, from 95.10 up.

 

Of course, another matter is whether some of the "modifications" to VHF comms. aeronautical radios, to feed in non-aeronautical noise, a signal, from a device of unknown specification and performance is, in itself, legal.

 

For TSO equipment, the answer is undoubtedly yes, for non-TSO, the answer is less clear, but in my opinion, at the very least, very poor airmanship.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Cressi,Please go and re-read what the new rules say, come 3 July, and read the definition of "vicinity".

 

Given the number of certified, registered, military and (potentially) designated airfields in ERSA, well over 300 last time I looked, that 10 mile radius of "in the vicinity" is going to catch a lot of people who previously only needed to (legally) concern themselves with CTAF® --- always--- or CTAFs as well, if they carried and were qualified to use a serviceable VHF comm. radio.

Thanks for the advice Bill but I believe I am already cognisant of the NFRM. There were > 600 airfield entries in the ERSA last time I looked so clearly radio will not be mandatory at all of them.

 

And isn't the effective date 3 June (not July) ?

 

If you don't mind me saying so, whatever message you are trying to get across here isn't being helped by your factual errors.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[sain]

Bill,

 

I'm not entirely sure why your harping on this stuff so much - those rules arn't such a vast change from how we operate now.

 

The closest thing in those rules that I can think of that would be a problem for a device like this is 167 1 b) i):

 

maintain a continuous listening watch on the radiofrequency specified in the AIP for communications

with the aerodrome control service for the

 

aerodrome; or

Given that these devices will trip and mute the ipod or whatever as soon as the radio's own squelch trips and maintain the muting for longer than the de-squelched period I'd consider that they would be legal under that rule.Some of your other concerns arn't really valid either - these arn't a modifcation to VHF comms, less so even than an intercom. They operate purely on the audio output from the radio, and have no path to the audio input section. I'm interested in why you don't think they are legal though - could you perhaps list why you think they arn't? (in another thread, so we don't hijack this one any further - general forum maybe?). Some pointers to relevant rules/legislation would be nice. I'd note also that ANR headsets fall into the same problem bracket - they introduce noise into the audio stream in order to dampen ambient noise.

 

Congratulations on your 2.8 years aloft btw.

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

Bill, :gerg:

 

With all your "experience" (2.8 years of mainly the same airline hour perhaps)try asking yourself (in the mirror in the morning might work) - am I part of the problem or part of the solution? Do I really know it all or am I wise enough or humble enough to be able to reflect objectively on what I am saying or am I just mouthing bureaucratic platitudes.i.e. taking the high moral ground.

 

If you are gonna be a part of this forum, Please be more constructive Bill, Aviation is for every one not just some of the chosen few,RAAUS and this forum are not a last post for the disaffected either!

 

Sheesh...

 

 

[jetjr]

I can fly for 3.5 hrs and receive just one or two radio calls and aside from centre and IFR aircraft, hear nothing which concerns anyone outside main aviation hubs. I dont feel phone or music is a big problem. ANR allows this to work OK as you can hear everything much more clearly. ANR technology goes a long way to improving radio comprehension and accuracy.

 

And absolutely when approaching areas where other AC are turn aux input gear off,

 

Regarding "new rules" for radio use, I was trained to make all required calls all the time. So whats the change? Does anyone NOT use their radio just because they are inbound to a CTAF rather than CTAF-R?

 

This was all discussed here when the mandatory radio was proposed. It mostly affected the small proportion of aircraft currently without radios.

 

Also not much else in our panels is TSO, so why would we be concerned with using non TSO aux input device. It is infact a feature of some TSO radios to have a music player input

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

And isn't the effective date 3 June (not July) ?

Folks,Sorry about the typo, too late at night.

Re. the ERSA, almost all the airfields in ERSA are either registered or certified, including quite a number that wouldn't see more than a few movements a month.

 

How many in ERSA, I don't know, but last time I counted the total of all entries, it was some 300 plus. CTAFs almost become irrelevant.

 

Sorry to rain or your parade, but the new CAR 166 is a whole new ball game, and not a very friendly one, compared to what people have grown used to. If you don't think so, might I suggest you haven't read the new regulations and CAAP thoroughly enough, and/or compared the differences to the present CAR 166 --- as several of the posters have clearly illustrated.

 

Apart from the typo on the date, please show me any factual errors, but don't just shoot the messenger. Whether you like it or not, the rules of the air apply to everybody flying.

 

Believe me, there is nothing more humbling for a pilot than to be involved in enforcement action by CASA, it is always a most unpleasant experience.

 

As two poor sods recently found out, enforcement action by CASA not only cost them $$$$, they found out they couldn't go to Oshkosh, refused entry to the US, and if you have any doubts, read the US Consulate web site. Doesn't even necessarily need to be a conviction, just a charge in an aviation matter, and the US/Australia data matching is very good.

 

That is why I have highlighted the new CAR 166, I don't want to see anybody caught out. I don't have any trouble looking in the mirror of a morning, if you don't like the style, too bad.

 

I don't like a number of aspects of the new CAR 166, for one because the requirement for mandatory radio is overkill, and not the result of any safety study or analysis. There are a number of other issues as well, but this is not the place for that discussion.

 

Regards,