There are bits of oceanic airspace where ATC publish a number for sat phone contact. Unfortunately that didn’t apply in the airspace I flew through (I was out of VHF range in the Indonesian archipelago and oceanic airspace between Indo and Aus).
Interestingly in this clip the Austrian pilot in his DA42 only used a satellite phone, on a St.John’s – Horta sector. It is a great testament to the DA42, and TurtlePac. This sector is ‘only’ 1200NM, so arguably available to Comanches and Bonanzas fitted with tip tanks.
Yeah there’s a reinforcing plate etc – a mod that’s been done a thousand times before under US, Aus and UK CAA regs – but EASA required a bespoke structural engineers report..!!
Coax via grommet would’ve been great but that was not on the Piper approved mods list ;)
That porcelain insulator looks good for about 1 megawatt 
It’s big enough for the Voice of America transmitter
Surely one could have just run a coax through a hole in the hull, via a rubber grommet?
Installing that feedthrough is also a big job, because the aerodynamic forces will be such that it will need a hefty doubler plate.
alioth wrote:
in reality, the European regulations aren’t higher quality, they are just merely burdensome
I agree completely. I know of many examples of ferry crossings in EASA registered aircraft where the ferry tank installation is uncertified BECAUSE GAINING THE CERT IS UNREALISTICALLY BURDENSOME – so the effect is not great safety, it is greater avoidance.
RobertL18C wrote:
this always reminds me of the GPS overlay vs NDB approach regulation
And the general mistaking of merely burdensome regulation for “quality regulation”. The press did it with Sala (‘the N reg plane, because European regs are stricter, read better’, or indeed Grant Shapps’ plane being N reg), when in reality, the European regulations aren’t higher quality, they are just merely burdensome. The case cited here with the antenna insulator is another example of burdensome and disproportionate rules, not quality rules.
Well said Robert..!
I can also tell you that, depending on how the ATU is setup vs the antenna wavelength on a given frequency, you can get VERY HIGH VOLTAGES at the end of what is technically and “end fed random wire” antenna
@Aussie_Andy this always reminds me of the GPS overlay vs NDB approach regulation. Let’s regulate for the system that wouldn’t pass safety certification today.
While CAT uses HF, the use of HF for puddle jumpers (albeit a very big puddle), is mainly a SAR issue as there is no other traffic at the typical GA cruising level. So GA uses ham radio HF and is expected to make position reports and monitor HF in IFR in convective weather, when a much more reliable system is available in a satellite telephone, without the added frisson of playing either cockpit fire or Kentucky fried chicken bingo!
Yes there was paperwork (as I said above) but NOT integrating into the panel and avionics (it’s electrically and regulatory separate!) saves a lot of cost and process..! Other than the mechanical aspects (eg W&B) it’s from a Reg perspective just like putting the transceiver on your knee.
Aussie_Andy wrote:
The easy part in fact was the HF transceiver and ATU installation: the HF is NOT installed in the panel, it is in the rear fuselage and has a small lightweight control head which sites ON not IN the panel. This massively reduces the paperwork requirements..!
But even in the rear fuselage, does it not count as “installed” and therefore need a mountain of paperwork (especially as it’s non-certified) — or can you work around that by velcroing it in and calling it “luggage”?
