I am wondering this too. My SBS J16 battery just came last week. The STC doesn't mention changing the terminals so I was not planning on it, but did notice the bolts are smaller than on the old Gill.

robw56 wrote:For those of you that have upgraded to the Odyssey battery, did you change the terminals on your battery cables? The Concorde XC-25 uses larger than the Odyssey does.

Yes. It's probably a good idea while you are "in there" to replace them all with the correct cable end. I had Bogart make me up some really nice cables. Well worth it. http://bogertaviation.com

AK-HUNT wrote:What reference is your IA using?
I mean Specific reference.
Just cause he works at the Feds don't make em right.

http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDA ... 023-27.pdf

According to AC 23-27 you can replace your battery with a like battery as long as it's within plus or minus 1lb with just a logbook entry. Look under appendix 1. This is why I need a field approval for the Odyssey.... I agree, it's dumb.

Rob,

Did your field approval ever come through so you could use the Odyssey battery? If so are you happy with it and did you use your original battery box? Any chance you'd send me a copy of your 337? My email is [email protected] if you want to send it electronically.

Thanks.

Frank

NOT REQUIRED FIELD APPROVAL TO USE SBS-J16 battery per AC43:13 2B Chapter 10 and §23.1353 Storage battery design and installation.
(a) Each storage battery must be designed and installed as prescribed in this section.

(b) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during any probable charging and discharging condition. No uncontrolled increase in cell temperature may result when the battery is recharged (after previous complete discharge)—

(1) At maximum regulated voltage or power;

(2) During a flight of maximum duration; and

(3) Under the most adverse cooling condition likely to occur in service.

(c) Compliance with paragraph (b) of this section must be shown by tests unless experience with similar batteries and installations has shown that maintaining safe cell temperatures and pressures presents no problem.

(d) No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any battery in normal operation, or as the result of any probable malfunction in the charging system or battery installation, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

(e) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from the battery may damage surrounding structures or adjacent essential equipment.

(f) Each nickel cadmium battery installation capable of being used to start an engine or auxiliary power unit must have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.

(g) Nickel cadmium battery installations capable of being used to start an engine or auxiliary power unit must have—

(1) A system to control the charging rate of the battery automatically so as to prevent battery overheating;

(2) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or

(3) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.

(h)(1) In the event of a complete loss of the primary electrical power generating system, the battery must be capable of providing electrical power to those loads that are essential to continued safe flight and landing for:

(i) At least 30 minutes for airplanes that are certificated with a maximum altitude of 25,000 feet or less; and

(ii) At least 60 minutes for airplanes that are certificated with a maximum altitude over 25,000 feet.

(2) The time period includes the time to recognize the loss of generated power and to take appropriate load shedding action.

[Doc. No. 4080, 29 FR 17955, Dec. 18, 1964; 30 FR 258, Jan. 9, 1965, as amended by Amdt. 23-20, 42 FR 36969, July 18, 1977; Amdt. 23-21, 43 FR 2319, Jan. 16, 1978; Amdt. 23-49, 61 FR 5169, Feb. 9, 1996; Amdt. 23-62, 76 FR 75761, Dec. 2, 2011]

return arrow Back to Top

§23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be installed in all electrical circuits other than—

(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and

(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.

(b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not be used to protect any other circuit.

(c) Each resettable circuit protective device (“trip free” device in which the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) must be designed so that—

(1) A manual operation is required to restore service after tripping; and

(2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open the circuit regardless of the position of the operating control.

(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.

(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight—

(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of each rating, whichever is greater; and

(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot.

[Doc. No. 4080, 29 FR 17955, Dec. 18, 1964; 30 FR 258, Jan. 9, 1965, as amended by Amdt. 23-20, 42 FR 36969, July 18, 1977; Amdt. 23-43, 58 FR 18976, Apr. 9, 1993

return arrow Back to Top

Based on the rulebook excerpts 182STOLdriver has posted, and discussions we've had about what is a "minor alteration", I mounted this battery in my 172. 182 STOLdriver was kind enough to look at it as part of the annual inspection, and when he did not find anything in the installation that was less than safe, that was the end of it.

Although I'm definitely not a licensed A&P, it is my understanding that many IA's either don't really know how much latitude they are given with minor alterations, or that the IA's have been so terrified by the speaker presentations on risk at IA renewal seminars that they will not exercise their full authority regarding minor alterations.

To me, swapping out to a safer, less corrosive, and more reliable battery is a perfect example of what should be a minor alteration. Especially since the battery technology is FAA certified elsewhere. If I had my way, decent quality LED bulbs for NAV lights and position lights would also fall under this authority.

I am very happy with this battery and how it performs, but I'm not operating in any sort of harsh or extreme environment. I'm sure plenty of others here have more experience with the battery in more rugged conditions.

EZFlap wrote:Based on the rulebook excerpts 182STOLdriver has posted, and discussions we've had about what is a "minor alteration", I mounted this battery in my 172. 182 STOLdriver was kind enough to look at it as part of the annual inspection, and when he did not find anything in the installation that was less than safe, that was the end of it.

Although I'm definitely not a licensed A&P, it is my understanding that many IA's either don't really know how much latitude they are given with minor alterations, or that the IA's have been so terrified by the speaker presentations on risk at IA renewal seminars that they will not exercise their full authority regarding minor alterations.

To me, swapping out to a safer, less corrosive, and more reliable battery is a perfect example of what should be a minor alteration. Especially since the battery technology is FAA certified elsewhere. If I had my way, decent quality LED bulbs for NAV lights and position lights would also fall under this authority.

I am very happy with this battery and how it performs, but I'm not operating in any sort of harsh or extreme environment. I'm sure plenty of others here have more experience with the battery in more rugged conditions.

Mr EZFlap (Bill Berle) is much better Mechanic than he leads on .I know he went to school to become a A&P -but some how missed taking the test. His EZFlap and Gear (Tail wheel 172) is further testament to his abilities. He's really trying to please his wife by wearing a shirt and tie daily to work -and keeping the kitchen pantry filled. I've tried to get him and another airport "free style Mech" to go ahead and get there A&P.Yes the battery change was a no brainier just take ford out of the driveway and drive in a Dodge.

EZFlap wrote:...To me, swapping out to a safer, less corrosive, and more reliable battery is a perfect example of what should be a minor alteration. Especially since the battery technology is FAA certified elsewhere. If I had my way, decent quality LED bulbs for NAV lights and position lights would also fall under this authority.....

In the case of an Odyssey battery, at least the PMA'd SBS J16 version, it seems on the face of it like a no-brainer as a minor alteration. But I seem to recall there being something about no change in W&B to qualify as a minor. ??

It's all about what whoever signs the airplane off is comfortable with. if your IA is OK with it as a minor, great. A lot of that depends on how his PMA feels. Other IA's, including someone who may be inspecting the airplane in the future, may not be comfortable with it. I know a guy who's building up a Pacer, with a lot of mods. He talked to an IA (who will remain nameless), who told him he'd be willing to sign most of them off as "minors". That's great, but it might necessitate gong back to that IA for the annual every year. And what about if he goes away (retires, dies, whatever) and nobody else is comfortable with the paperwork? Might be much harder to get things approved years after the fact. IMHO it's better to go ahead & do the paperwork if there's any question about it whether it's required or not.

Anybody using this battery in cold (0 to -20 or so) conditions?

fshaw wrote:Anybody using this battery in cold (0 to -20 or so) conditions?

I'm in the 0 to -10 range in northern Nevada, but I don't start at that temperature. The plane is in a cold hangar so I pre-heat over night with a Reiff 200w oil sump heater and a cowl cover. The battery is on the firewall forward side so it gets warmed too but has been cold soaked, sometimes for several weeks. I'll estimate firewall forward is about 50F for most of my winter starts. On occasion I've done starts down to about 30F when camping with no preheat. If it is any colder than that, I preheat with a camp stove by ducting the heat to the cowl. The battery cranks the O-540 fine at those temps but I think that is cutting battery reserve close with the 540. If it is any colder than about 30, I preheat with a camp stove by ducting the heat to the cowl for an hour or so.

fshaw wrote:Anybody using this battery in cold (0 to -20 or so) conditions?

I use it in cold Temps as well. I just have a sump heater and insulated cowl cover. Turned the 0-470 over just great at -30C just after Christmas. Battery is mounted on the firewall of my C180 as well. Not sure what the actual temp is under there.

hotrod180 wrote: And what about if he goes away (retires, dies, whatever) and nobody else is comfortable with the paperwork? Might be much harder to get things approved years after the fact. IMHO it's better to go ahead & do the paperwork if there's any question about it whether it's required or not.

I think a case could be made that the original IA who signed off on something as a minor alteration bears the responsibility for "approving" the alteration. An IA that comes along 5 years later to do an annual is probably not being asked to go through every part of the airplane for full detailed compliance with the original type certificate, otherwise every annual inspection would be a nightmare compliance audit that takes 6 months to perform.

I'm guessing that the IA doing an annual 5 years later could legitimately say that the airplane was found to be airworthy and in compliance with all previous approvals... which means the original type certificate approval, and/or any modifications approved under STC, and/or any alterations (minor) approved under the authority of a licensed IA. That new IA would of course still be the one who decides if the airplane is in safe and airworthy condition, regardless of what modifications are approved under what authority.

In this example of the battery, the new IA would look the airplane over and see that someone somewhere had replaced the wet Gill battery with an Odyssey battery. He would go through the logbooks and see whether there is any legal basis for approval of this battery. That legal basis could include anything from FAA TSO, STC, 337 field approval... to an IA signoff as a "minor". If the inspector cannot find any such legal approval, then he has to either refuse to "return the aircraft to service", or he can decide whether to use his own IA authority to accept it as a minor alteration.

In my case I was lucky enough to have a weight and balance done at the same time, so the new W&B includes the change to the Odyssey.

EZFlap wrote: I think a case could be made that the original IA who signed off on something as a minor alteration bears the responsibility for "approving" the alteration. An IA that comes along 5 years later to do an annual is probably not being asked to go through every part of the airplane for full detailed compliance with the original type certificate, otherwise every annual inspection would be a nightmare compliance audit that takes 6 months to perform.....

Actually, I think he does bear that responsiblity. Sign-off on an annual inspection usually includes "this aircraft has been inspected and is in an airworthy condition" or similar. The IA is not responsible for something done after that sign-off, but he is certifying that the airplane is airworthy at the time of the inspection.

Otherwise, I could just find some IA who's pulling the pin, and get him to sign off the Chev 327 conversion I bootlegged onto the front of my 180 as a minor. And any IA coming along later to do an annual just has to go along with it,since it's already "been approved". An exaggerated example, I admit, but you get my drift.

I agree that small block V8 upgrade would be a difficult one.

But if the FAA gas given an IA the full federal regulatory authority to sign off your Odyssey battery as a minor alteration... with the implied FAA approval that comes with that IA's authority... then doesn't that mean the Odyssey installation is indeed an FAA approved alteration at that point?

If an IA does an annual on my airplane, and he decides that (the typical Cessna method of holding the cowling on with sheet metal screws and Tinnerman clip nuts) is simply not as good as his preferred method (AN525 machine screws and all metal anchor nuts), that IA cannot simply invalidate or amend the FAA approval that had been previously granted to Cessna to build the airplane with PK screws and clip nuts. The FAA had already authorized Cessna to do it the other way. The FAA also gives a small amount of (much lower level, much more restricted) authority to IA's, allowing them to "approve" minor alterations such as a sealed battery.

I'm guessing that the FAA is not attempting to create a situation where all the IA's in the country are constantly second-guessing each other and over-riding each others' authority.

Like most of the regulations, the FAA leaves itself room to interpret and amend

EZFlap wrote:.... if the FAA gas given an IA the full federal regulatory authority to sign off your Odyssey battery as a minor alteration... with the implied FAA approval that comes with that IA's authority... then doesn't that mean the Odyssey installation is indeed an FAA approved alteration at that point?...

I guess it all boils down to whether the IA does indeed have that authority to sign it off as a minor.
Does this require a PMA'd battery? If not, any old battery including a garden tractor model or whatever must be OK, eh? From this Odyssey webpage http://www.odysseybatteries.com/batteries/sbsj16.htm

"FAA-PMA Certified Sealed Aircraft Battery For Piper PA-18 and PA-19 Series*
FAA-PMA Certified Sealed Aircraft Battery For Cessna C-170, C-180, C-195 Aircraft**
* FAA-PMA certified when used with modification kit STC#SA02138AK manufactured by Dan's Aircraft, Anchorage AK (907) 278-9516
**FAA-PMA certified when used with modification kit STC#SA02333AK-D manufactured by F. Altee Services, LLC, Anchorage AK (907) 344-1755"

So the way I read it, the Odyssey SBS J16 battery is only PMA'd when installed via one of these STC's.

mtv wrote:You do NOT need a field approval to install an Odyssey battery in a 170. There is an advisory circular from the FAA which specifically states that installation of a lead acid battery in place of a lead acid battery is a minor alteration, which therefore can be done by an A/P with a signature. .....

One of the first posts on this thread, from a year & a half ago.
Is the Odyssey battery indeed a "lead acid" battery??
Their brochure refers to it as a dry cell.
http://www.odysseybatteries.com/batteries/sbsj16.htm
And their technical manual says it uses absorbed glass mat technology.
http://www.odysseybatteries.com/docs/US ... 2_1014.pdf

hotrod180 wrote:

mtv wrote:You do NOT need a field approval to install an Odyssey battery in a 170. There is an advisory circular from the FAA which specifically states that installation of a lead acid battery in place of a lead acid battery is a minor alteration, which therefore can be done by an A/P with a signature. .....

One of the first posts on this thread, from a year & a half ago.
Is the Odyssey battery indeed a "lead acid" battery??
Their brochure refers to it as a dry cell.
http://www.odysseybatteries.com/batteries/sbsj16.htm
And their technical manual says it uses absorbed glass mat technology.
http://www.odysseybatteries.com/docs/US ... 2_1014.pdf

It is a lead acid battery that uses absorbed glass mat (AGM) technology to hold the electrolyte.

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/absorbent_glass_mat_agm

By the law, as an IA, I am of the opinion that the weight change alone constitutes a field approval. That said, I have heard that the local FSDO PMI said you could go either way. I do believe the FAA has bigger fish to fry than the weight of the battery in your airplane. I think if a A&P approves the installation and verifies proper weight and balance, you are golden. Just my two cents.

Jeredp wrote:By the law, as an IA, I am of the opinion that the weight change alone constitutes a field approval. That said, I have heard that the local FSDO PMI said you could go either way. I do believe the FAA has bigger fish to fry than the weight of the battery in your airplane. I think if a A&P approves the installation and verifies proper weight and balance, you are golden. Just my two cents.

So, as an IA, how does swapping a battery constitute a major alteration based on "the weight change alone"?

As an IA, you know that Part 43 Appendix A describes in detail what exactly a major alteration is. What line are you basing your opinion on?

I read it, as a non-IA, that is nothing in here says a weight change of any kind is a major alteration. It does say that "Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft" constitutes a major alteration, but I am sure this is not what you are talking about. Clearly, no one is claiming that swapping this battery out gives them a higher gross weight or changes the CG limitations of the aircraft.

Please explain to us non-IA types how the law compels you to abdicate your authority to the FAA for a "weight change alone".

Prosaria wrote:

Jeredp wrote:By the law, as an IA, I am of the opinion that the weight change alone constitutes a field approval. That said, I have heard that the local FSDO PMI said you could go either way. I do believe the FAA has bigger fish to fry than the weight of the battery in your airplane. I think if a A&P approves the installation and verifies proper weight and balance, you are golden. Just my two cents.

So, as an IA, how does swapping a battery constitute a major alteration based on "the weight change alone"?

As an IA, you know that Part 43 Appendix A describes in detail what exactly a major alteration is. What line are you basing your opinion on?

I read it, as a non-IA, that is nothing in here says a weight change of any kind is a major alteration. It does say that "Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft" constitutes a major alteration, but I am sure this is not what you are talking about. Clearly, no one is claiming that swapping this battery out gives them a higher gross weight or changes the CG limitations of the aircraft.

Please explain to us non-IA types how the law compels you to abdicate your authority to the FAA for a "weight change alone".

Part 21
Major alteration. An alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications—

(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

7 lbs is appreciable in mind, depending on the batteries location. The FAA actualy published a document in 2001 trying to clarify major/minor. The short of it is that they intentionally used the word appreciable to leave the approval up to the discression of the inspector: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... 010594.pdf