---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 10/23/04: 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:39 AM - Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Gary Casey) 2. 07:37 AM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Eric Ruttan) 3. 07:46 AM - Inrange check/downwind check etc (Fergus Kyle) 4. 09:03 AM - Re: Crimpers - lead rod for testing (KeithHallsten) 5. 09:54 AM - Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc (Leo J. Corbalis) 6. 11:04 AM - SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality for IFR ops? (Treff, Arthur) 7. 11:32 AM - Re: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit (Harley) 8. 11:42 AM - Re: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality ... (BobsV35B@aol.com) 9. 12:38 PM - Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc (Richard Riley) 10. 01:57 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Brian Lloyd) 11. 02:11 PM - Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc (Brian Lloyd) 12. 02:20 PM - Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc (Brian Lloyd) 13. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (BobsV35B@aol.com) 14. 03:58 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Rick Girard) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:39:28 AM PST US From: "Gary Casey" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <> Exactly - that's the easiest way to "disable" the mechanical pump in order to check operation of the automatic system. You are doing two things when you turn on the "auto" mode; one is to check that the pressure switch if functioning (the pump turns on) and the other is to check the functioning of the latching relay (the pump stays on) and the light. Then during the runup the rest of the system is checked - the pump is turned from off to "auto" and it DOESN'T come one. I believe that would be an adequate check of the system. The idea is to reduce the number of decisions that have to be made in the air. Should we reject the idea of doing this simply because ALL planes don't have this capability, thereby creating different operating techniques that have to be learned for different airplanes? Fuel pump operation is already quite a bit different from plan to plane. Some POH's say to turn on the pump for takeoff and landing (but they omit other operating modes where it would be a good idea) and some don't. Some fuel systems will tolerate the electric pump on under all conditions and some don't. Some have 2-speed pumps with specific requirements and even these vary from plane to plane. Some will show a difference in fuel pressure with the electric pump on and some won't. Many don't even have a fuel supply pressure gage. Seems that if this system were on all aircraft the difference in operating procedure from plane to plane would be less than it is today. It probably sounds like I'm pushing this system a lot, but I'm mostly trying to get diverse opinions on the idea (it worked!). Gary Casey When I was a kid we had a tractor that required the operator to control the generator output current. Yet all present-day system voltages are controlled automatically, taking this control away from the pilot (and creating the need for still more complexity in the form of monitoring and enunciation features). What I wonder is, can I install this fuel system in my experimental and still be a Libertarian? ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:37:38 AM PST US From: "Eric Ruttan" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan" > Exactly - that's the easiest way to "disable" the mechanical pump in order > to check operation of the automatic system. You are doing two things when > you turn on the "auto" mode; one is to check that the pressure switch if > functioning (the pump turns on) and the other is to check the functioning of > the latching relay (the pump stays on) and the light. Then during the runup > the rest of the system is checked - the pump is turned from off to "auto" > and it DOESN'T come one. I believe that would be an adequate check of the > system. The idea is to reduce the number of decisions that have to be made > in the air. > > Should we reject the idea of doing this simply because ALL planes don't have > this capability, thereby creating different operating techniques that have > to be learned for different airplanes? Fuel pump operation is already quite > a bit different from plan to plane. Some POH's say to turn on the pump for > takeoff and landing (but they omit other operating modes where it would be a > good idea) and some don't. Some fuel systems will tolerate the electric > pump on under all conditions and some don't. Some have 2-speed pumps with > specific requirements and even these vary from plane to plane. Some will > show a difference in fuel pressure with the electric pump on and some won't. > Many don't even have a fuel supply pressure gage. Seems that if this system > were on all aircraft the difference in operating procedure from plane to > plane would be less than it is today. > > It probably sounds like I'm pushing this system a lot, but I'm mostly trying > to get diverse opinions on the idea (it worked!). > > Gary Casey > > When I was a kid we had a tractor that required the operator to control the > generator output current. Yet all present-day system voltages are > controlled automatically, taking this control away from the pilot (and > creating the need for still more complexity in the form of monitoring and > enunciation features). What I wonder is, can I install this fuel system in > my experimental and still be a Libertarian? Yes you can. The part still get to decide if they want to participate. :) Incorrect fuel management is a number 3 killer. This speaks to the truth that may pilots are not very good at it. The creation of a full automatic fuel delivery system will save lives. The cost of monitoring the sub components is minor compared to saving lives. This is probably the most important change the OBAM community can make. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:46:30 AM PST US From: "Fergus Kyle" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" Cheers, Not my purpose to disagree with an active CFI, but I see no reason to change checklists [which were used for hundreds of different aircraft types and developped over 40 years of training] for each model of aerodyne. If one must change the list each item should be complete: Gas - contents, selection, fuel pressure Mixture - usually rich unless above 5000, carb heat on/off Undercarriage - down, locked, downlock pressure up, visual clues, no horn Flap - initial circuit selection, then final selection Pitch - fine for overshoot Trim - for overshoot (on final) Actually, the ultimate checklist 50 years ago was HTMPFFGGS plus any particularity for type - could be used on most allied machines for any manoeuvre (if admittedly repetitive - but when you're flying seven or eight types..........). Ferg do not archive ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 09:03:45 AM PST US From: "KeithHallsten" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Crimpers - lead rod for testing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "KeithHallsten" Guy, Lead wire and lead rod is commonly available at sporting goods stores, in the fishing section. It's used to make sinkers. Keith Hallsten I'm reasonably happy with my PRO-CRIMPER, though I still feel like a liability target. I'll just keep the PRO-CRIMPER in spec by mic'ing my crimps and recording the results. (The PRO-CRIMPER instructions give "CRIMP HEIGHTS" based on "LEAD ROD" crimps for your enjoyment. Don't ask me where I'm going to find lead rod.) Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:54:02 AM PST US From: "Leo J. Corbalis" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" When I was an aviation cadet in 1949, they tatooed the GUMP check and the "cigarette" actually CIFFRRT on THE INSIDE OF OUR EYELIDS and if we couldn't find the list we caught unshirted hell ! It works fine for any plane you can actually if not legally fly solo. The P put the prop in flat pitch causing the overspeed supersonic howl of the old counterweight constant speed hamilton prop when you pulled the throttle off and on to check the gear warning horn on the downwind leg. That was 4000 hrs ago and 55 years. If it works , it works. Leo corbalis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fergus Kyle" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" > > Cheers, > Not my purpose to disagree with an active CFI, but I see no > reason to change checklists [which were used for hundreds of different > aircraft types and developped over 40 years of training] for each model of > aerodyne. > If one must change the list each item should be complete: > Gas - contents, selection, fuel pressure > Mixture - usually rich unless above 5000, carb heat on/off > Undercarriage - down, locked, downlock pressure up, visual clues, no horn > Flap - initial circuit selection, then final selection > Pitch - fine for overshoot > Trim - for overshoot (on final) > Actually, the ultimate checklist 50 years ago was HTMPFFGGS plus > any particularity for type - could be used on most allied machines for any > manoeuvre (if admittedly repetitive - but when you're flying seven or eight > types..........). > Ferg > do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 11:04:03 AM PST US From: "Treff, Arthur" Subject: AeroElectric-List: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality for IFR ops? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur" With the plethora of panel mounted MFD's, hand held tablet computer and PDA based devices for display of IFR maps and instrument approach procedures in the cockpit, has the FAA made a ruling to no longer require a paper backup of approach charts for IFR operations? I'm thinking of making the 'digital jump': away from my stack of Jeppesen books (and never ending revisions) to an electronic hand held device. I have asked Seattle Avionics and Control Vision (Anywhere Map), [two of the vendors I'm considering] the same quesiton, but no answer as yet from their sales team. I mean, if to be legal, the Feds still require a paper backup for approach procedures, then the charts will remain in my bag, and any PDA and it's subscription to the database would only be excess baggage in my mind, and forget an expensive MFD. I"d rather put the $$ into the RV under construction or into AVGAS. This list is the cutting edge for all things electrical in aircraft, so I'm guessing one of you out there has gone down this thought path before. Arthur Treff ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 11:32:56 AM PST US From: Harley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality for IFR ops? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley Afternoon, Art... I can't confirm it, but I think I heard that the FAA allows printouts of the charts such as Control Vision generates. I may have read this somewhere on Control Visions website or one of their emails. So, during your preflight or planning stage, print out the charts you may need, and throw them away when you're trip is over. Harley Dixon Treff, Arthur wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur" > >With the plethora of panel mounted MFD's, hand held tablet computer and PDA >based devices for display of IFR maps and instrument approach procedures in >the cockpit, has the FAA made a ruling to no longer require a paper backup >of approach charts for IFR operations? I'm thinking of making the 'digital >jump': away from my stack of Jeppesen books (and never ending revisions) to >an electronic hand held device. I have asked Seattle Avionics and Control >Vision (Anywhere Map), [two of the vendors I'm considering] the same >quesiton, but no answer as yet from their sales team. I mean, if to be >legal, the Feds still require a paper backup for approach procedures, then >the charts will remain in my bag, and any PDA and it's subscription to the >database would only be excess baggage in my mind, and forget an expensive >MFD. I"d rather put the $$ into the RV under construction or into AVGAS. > >This list is the cutting edge for all things electrical in aircraft, so I'm >guessing one of you out there has gone down this thought path before. > >Arthur Treff > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 11:42:09 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality ... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 10/23/2004 1:04:48 PM Central Standard Time, Arthur.Treff@smartm.com writes: With the plethora of panel mounted MFD's, hand held tablet computer and PDA based devices for display of IFR maps and instrument approach procedures in the cockpit, has the FAA made a ruling to no longer require a paper backup of approach charts for IFR operations? Good Afternoon Arthur, The FAA says that if you are operating under 135, or any of the other common carrier modes, you must have an approved source. There are some approved electronic flight bags. That is something between the holder of the certificate and the Principle Operations Inspector assigned to that operator. As to what is needed by someone operating under the provisions of part 91, all that it says is that some approved source of information must be used. That puts the decision right back in your own pocket. If you are out there flying around in the clag and come up needing something you don't have, you are always subject to the careless and/or reckless operation rules. Personally, I use the Jeppesen JeppView disc and print out any charts I think I will need. I also carry a VAIO LapTop computer on which I can run the disc if I need to make some sort of an unplanned stop. I also carry enough fuel such that I can always make it to some point where I could get down visually if I should encounter a complete electrical failure. If I want to shoot an approach at a point for which I don't have the charts, I can try to use the VAIO. If that fails, I will just go to my alternate. The vast majority of IFR flights are conducted under conditions where no approach is needed. As long as you can get into VFR conditions using the enroute charts, no approach plates are needed. One thing that I do if am going to make an approach to an airport for which I don't have the printed chart is to look up the approach on my portable computer long before I need the data. I then write down the data on a pad of paper so that I will have it if the computer fails. I do that just to increase my dispatch and schedule reliability. As I said before, if the electronic source fails, I can just treat it like I would if I was executing an NDB approach and my ADF failed. I would divert to my alternate. It all gets back to your interpretation of what is reasonable. The FAA has no specific requirements as to how much data you much have and in what form it is carried. All they require is that you have current FAA approved information for the operation you are conducting. If what you think is reasonable does not work, action would likely be taken against you. One check that I make is to ask myself how I would explain my decision at the hearing. If I feel uncomfortable with my planning, I won't do it! I have been operating without a complete set of paper approach plates for the last three years. So far, I have only had to use the laptop a couple of times and I have never had to divert to my alternate due to equipment failure. I do carry a complete set of enroute paper charts for the area being flown over. Any help? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:38:09 PM PST US From: Richard Riley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley I once red a proposal to mount a 12 guage shotgun in the panel, pointing at the pilot. The trigger would be in the belly of the airplane. If the pilot ever landed gear up, the shotgun would fire. This would, it was proposed, greatly reduce the number of gear up accidents. My airplane will not run reliably at idle with the electric and mechanical fuel pumps running - after a couple of minutes, it tends to flood. Now if the engine quit on short final, I *might* have the presence of mind to turn on the electric pump - while simultaniously switching tanks, pegging best glide, raising the belly board, perhaps raising the gear, looking for a place to land, calling a mayday and re-assuring my passenger. Or I could have an automatic switch that would to it faster than I could possibly react. Thanks to those that replied. I'll be putting the fuel pressure switch in, but leaving the oil pressure switch out of it. At 09:55 AM 10/23/04, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" > > >When I was an aviation cadet in 1949, they tatooed the GUMP check and the >"cigarette" actually CIFFRRT on THE INSIDE OF OUR EYELIDS and if we couldn't >find the list we caught unshirted hell ! It works fine for any plane you can >actually if not legally fly solo. The P put the prop in flat pitch causing >the overspeed supersonic howl of the old counterweight constant speed >hamilton prop when you pulled the throttle off and on to check the gear >warning horn on the downwind leg. >That was 4000 hrs ago and 55 years. If it works , it works. >Leo corbalis > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Fergus Kyle" >To: >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" > > > > Cheers, > > Not my purpose to disagree with an active CFI, but I see no > > reason to change checklists [which were used for hundreds of different > > aircraft types and developped over 40 years of training] for each model of > > aerodyne. > > If one must change the list each item should be complete: > > Gas - contents, selection, fuel pressure > > Mixture - usually rich unless above 5000, carb heat on/off > > Undercarriage - down, locked, downlock pressure up, visual clues, no horn > > Flap - initial circuit selection, then final selection > > Pitch - fine for overshoot > > Trim - for overshoot (on final) > > Actually, the ultimate checklist 50 years ago was HTMPFFGGS >plus > > any particularity for type - could be used on most allied machines for any > > manoeuvre (if admittedly repetitive - but when you're flying seven or >eight > > types..........). > > Ferg > > do not archive > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 01:57:53 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Oct 23, 2004, at 10:37 AM, Eric Ruttan wrote: >> What I wonder is, can I install this fuel system in >> my experimental and still be a Libertarian? > > Yes you can. The parts still get to decide if they want to > participate. :) And in an aircraft, we still need to have a stable society even if not all the parts choose to cooperate. > Incorrect fuel management is a number 3 killer. This speaks to the > truth > that may pilots are not very good at it. Clearly this is a problem. The scary thing about it is: it just isn't that hard to do so why do pilots screw it up so often? > The creation of a full automatic fuel delivery system will save lives. > The > cost of monitoring the sub components is minor compared to saving > lives. Well, fully automatic implies sufficient intelligence to automatically select the proper tank, automatically manage the fuel pumps to ensure proper pressure at the fuel metering system, and to let you know if you aren't going to make it to your destination or if you can make it to any field before you drop below minimum fuel. This is a good question. Does anyone know of a source of good electrically-operated fuel valves? Simple motor-driven bistable on/off valves (draws current only when the valve is moving) with a switch to provide feedback of valve open/closed would be nice. Anyone know of such a critter? Seems to me the old Aero Commander twins used eletrically-operated valves. Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201 +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802 There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 02:11:55 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Oct 23, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Richard Riley wrote: > Thanks to those that replied. I'll be putting the fuel pressure > switch in, > but leaving the oil pressure switch out of it. What I found worked really, really well for me in my RV-4 was an Audio Flight Avionics engine monitor. It had a polite woman's voice that would say, "Warning, low fuel pressure," in my headphones should I forget to switch tanks. I could then switch tanks without the engine so much as skipping a beat. It would tell me exactly what was wrong and the rest of the systems were dirt simple. This appealed to me greatly. Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201 +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802 There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:15 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Inrange check/downwind check etc --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Oct 23, 2004, at 10:48 AM, Fergus Kyle wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" > > Cheers, > Not my purpose to disagree with an active CFI, Feel free. I am still learning. > but I see no > reason to change checklists [which were used for hundreds of different > aircraft types and developped over 40 years of training] for each > model of > aerodyne. I agree with you. I use GUMPS for all aircraft. I just have to remember that the 'S' means "slats and flaps". I encourage you to disagree with me if you have a better idea. The point I try to make with my students is to be consistent in performing a before landing check that all systems are in order. Repetition leads to the likelihood that the check will be performed every time. And a simple check means that the components of the check will be performed. > If one must change the list each item should be complete: > Gas - contents, selection, fuel pressure > Mixture - usually rich unless above 5000, carb heat on/off > Undercarriage - down, locked, downlock pressure up, visual clues, no > horn > Flap - initial circuit selection, then final selection > Pitch - fine for overshoot > Trim - for overshoot (on final) > Actually, the ultimate checklist 50 years ago was > HTMPFFGGS plus > any particularity for type - could be used on most allied machines for > any > manoeuvre (if admittedly repetitive - but when you're flying seven or > eight > types..........). Well, one does what one needs to do to get the job done. Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201 +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802 There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 02:53:08 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 10/23/2004 3:59:12 PM Central Standard Time, brianl@lloyd.com writes: Anyone know of such a critter? Seems to me the old Aero Commander twins used eletrically-operated valves. So did the Convair 340s Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 03:58:51 PM PST US From: Rick Girard Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard The RV (the kind that roll not the kind that fly) industry has electrically operated fuel valves. Here are two from JC Whitney: http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/s-10101/p-1103/c-10107 Rick Girard