---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 06/14/06: 29 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:28 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Kevin Horton) 2. 02:52 AM - Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring (Joe Dubner) 3. 05:51 AM - Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring (John Schroeder) 4. 06:05 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Alan K. Adamson) 5. 06:25 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Lloyd, Daniel R.) 6. 06:38 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com) 7. 07:13 AM - Airspeed and ATP (Fergus Kyle) 8. 08:32 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Bruce Gray) 9. 09:13 AM - VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION (Tom Martino) 10. 09:23 AM - Re: VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION (Peter Braswell) 11. 09:52 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Robert Sultzbach) 12. 09:55 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Brinker) 13. 10:02 AM - Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring (Hopperdhh@aol.com) 14. 10:13 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Olen Goodwin) 15. 10:13 AM - Source of inexpensive 17AH battery (Charlie Kuss) 16. 11:38 AM - Re: Source of inexpensive 17AH battery (Tim Olson) 17. 11:38 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Tim Olson) 18. 12:09 PM - Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Kelly McMullen) 19. 12:39 PM - Re: Source of inexpensive 17AH battery (Mickey Coggins) 20. 12:52 PM - Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Matt Prather) 21. 01:14 PM - Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Chuck Jensen) 22. 02:36 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Brinker) 23. 03:34 PM - Re: Source of inexpensive 17AH battery (Konrad L. Werner) 24. 03:41 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Tim Olson) 25. 05:04 PM - Re: VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION (John Schroeder) 26. 05:25 PM - Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Charlie Kuss) 27. 06:25 PM - Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Olen Goodwin) 28. 06:37 PM - Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Robert Sultzbach) 29. 08:46 PM - Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Dan Beadle) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:28:19 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) The Garmin 196 also shows track not heading, and GPS altitude, not barometric altitude. Track and GPS altitude are better than nothing if you've had a major failure (in fact track is more useful than heading if you are trying to navigate), but we shouldn't confuse them with heading and barometric altitude. I.e. you shouldn't try to check your compass accuracy by comparing its heading against GPS track, and you shouldn't try to compare the barometric altitude from your altimeter against GPS altitude. The difference between GPS altitude and barometric altitude could be several hundred feet. Kevin Horton On 14 Jun 2006, at 24:04, richard titsworth wrote: > One small pet peeve of mine ' the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not > airspeed). A simple point ' but add some tailwind and/or density > altitude and the differences can be disastrous ' especially in an > emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and > repeat it ten times so you don=92t forget. It shows ground speed not > IAS. > > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner- > aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:25 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. > good to have) > > > Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be > talking out my wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental > builders including myself are installing an angle of attack mine > the AFS can operate off of a 9v battery, so it will not be affected > by loss of the planes bus power. The AOA takes the place of the ASI > and VSI so two steam gauges gone out of precouis panel space, not > to mention that my backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi, altitude, > and of course heading =85 > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 02:52:27 AM PST US From: Joe Dubner Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joe Dubner I didn't receive any meaningful responses to my original query but I found a diagram on Bob's site (thanks, Bob!) that answers a lot of my questions: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//trim.pdf Let me phrase my original question another way: do both (pilot and copilot) trim switches connect (in parallel) to the ORN and GRN wires of the "MAC SERVO RELAY DECK" in the above diagram? I think so but I'd like to hear from someone who has actually wired this system. And what have others done to connect this "mini-rats nest" of small gauge wires? Between the two stick grips, two relay decks, two trim servos and two needle-type indicators there must be two dozen connections and not a single terminal to fasten to. -- Joe Long-EZ 821RP Lewiston, ID On 10-Jun-06 14:40 Joe Dubner wrote: > Can anyone shed some light on a question about the use of two Ray Allen > Company control stick grips with trim switches, two RAC relay decks, and > RAC servos for aileron and elevator trim? The RAC "Wire schematic" is > attached. > > Do both sets of trim switches (the corresponding switches from grip 1 > and grip 2) connect to the points labeled Switch 1, Switch3, Switch4, > and Switch2? To me the diagram doesn't make this clear. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:51:08 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" JOe - I sent you 2 or 3 .pdf files with the wiring we used for connecting the pilot and co-pilot trim switches. They show the relay deck connections in color coded wiring. Let me know if you did not get them and I'll re-transmit. John Schroeder On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:49:56 -0700, Joe Dubner wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joe Dubner > > I didn't receive any meaningful responses to my original query but I > found a diagram on Bob's site (thanks, Bob!) that answers a lot of my > questions: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//trim.pdf > > Let me phrase my original question another way: do both (pilot and > copilot) trim switches connect (in parallel) to the ORN and GRN wires of > the "MAC SERVO RELAY DECK" in the above diagram? I think so but I'd > like to hear from someone who has actually wired this system. > > And what have others done to connect this "mini-rats nest" of small > gauge wires? Between the two stick grips, two relay decks, two trim > servos and two needle-type indicators there must be two dozen > connections and not a single terminal to fasten to. > > -- > Joe > Long-EZ 821RP > Lewiston, ID > > > On 10-Jun-06 14:40 Joe Dubner wrote: >> Can anyone shed some light on a question about the use of two Ray Allen >> Company control stick grips with trim switches, two RAC relay decks, and >> RAC servos for aileron and elevator trim? The RAC "Wire schematic" is >> attached. >> >> Do both sets of trim switches (the corresponding switches from grip 1 >> and grip 2) connect to the points labeled Switch 1, Switch3, Switch4, >> and Switch2? To me the diagram doesn't make this clear. > > -- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:05:14 AM PST US From: "Alan K. Adamson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Not to pick any fights, but I just have to set back sometimes and say "HUH?"... Don't get me wrong, I fly a glass panel airplane today (2004 182 with G1000) and I'm building another other (Lancair Legacy with Chelton). What strikes me as odd is the way people approach an IFR panel. It seems to be an extension of a VFR one, instead of one dedicated for IFR use. The problem is that IMC is either black for white, there is no gray area (clouds not included :) ). You either are VMC and on IFR, or you are IMC and on IFR. BTW, I don't buy this "Light IFR" concept either. It's pretty simple, were you visually limited in IMC or NOT? So my suggestion is to stop and think about, you are going to build a panel that gives you the opportunity to use your airplane it in IMC. Will you? What do you expect for failsafe if you do and something happens? How will you survive? Those questions have to be answered and seriously. Going NORDO is one thing, but loosing all orientation when in the clag.... well, you know the outcome of that.... (ever tried unusual attitude recovery with partial panel? Did ya survive before the instructor had to bail you out?). With Glass you also *have* to approach things differently. I'm not going to tell you how or which equipment to buy (altho as you can tell, I like the stuff that is a kissing cousin to certified), and you certainly *don't* need any vacuum instruments if you so desire, but please plan in some failsafes. Examples. - Dual busses - Dual EFIS that can act independently - Alt, AS, AI (electric via Sporty's for cheap) - an autopilot with its own built in compass and wing leveler - a backup GPS preferably with 6 pack instrumentation NOW FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT PART..... LEARN!!!! to use what you install. I get so sick of reading about accidents where the outcome could have been different if someone would have just "RTFM". :) Just think about it, Crosswell, most likely would have been saved if he'd just had "real-time" weather onboard. Glass is awesome, wonderful, and I'll never fly without it, but you *do* need some kind of failsafe, and you do need education. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox. I don't agree with Bruce's assessment of Glass in a GA cockpit, but I do have a strong feeling that if you do it, you don't do it half way, and you do include failsafes. The problem with the above is that cheap and redundant failsafes don't always go together.... My panel has dual Cheltons, 3 - 3 1/8" backup instruments (AS, AI, ALT), TruTrak AP with separate built in heading and wing leveler, and a Garmin portable mounted in the panel that if everything goes dark, can run on batteries and in 6 pack mode to be a last resort. Probably overkill, but who cares, it's my butt in the seat. Alan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:06 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements John, Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I had read the regs several times and had visited the EAA site. I just didn=92t quite put it together as you have. I am comfortable with dual, independent systems on separate battery busses. In the unlikely event of a lightning strike, I might lose both, but I can live with that. I probably will go with the dual battery, dual EFIS, dual AHRS system and no gyros. I may have to educate the DAR for sign-off, but it should be doable. Thanks. Dan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Erickson Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:19 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Dan, A lot of people will respond with what they think or what they heard. Here's what I have in writing. Note that while most Experimental Operations Limits are fairly standardized, they may differ, so check the Ops Limits issued for the aircraft you're putting the EFIS in for specifics. Here's what my Ops Limits say under the Phase II section. "4. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipeed for night and/or instrument flist as listed in FAR 91.205 (b through e), this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR." OK, pretty straightforward. On to what FAR 91.205 b through e says... FAR 91.205 (b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Airspeed indicator. (2) Altimeter. (3) Magnetic direction indicator. (4) Tachometer for each engine. (5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system. (6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine. (7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine. (8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine. (9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank. (10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable landing gear. (11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made. (12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily available to each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under part 121 of this subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. As used in this section, =93shore=94 means that area of the land adjacent to the water which is above the high water mark and excludes land areas which are intermittently under water. (13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching device for each occupant 2 years of age or older. (14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an approved shoulder harness for each front seat. The shoulder harness must be designed to protect the occupant from serious head injury when the occupant experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in =A723.561(b)(2) of this chapter. Each shoulder harness installed at a flight crewmember station must permit the crewmember, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operations. For purposes of this paragraph=97 (i) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the FAA-approved type design data; and (ii) A front seat is a seat located at a flight crewmember station or any seat located alongside such a seat. (15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by =A791.207. (16) For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 9 or less, manufactured after December 12, 1986, a shoulder harness for=97 (i) Each front seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785 (g) and (h) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985; (ii) Each additional seat that meets the requirements of =A723.785(g) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985. (17) For rotorcraft manufactured after September 16, 1992, a shoulder harness for each seat that meets the requirements of =A727.2 or =A729.2 of this chapter in effect on September 16, 1991. (c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (2) Approved position lights. (3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made. (4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light. (5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and radio equipment. (6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight. (d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used. (3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft: (i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in =A7121.305(j) of this chapter; and (ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of =B180 degrees of pitch and =B1120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with =A729.1303(g) of this chapter. (4) Slip-skid indicator. (5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure. (6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation. (7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity. (8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon). (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). (e) Flight at and above 24,000 ft. MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigational equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and the District of Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is equipped with approved distance measuring equipment (DME). When DME required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in command of the aircraft shall notify ATC immediately, and then may continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next airport of intended landing at which repairs or replacement of the equipment can be made. Reading this again makes things pretty clear. Basic Day/VFR equipment is listed first. Night VFR requires all the Day VFR equipment with some additions. IFR requires Night/VFR with some more equipment. Here's where another question typically arises when discussing EFIS use in IFR flight. FAR 91.205 (d) specifies Gyroscopic rate of turn, pitch and bank, and direction indicator. What is gyroscopic (especially since most (if not all) AHRS's do not have any moving parts at all. Here's what I copied off EAA's Homebuilt page (link is http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/1Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%2 0fo r%20IFR%20operations.html and does require membership) "What is a gyro? The often-asked question is, what constitutes a =93gyroscopic=94 instrument. Is an instrument containing an actual rotating mass gyro required, or are alternatives such as ring laser gyros or accelerometer-based instruments acceptable? Unfortunately, there is no specific definition of a gyroscopic instrument to be found in any FAA regulation or guidance document. In order to try to answer this question, the EAA contacted the FAA Small Airplane Directorate in Kansas City, MO. The Small Airplane Directorate confirmed that there is no published guidance on this subject, but indicated that the function of the instrument is the main consideration. Any instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic instrument and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and display." Bottomline, it seems pretty obvious from all this that all of the popular EFIS systems out there meet the definition of gyroscopic instruments given above, satisfy the equipment required by the FAR's, and the requirements for instrument flight specified in the Ops Limits. Note that nowhere in any of this is there any requirement for any backup of any sort (other than the requirement in the Night/VFR section for spare fuses). I like your statement of "If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me." Remember the regs are a minimum. Lots of stuff to consider including electrical system design, quality of EFIS hardware AND software, installation, etc. However, once the regs are met, everything else is really personal preference. What one person feels is perfectly safe may seem to someone else incredibly unsafe. To each his own. I'm going to have backups in my RV-10. John Erickson RV-10 #40208 Wings (I think this is my longest post ever... :-) ) _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:47 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS age? We are planning a Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, all eggs in one basket. If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for me. Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP steam gage for redundancy. Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an independent AHRS on a separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:40 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." To a pilot that is dependant on the instrument, does it matter why, or more importantly just that it does not work when I need it. The whole purpose of this thread was to state the value of backup instruments, and while the EFIS itself did not fail, the end result is that it was not available, which means that you needed a backup. The easy solution for this is to have an EFIS with an internal battery, IE Dynon? I will be using a Chelton, but it is still dependant on electrons flowing to it, as it does not have an internal battery option, but I will be backing it up with both a Portable GPS and a Dynon with internal battery. Dan RV10 (40269) -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert Sultzbach Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:10 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach Hi Bruce, This was not an EFIS failure but an electrical failure that you have quoted. Furthermore, having over 6000 odd hours in this aircraft I can tell you where to start looking for this kind of failure in the DC buses. It is a "Fate IS the Hunter" scenario but the DC buses have a row of circuit breakers just to the aft and right side of the copilot's seat...right where he slides his flight kit into position next to his seat. I have seen this row of breakers blown out by an errant flight kit and guess what, all hell breaks loose in the DC buses when this row of breakers is damaged. So to sum it up, if you interrupt power to an efis it will cease to operate but it did not fail. It was an electrical failure and I'll bet a beer a copilot's flight kit caused it. Cheers, Bob Sultzbach --- Bruce Gray wrote: > Here's one. > > http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Ma rtin > Air/martinair-summary.html > > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Brinker > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > I would like to read the reports. Not trying > to be a smart alex just > out of curiosity. > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruce Gray > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this > subject that I don't want > another one. Do whatever floats your boat. > > Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this > issue for years and > mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS > airliners going dark in IFR > where the only thing left was a flashlight and a > vacuum ADI. > > I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I > wonder why? > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Tim > Dawson-Townsend > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds > of IFR Cessnas with only > one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for > backup. And they've got > zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of > any sort are on an > individual aircraft model installation basis for TC > or STC. Since > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you > how many or what kind > of backups you have. > > > > TDT > > > > > > > _____ > > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Bruce > Gray > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before > they kicked me off. You > need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably > vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. > Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need > the steam gauges. If the > EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. > > > > > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Dan > Beadle > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. > > > > What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS > age? We are planning a > Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, > all eggs in one basket. > If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for > me. > > > > Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP > steam gage for redundancy. > > > > Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an > independent AHRS on a > separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? > > > __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:38:48 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Good Morning Alan, Mind if I inject just a small objection here? It is not at all difficult to learn to use a "Partial Panel" and be able to survive quite well without the aid of an instructor. However, as you state, it does take training. My suggestion is that each and every IFR pilot should find an instructor who is competent in whatever sort of last ditch equipment the pilot decides to use and seriously embark on about twenty hours of concentrated study using nothing more than the Partial Panel chosen. For what it is worth, when I received my instrument rating, we were not allowed to use any gyroscopic instrument during the check ride other than the T&B. No attitude or directional gyroscope was allowed. We who earned our ratings that way are obviously no smarter than current applicants. Many will claim, probably rightly so, that we are not as smart as you young whippersnappers. Nevertheless, we managed to learn how to keep things right side up in twenty hours or so. There is no reason why it cannot be done today. I keep hoping that someone will come up with a modern solid state presentation that is better than a T&B. Meanwhile, the T&B will still do the job. As I have mentioned many times in the past, I consider the Turn Coordinator to be an abomination as a "last ditch" instrument, but even it can be used with enough training. While I am on this rant. I believe it is a crying shame that Garmin has chosen to use the TC representation in their 196, 296 and 396 panel representation. The GPS handhelds show only yaw, not roll. An actual mechanical TC shows both roll and yaw, in fact, you can't tell by looking at it whether it is showing roll or yaw! In any case, since a T&B shows only yaw, not roll, just as does the Garmin unit, I believe it would be a much better last ditch backup if it (the Garmin) used a pictorial representation of a T&B rather than a TC. Personally, I have a presentation in mind that I THINK would be better than either! Off the soap box, and thanks for the springboard for my Rant. Decide on which poison you prefer, then --- learn how to use it! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 6/14/2006 8:08:53 A.M. Central Standard Time, aadamson@highrf.com writes: Those questions have to be answered and seriously. Going NORDO is one thing, but loosing all orientation when in the clag.... well, you know the outcome of that.... (ever tried unusual attitude recovery with partial panel? Did ya survive before the instructor had to bail you out?). ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:13:10 AM PST US From: "Fergus Kyle" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Airspeed and ATP --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" Hello, Taken in order, two points: (1) "From: "richard titsworth" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) One small pet peeve of mine - the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A simple point - but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the differences can be disastrous - especially in an emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don't forget. It shows ground speed not IAS." ........Amen to that - AND that goes for confusing 'heading' for 'track made good' as well. (2) I see some increasing use of the term 'ATP' to perhaps designate the usefulness of advice from an airline pilot. That is a topic ripe for fisticuffs since two of them stalled and killed themselves in a trainer I helped build. Most "ATPs" will admit that their airline experience is great for weather, communications and international trade, but useless in operating little one-seaters in the countryside. I think we would all be surprised at the number of ATPs reading this, so advice is as you find it, not how it's presented. Ferg Kyle Europa A064 914 Classic ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:32:14 AM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Alan, I don't have any problems with glass panels. I have a problem with how some builders implement them. If you take a look at part 121 and most heavy iron aircraft with full glass you'll see that they have duel independent EFIS systems (including duel AHRS) with an electronic comparator/alerter and a third gyro instrument. Now why do they have all this? We've many hours behind our old steam gauges and know their failure modes. Not so with EFIS. Remember, it's a computer, and can fail in ways you've never seen before. In some cases you won't even know it's failed. That brings us to training. The airlines spend big bucks training their guys in EFIS switchology and failure modes. Just where are we to get this kind of training? Our local CFII? Some of these failure modes can't be duplicated in the aircraft and need a simulator to do it right. But you say 'I'm good at partial panel', so was this poor guy. http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=8F3C17D0-5398-43 55-BB B0-D47B0DAC1D23 &Dynamic=1. Those EFIS screens are very hypnotic and compelling. Remember when you were doing partial panel with your CFII and he failed the ADI? He did that by covering the instrument. In real life, the instrument just starts leaning in pitch or roll. It's very difficult not to follow the gauge even when you know it's failed. Imagine how difficult it would be with an EFIS. If the AHRS goes bonkers and you still need the screen for ASI and altitude. The best thing to do is just pull the breaker and fly with what's left. I don't have the answers, perhaps others do. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K. Adamson Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:02 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Not to pick any fights, but I just have to set back sometimes and say "HUH?"... Don't get me wrong, I fly a glass panel airplane today (2004 182 with G1000) and I'm building another other (Lancair Legacy with Chelton). What strikes me as odd is the way people approach an IFR panel. It seems to be an extension of a VFR one, instead of one dedicated for IFR use. The problem is that IMC is either black for white, there is no gray area (clouds not included :) ). You either are VMC and on IFR, or you are IMC and on IFR. BTW, I don't buy this "Light IFR" concept either. It's pretty simple, were you visually limited in IMC or NOT? So my suggestion is to stop and think about, you are going to build a panel that gives you the opportunity to use your airplane it in IMC. Will you? What do you expect for failsafe if you do and something happens? How will you survive? Those questions have to be answered and seriously. Going NORDO is one thing, but loosing all orientation when in the clag.... well, you know the outcome of that.... (ever tried unusual attitude recovery with partial panel? Did ya survive before the instructor had to bail you out?). With Glass you also *have* to approach things differently. I'm not going to tell you how or which equipment to buy (altho as you can tell, I like the stuff that is a kissing cousin to certified), and you certainly *don't* need any vacuum instruments if you so desire, but please plan in some failsafes. Examples. - Dual busses - Dual EFIS that can act independently - Alt, AS, AI (electric via Sporty's for cheap) - an autopilot with its own built in compass and wing leveler - a backup GPS preferably with 6 pack instrumentation NOW FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT PART..... LEARN!!!! to use what you install. I get so sick of reading about accidents where the outcome could have been different if someone would have just "RTFM". :) Just think about it, Crosswell, most likely would have been saved if he'd just had "real-time" weather onboard. Glass is awesome, wonderful, and I'll never fly without it, but you *do* need some kind of failsafe, and you do need education. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox. I don't agree with Bruce's assessment of Glass in a GA cockpit, but I do have a strong feeling that if you do it, you don't do it half way, and you do include failsafes. The problem with the above is that cheap and redundant failsafes don't always go together.... My panel has dual Cheltons, 3 - 3 1/8" backup instruments (AS, AI, ALT), TruTrak AP with separate built in heading and wing leveler, and a Garmin portable mounted in the panel that if everything goes dark, can run on batteries and in 6 pack mode to be a last resort. Probably overkill, but who cares, it's my butt in the seat. Alan ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:13:21 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION From: "Tom Martino" I have had 55 hours of flying with no electrical problems until now! Recently I saw something in flight that bothered me. My panel lights started flickering a bit and the (Electronics International) voltmeter showed varying voltages anywhere from 12.3 volts up to 14 volts ... kind of erratically. Then the "Discharge" light on the voltmeter lit up. Then the "Low Voltage" light coming from my voltage regulator lit up. I have the B & C Solid State Voltage Regulator (Model LR3C-14) and the B & C L-60 Alternator. Upon touch down and roll out everything went back to normal. No "discharge" no "low voltage". I checked connections and everything seems normal. I can't get it to act up on the ground. Any ideas? Tom ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:23:30 AM PST US From: "Peter Braswell" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION Tom, Have you checked the belt on your alternator? -peter _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Martino Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:04 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION I have had 55 hours of flying with no electrical problems until now! Recently I saw something in flight that bothered me. My panel lights started flickering a bit and the (Electronics International) voltmeter showed varying voltages anywhere from 12.3 volts up to 14 volts ... kind of erratically. Then the "Discharge" light on the voltmeter lit up. Then the "Low Voltage" light coming from my voltage regulator lit up. I have the B & C Solid State Voltage Regulator (Model LR3C-14) and the B & C L-60 Alternator. Upon touch down and roll out everything went back to normal. No "discharge" no "low voltage". I checked connections and everything seems normal. I can't get it to act up on the ground. Any ideas? Tom ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:02 AM PST US From: Robert Sultzbach Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach Yes, I agree. The important thing when flying is did or didn't the EFIS lose the ability to provide a horizon. When building, however, it is more important to consider how to prevent a no attitude reference situation. So, to keep this airplane airworthy, don't blame the EFIS, fix the electrical system. Bob --- "Lloyd, Daniel R." wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lloyd, > Daniel R." > > To a pilot that is dependant on the instrument, does > it matter why, or > more importantly just that it does not work when I > need it. The whole > purpose of this thread was to state the value of > backup instruments, and > while the EFIS itself did not fail, the end result > is that it was not > available, which means that you needed a backup. The > easy solution for > this is to have an EFIS with an internal battery, IE > Dynon? I will be > using a Chelton, but it is still dependant on > electrons flowing to it, > as it does not have an internal battery option, but > I will be backing it > up with both a Portable GPS and a Dynon with > internal battery. > Dan > RV10 (40269) > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of > Robert Sultzbach > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:10 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert > Sultzbach > > > Hi Bruce, This was not an EFIS failure but an > electrical failure that you have quoted. > Furthermore, > having over 6000 odd hours in this aircraft I can > tell > you where to start looking for this kind of failure > in > the DC buses. It is a "Fate IS the Hunter" scenario > but the DC buses have a row of circuit breakers just > to the aft and right side of the copilot's > seat...right where he slides his flight kit into > position next to his seat. I have seen this row of > breakers blown out by an errant flight kit and guess > what, all hell breaks loose in the DC buses when > this > row of breakers is damaged. So to sum it up, if you > interrupt power to an efis it will cease to operate > but it did not fail. It was an electrical failure > and > I'll bet a beer a copilot's flight kit caused it. > Cheers, Bob Sultzbach > > --- Bruce Gray wrote: > > > Here's one. > > > > > http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Ma > rtin > > Air/martinair-summary.html > > > > > > > > Bruce > > www.glasair.org > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > > On Behalf Of Brinker > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > > > I would like to read the reports. Not > trying > > to be a smart alex just > > out of curiosity. > > > > Randy > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Bruce Gray > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this > > subject that I don't want > > another one. Do whatever floats your boat. > > > > Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this > > issue for years and > > mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS > > airliners going dark in IFR > > where the only thing left was a flashlight and a > > vacuum ADI. > > > > I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. > I > > wonder why? > > > > > > Bruce > > www.glasair.org > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > > On Behalf Of Tim > > Dawson-Townsend > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > > > > > "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds > > of IFR Cessnas with only > > one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator > for > > backup. And they've got > > zero backup altimeters or ASIs. > > > > > > > > FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of > > any sort are on an > > individual aircraft model installation basis for > TC > > or STC. Since > > experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to > you > > how many or what kind > > of backups you have. > > > > > > > > TDT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > > On Behalf Of Bruce > > Gray > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > > > > > I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum > before > > they kicked me off. You > > need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably > > vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. > > Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need > > the steam gauges. If the > > EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruce > > www.glasair.org > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] > > On Behalf Of Dan > > Beadle > > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements > > > > There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. > > > > > === message truncated == __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:55:32 AM PST US From: "Brinker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) Message I repeated 10 times and I will not forget that LOL. Accually I knew that but was'nt thinking at the time. My CFI drilled the importance of airspeed into my head so hard that I got into the habit of approaching final in my Cherokee 140 at 100mph. No problem bleeding off airspeed on short final. And the extra 20mph is just a little insurance against a stall. Randy opinions ARE like noses everybody has one I just hope I have'nt stuck mine out so far as to get it knocked off. ----- Original Message ----- From: richard titsworth To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:04 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) One small pet peeve of mine - the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A simple point - but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the differences can be disastrous - especially in an emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don't forget. It shows ground speed not IAS. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:02:02 AM PST US From: Hopperdhh@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo Wiring Joe, I don't have the same servos and hookup that you do, but here is how I handled all the wires coming down the control stick. I used DB-9 (Actually they are DE-9, I think) type computer connectors. These are usually gold plated and are very compact and reliable connectors. They are the style like on the back of your computer for the parallel port or the old serial ports -- 2 rows of pins with one row having 1 more than the other. You could use DB-15 or DB-25. Mount one in a slot cut in one of the ribs near the base of the stick. Or you could just leave them loose and cable tie them in a position that keeps them from chaffing, etc. One connector of course becomes part of the aircraft wiring. The other connector is connected to the wires coming down the stick with about 6 or 8 inches of extra wire. They can be held by 2 screws or some styles have 2 snap over spring wires. These are available from Digikey or Radio Shack or any of the electronic or computer stores. Dan Hopper RV-7A In a message dated 6/14/2006 8:42:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jdubner@yahoo.com writes: And what have others done to connect this "mini-rats nest" of small gauge wires? Between the two stick grips, two relay decks, two trim servos and two needle-type indicators there must be two dozen connections and not a single terminal to fasten to. -- Joe Long-EZ 821RP Lewiston, ID ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:13:40 AM PST US From: "Olen Goodwin" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) Kelly, I too am an airline guy. Also an ag pilot guy, also an old single pilot 135 guy, etc. Statistics are statistics. Nothing more. Two (or more) engines are sometimes more safe than one. I can't think of any circumstance that a WELL TRAINED, PROFICIENT pilot in a WELL MAINTAINED twin would be less safe than in a single. Lots of the light twin accidents were from lack of training or lack of maintenance. That has nothing to do with an intrinsic lack of safety of light or heavy twins. There will always be a time of flight that it's better to pull the good engine back and land straight ahead, or head for the nearest open spot. This is where proficiency comes in. You can take the statistics wherever you want to go, but if I'm on top or in the clouds in a well maintained twin and lose one engine, I'll have a much better chance of getting down intact than any single losing one engine on earth, no matter how well equipped. do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Kelly McMullen To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:27 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen You maybe an airline guy, but you don't read the stats too closely. Multi-engine GA flights have just as many fatals as singles, and more from mechanicals. Simple arithmetic...more than two times as many devices to fail, more complacency on maintenance because there are two, and more difficult to fly on one than the single on none. Been much studied over the years, and there simply is no statistical evidence that a twin is safer. KM gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote: Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off. Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway. George ATP/CFII >From: "Bruce Gray" > >OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't >wantanother ========================= http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List ========================= http://wiki.matronics.com ========================= ========================= =========== ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:13:40 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: AeroElectric-List: Source of inexpensive 17AH battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss Listers, I recently found an APC 1400 VA computer un-interruptible power supply in the dumpster. I took it home and checked it out. These things retail for about $200. Turns out it had not one, but two 17 AH 12 volt batteries, like those used in my RV-8A. The batteries were both bad. I called a friend and he recommended I check www.gruberpower.com for replacements. I bought TWO of these batteries for $29.90 plus $25 for shipping. That's $54.90 total for TWO batteries. I've installed them in the APC and it now works great. The replacement batteries are "claimed" to be 18AH, but they are exactly the same dimensions as the originals, so I'm sure that the higher rating is just smoke and mirrors. The only down side is that they have rather frail terminals for aircraft use. See http://www.gruberpower.com/purchase/batteries/product.asp?intProdID=13&strCatalog_NAME=Batteries&strSubCatalog_NAME=&strSubCatalogID=&intCatalogID=10001&CurCatalogID Price for one is $21.85 plus $12 shipping for a total of $33.85 Save even more if you need two or can find a friend to share with. See http://www.gruberpower.com/purchase/batteries/product.asp?intProdID=40 I thought you might be interested. The batteries are manufactured in Vietnam. Charlie Kuss RV-8A Boca Raton, Fl ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:20 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source of inexpensive 17AH battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson You can usually get those batteries from local sources at great prices and save tons on shipping. Check for a Batteries Plus near you. I once got a great UPS the same way...from the trash. Replaced the batteries and am still using it today. I just taught my employer that it shouldn't just throw away $2500 rackmount UPS's, but just replace the batteries. They're actually very cheap. Incidently, these UPS batteries are the perfect size for small aux batteries for your systems. I built my fairly long running aux pack from 4 batteries, all 6V, to fit in a strange little waste of space area. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Charlie Kuss wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss > > > Listers, > I recently found an APC 1400 VA computer un-interruptible power supply > in the dumpster. I took it home and checked it out. These things retail > for about $200. Turns out it had not one, but two 17 AH 12 volt > batteries, like those used in my RV-8A. The batteries were both bad. I > called a friend and he recommended I check www.gruberpower.com for > replacements. > I bought TWO of these batteries for $29.90 plus $25 for shipping. > That's $54.90 total for TWO batteries. I've installed them in the APC > and it now works great. The replacement batteries are "claimed" to be > 18AH, but they are exactly the same dimensions as the originals, so I'm > sure that the higher rating is just smoke and mirrors. The only down > side is that they have rather frail terminals for aircraft use. See > > http://www.gruberpower.com/purchase/batteries/product.asp?intProdID=13&strCatalog_NAME=Batteries&strSubCatalog_NAME=&strSubCatalogID=&intCatalogID=10001&CurCatalogID= > > > Price for one is $21.85 plus $12 shipping for a total of $33.85 > > Save even more if you need two or can find a friend to share with. See > > http://www.gruberpower.com/purchase/batteries/product.asp?intProdID=40 > > I thought you might be interested. The batteries are manufactured in > Vietnam. > > Charlie Kuss > RV-8A > Boca Raton, Fl > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:20 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson I had the same problem when training. I was so focused on keeping above stall speed that I flew all approaches at 80 kts. I can assure you that it's FAR better to just become good at airspeed control, and know your proper approach speed. Landings become much better, and MUCH safer, when done within 5 mph of the proper speed. I nearly ballooned and porpoised into tragedy while flying a hot approach once, years ago. As far as GPS not reading airspeed....why and how could it ever.... unless you have it hooked to a pitot system. The only airspeed indicators you should consider are pitot connected ones, and if you're that paranoid still, then buy an AOA indicator. Again though, keeping an extra 20mph on final might just some day get you seriously hurt, so I'd avoid that and find a better way. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Brinker wrote: > I repeated 10 times and I will not forget that LOL. Accually I > knew that but was'nt thinking at the time. My CFI drilled the importance > of airspeed into my head so hard that I got into the habit of > approaching final in my Cherokee 140 at 100mph. No problem bleeding off > airspeed on short final. And the extra 20mph is just a little insurance > against a stall. > > Randy > opinions ARE like noses everybody has one I just hope I have'nt stuck > mine out so far as to get it knocked off. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* richard titsworth > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:04 PM > *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. > good to have) > > One small pet peeve of mine the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not > airspeed). A simple point but add some tailwind and/or density > altitude and the differences can be disastrous especially in an > emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and > repeat it ten times so you dont forget. It shows ground speed not IAS. > > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 12:09:50 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen All true in theory. Somehow it just doesn't translate to the real world of aircraft accidents. Twins have a higher fatal accident rate than singles. Should that influence your choice?...personal decision. Odds are still significantly higher that you will have to feather an engine on a twin than you having a total loss of power on a single. How well you deal with that is totally dependent on training and proficiency. Unfortunately, the record isn't great in that regard. Too many 135 twins that haven't survived an engine loss on takeoff, with pilots that should have been as proficient as the airline guys. Quoting Olen Goodwin : > Kelly, I too am an airline guy. Also an ag pilot guy, also an old > single pilot 135 guy, etc. Statistics are statistics. Nothing > more. Two (or more) engines are sometimes more safe than one. I > can't think of any circumstance that a WELL TRAINED, PROFICIENT > pilot in a WELL MAINTAINED twin would be less safe than in a single. > Lots of the light twin accidents were from lack of training or > lack of maintenance. That has nothing to do with an intrinsic lack > of safety of light or heavy twins. There will always be a time of > flight that it's better to pull the good engine back and land > straight ahead, or head for the nearest open spot. This is where > proficiency comes in. You can take the statistics wherever you want > to go, but if I'm on top or in the clouds in a well maintained twin > and lose one engine, I'll have a much better chance of getting down > intact than any single losing one engine on earth, no matter how > well equipped. > > do not archive ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 12:39:24 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source of inexpensive 17AH battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > Replaced the batteries and am still using it today. I just taught > my employer that it shouldn't just throw away $2500 rackmount > UPS's, but just replace the batteries. They're actually > very cheap. Man, I've gotta start doing a bit more dumpster diving! :) -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:52:04 PM PST US Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" You are, of course, right about the statistics, Kelly. However, I think it would arguable (though maybe not statistically supportable) that twins fly tougher missions. They are more likely to be used for ops at night and during hazardous weather - hauling freight, etc. The statistics do support that accidents are more likely to be fatal when they happen in cruddy weather and in the dark. I believe that if singles were as often operated in challenging conditions, their fatal rate would be higher than for twins. Regards, Matt- > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > > > All true in theory. Somehow it just doesn't translate to the real > world of aircraft accidents. Twins have a higher fatal accident rate > than singles. Should that influence your choice?...personal decision. > Odds are still significantly higher that you will have to feather an > engine on a twin than you having a total loss of power on a single. > How well you deal with that is totally dependent on training and > proficiency. Unfortunately, the record isn't great in that regard. Too > many 135 twins that haven't survived an engine loss on takeoff, with > pilots that should have been as proficient as the airline guys. > > Quoting Olen Goodwin : > >> Kelly, I too am an airline guy. Also an ag pilot guy, also an old >> single pilot 135 guy, etc. Statistics are statistics. Nothing >> more. Two (or more) engines are sometimes more safe than one. I >> can't think of any circumstance that a WELL TRAINED, PROFICIENT >> pilot in a WELL MAINTAINED twin would be less safe than in a single. >> Lots of the light twin accidents were from lack of training or >> lack of maintenance. That has nothing to do with an intrinsic lack >> of safety of light or heavy twins. There will always be a time of >> flight that it's better to pull the good engine back and land >> straight ahead, or head for the nearest open spot. This is where >> proficiency comes in. You can take the statistics wherever you want >> to go, but if I'm on top or in the clouds in a well maintained twin >> and lose one engine, I'll have a much better chance of getting down >> intact than any single losing one engine on earth, no matter how >> well equipped. >> >> do not archive > > > Features Navigator to browse > Email List Wiki! > support! > > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 01:14:02 PM PST US Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) From: "Chuck Jensen" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" Actually, the higher fatality rate, when a twin does go down, is generally attributed to higher touch down speed for a twin v. a single. When you square the touchdown speed to calculate energy, that extra 15 kts turns into a lot of metal bending initia. Without a doubt, more difficult weather doesn't make the outcome more favorable for a twin. Chuck Jensen > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner- > aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Prather > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:49 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required > vs. good to have) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" > > > You are, of course, right about the statistics, Kelly. However, I think > it would arguable (though maybe not statistically supportable) that twins > fly tougher missions. They are more likely to be used for ops at night > and during hazardous weather - hauling freight, etc. The statistics do > support that accidents are more likely to be fatal when they happen in > cruddy weather and in the dark. I believe that if singles were as often > operated in challenging conditions, their fatal rate would be higher than > for twins. > > > Regards, > > Matt- > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > > > > > > All true in theory. Somehow it just doesn't translate to the real > > world of aircraft accidents. Twins have a higher fatal accident rate > > than singles. Should that influence your choice?...personal decision. > > Odds are still significantly higher that you will have to feather an > > engine on a twin than you having a total loss of power on a single. > > How well you deal with that is totally dependent on training and > > proficiency. Unfortunately, the record isn't great in that regard. Too > > many 135 twins that haven't survived an engine loss on takeoff, with > > pilots that should have been as proficient as the airline guys. > > > > Quoting Olen Goodwin : > > > >> Kelly, I too am an airline guy. Also an ag pilot guy, also an old > >> single pilot 135 guy, etc. Statistics are statistics. Nothing > >> more. Two (or more) engines are sometimes more safe than one. I > >> can't think of any circumstance that a WELL TRAINED, PROFICIENT > >> pilot in a WELL MAINTAINED twin would be less safe than in a single. > >> Lots of the light twin accidents were from lack of training or > >> lack of maintenance. That has nothing to do with an intrinsic lack > >> of safety of light or heavy twins. There will always be a time of > >> flight that it's better to pull the good engine back and land > >> straight ahead, or head for the nearest open spot. This is where > >> proficiency comes in. You can take the statistics wherever you want > >> to go, but if I'm on top or in the clouds in a well maintained twin > >> and lose one engine, I'll have a much better chance of getting down > >> intact than any single losing one engine on earth, no matter how > >> well equipped. > >> > >> do not archive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Features Navigator to browse > > Email List Wiki! > > support! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 02:36:07 PM PST US From: "Brinker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" Tim I think you misunderstood me. I have no problem with holding 75-80mph on short final. The extra airspeed sure is nice when making those turns from downwind to base to fInal though. Even on my check ride I was told by the inspector that I did'nt have to fly them as fast. I told him I was comfortable with it and he still passed me. Go figure. And no I'm not paranoid reallllly I'm not not nottt. Anyway I guess we've strayed from the context of aeroelectric. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:32 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson > > I had the same problem when training. I was so focused on keeping above > stall speed that I flew all approaches at 80 kts. > > I can assure you that it's FAR better to just become good at airspeed > control, and know your proper approach speed. Landings become much > better, and MUCH safer, when done within 5 mph of the proper speed. > I nearly ballooned and porpoised into tragedy while flying a hot > approach once, years ago. > > As far as GPS not reading airspeed....why and how could it ever.... > unless you have it hooked to a pitot system. The only airspeed > indicators you should consider are pitot connected ones, and if you're > that paranoid still, then buy an AOA indicator. > > Again though, keeping an extra 20mph on final might just some day > get you seriously hurt, so I'd avoid that and find a better way. > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > do not archive > > > Brinker wrote: >> I repeated 10 times and I will not forget that LOL. Accually I >> knew that but was'nt thinking at the time. My CFI drilled the importance >> of airspeed into my head so hard that I got into the habit of approaching >> final in my Cherokee 140 at 100mph. No problem bleeding off airspeed on >> short final. And the extra 20mph is just a little insurance against a >> stall. Randy >> opinions ARE like noses everybody has one I just hope I have'nt stuck >> mine out so far as to get it knocked off. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* richard titsworth >> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:04 PM >> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. >> good to have) >> >> One small pet peeve of mine the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not >> airspeed). A simple point but add some tailwind and/or density >> altitude and the differences can be disastrous especially in an >> emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and >> repeat it ten times so you dont forget. It shows ground speed not >> IAS. >> >> > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 03:34:27 PM PST US From: "Konrad L. Werner" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source of inexpensive 17AH battery Mickey, Don't bother... We have a very, very experienced Dumpster-Dive Champion already! If you want to go ahead anyway, then good luck beating Charlie to the Gold Medal! Do not archive this diving exercise of possibly olympic proportions. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mickey Coggins To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:35 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source of inexpensive 17AH battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > Replaced the batteries and am still using it today. I just taught > my employer that it shouldn't just throw away $2500 rackmount > UPS's, but just replace the batteries. They're actually > very cheap. Man, I've gotta start doing a bit more dumpster diving! :) -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ========================= ========== ========================= ========== ========================= ========== ========================= ========== -- 6/14/2006 ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 03:41:33 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson Oooops, sorry. I probably misread something and didn't put it together right. I'd say it's Monday, but it ain't. :) Glad everythings cool. Sorry A-E list. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Brinker wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" > > > Tim I think you misunderstood me. I have no problem with > holding 75-80mph on short final. The extra airspeed sure is nice when > making those turns from downwind to base to fInal though. Even on my > check ride I was told by the inspector that I did'nt have to fly them as > fast. I told him I was comfortable with it and he still passed me. Go > figure. And no I'm not paranoid reallllly I'm not not nottt. Anyway I > guess we've strayed from the context of aeroelectric. > > Randy > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good > to have) > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson >> >> I had the same problem when training. I was so focused on keeping above >> stall speed that I flew all approaches at 80 kts. >> >> I can assure you that it's FAR better to just become good at airspeed >> control, and know your proper approach speed. Landings become much >> better, and MUCH safer, when done within 5 mph of the proper speed. >> I nearly ballooned and porpoised into tragedy while flying a hot >> approach once, years ago. >> >> As far as GPS not reading airspeed....why and how could it ever.... >> unless you have it hooked to a pitot system. The only airspeed >> indicators you should consider are pitot connected ones, and if you're >> that paranoid still, then buy an AOA indicator. >> >> Again though, keeping an extra 20mph on final might just some day >> get you seriously hurt, so I'd avoid that and find a better way. >> >> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying >> do not archive >> >> >> Brinker wrote: >>> I repeated 10 times and I will not forget that LOL. Accually I >>> knew that but was'nt thinking at the time. My CFI drilled the >>> importance of airspeed into my head so hard that I got into the habit >>> of approaching final in my Cherokee 140 at 100mph. No problem >>> bleeding off airspeed on short final. And the extra 20mph is just a >>> little insurance against a stall. Randy >>> opinions ARE like noses everybody has one I just hope I have'nt stuck >>> mine out so far as to get it knocked off. >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* richard titsworth >>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:04 PM >>> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. >>> good to have) >>> >>> One small pet peeve of mine the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not >>> airspeed). A simple point but add some tailwind and/or density >>> altitude and the differences can be disastrous especially in an >>> emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and >>> repeat it ten times so you dont forget. It shows ground speed >>> not IAS. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> http://wiki.matronics.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 05:04:34 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VOLTAGE FLUCTUATION From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" Check your grounds. John On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:04:26 -0600, Tom Martino wrote: > Upon touch down and roll out everything went back to normal. No > "discharge" no "low voltage". I checked connections and everything > seems normal. I can't get it to act up on the ground. > Any ideas? > Tom -- ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 05:25:34 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss FAA statistics show that you are four times more likely to have a forced landing in a light single, compared to a light twin. Yet, you are four times more likely to die in the twin. Higher weights (that 2nd non functioning engine just became an anvil), higher landing speeds and higher gross weights all conspire against the twin pilot here. Charlie Kuss The 2nd engine just takes you to the scene of the crash do not archive >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > >Actually, the higher fatality rate, when a twin does go down, is >generally attributed to higher touch down speed for a twin v. a single. >When you square the touchdown speed to calculate energy, that extra 15 >kts turns into a lot of metal bending initia. Without a doubt, more >difficult weather doesn't make the outcome more favorable for a twin. > >Chuck Jensen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner- > > aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Prather > > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:49 PM > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements >(required > > vs. good to have) > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" > > > > > > You are, of course, right about the statistics, Kelly. However, I >think > > it would arguable (though maybe not statistically supportable) that >twins > > fly tougher missions. They are more likely to be used for ops at >night > > and during hazardous weather - hauling freight, etc. The statistics >do > > support that accidents are more likely to be fatal when they happen in > > cruddy weather and in the dark. I believe that if singles were as >often > > operated in challenging conditions, their fatal rate would be higher >than > > for twins. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Matt- > > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > > > > > > > > > All true in theory. Somehow it just doesn't translate to the real > > > world of aircraft accidents. Twins have a higher fatal accident rate > > > than singles. Should that influence your choice?...personal >decision. > > > Odds are still significantly higher that you will have to feather an > > > engine on a twin than you having a total loss of power on a single. > > > How well you deal with that is totally dependent on training and > > > proficiency. Unfortunately, the record isn't great in that regard. >Too > > > many 135 twins that haven't survived an engine loss on takeoff, with > > > pilots that should have been as proficient as the airline guys. > > > > > > Quoting Olen Goodwin : > > > > > >> Kelly, I too am an airline guy. Also an ag pilot guy, also an old > > >> single pilot 135 guy, etc. Statistics are statistics. Nothing > > >> more. Two (or more) engines are sometimes more safe than one. I > > >> can't think of any circumstance that a WELL TRAINED, PROFICIENT > > >> pilot in a WELL MAINTAINED twin would be less safe than in a >single. > > >> Lots of the light twin accidents were from lack of training or > > >> lack of maintenance. That has nothing to do with an intrinsic >lack > > >> of safety of light or heavy twins. There will always be a time of > > >> flight that it's better to pull the good engine back and land > > >> straight ahead, or head for the nearest open spot. This is where > > >> proficiency comes in. You can take the statistics wherever you >want > > >> to go, but if I'm on top or in the clouds in a well maintained >twin > > >> and lose one engine, I'll have a much better chance of getting down > > >> intact than any single losing one engine on earth, no matter how > > >> well equipped. > > >> > > >> do not archive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Features Navigator to browse > > > Email List Wiki! > > > support! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 06:25:32 PM PST US From: "Olen Goodwin" Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" The failed engine is an anvil only if you aren't proficient. Unfortunately, very very few private and few 135 pilots are proficient enough to use the capability of the other engine to it's limits. Everything has to be almost perfect or you're right....the functioning engine will take you to the crash. As mentioned before, maintenance also enters into the equation. Without good maintenance, I'd say the chances of losing an engine on a twin is much more than on a well maintained single. My stats: in 7000 hours flying light twins and singles no lost engines. In 2200 hours flying heavy twins (Convairs) one lost and one shutdown. In 9000 hours flying three and four engine transport jets no lost, two shut down. If statistics are taken without question, we'd have to say light singles and twins are safest...which is not true. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie Kuss" Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:22 PM Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss > > > FAA statistics show that you are four times more likely to have a forced > landing in a light single, compared to a light twin. Yet, you are four > times more likely to die in the twin. Higher weights (that 2nd non > functioning engine just became an anvil), higher landing speeds and higher > gross weights all conspire against the twin pilot here. > Charlie Kuss > The 2nd engine just takes you to the scene of the crash > do not archive > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" >> >> >>Actually, the higher fatality rate, when a twin does go down, is >>generally attributed to higher touch down speed for a twin v. a single. >>When you square the touchdown speed to calculate energy, that extra 15 >>kts turns into a lot of metal bending initia. Without a doubt, more >>difficult weather doesn't make the outcome more favorable for a twin. >> >>Chuck Jensen >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner- >> > aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Prather >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:49 PM >> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> > Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements >>(required >> > vs. good to have) >> > >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" >> > >> > >> > You are, of course, right about the statistics, Kelly. However, I >>think >> > it would arguable (though maybe not statistically supportable) that >>twins >> > fly tougher missions. They are more likely to be used for ops at >>night >> > and during hazardous weather - hauling freight, etc. The statistics >>do >> > support that accidents are more likely to be fatal when they happen in >> > cruddy weather and in the dark. I believe that if singles were as >>often >> > operated in challenging conditions, their fatal rate would be higher >>than >> > for twins. >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Matt- >> > >> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen >> > > >> > > >> > > All true in theory. Somehow it just doesn't translate to the real >> > > world of aircraft accidents. Twins have a higher fatal accident rate >> > > than singles. Should that influence your choice?...personal >>decision. >> > > Odds are still significantly higher that you will have to feather an >> > > engine on a twin than you having a total loss of power on a single. >> > > How well you deal with that is totally dependent on training and >> > > proficiency. Unfortunately, the record isn't great in that regard. >>Too >> > > many 135 twins that haven't survived an engine loss on takeoff, with >> > > pilots that should have been as proficient as the airline guys. >> > > >> > > Quoting Olen Goodwin : >> > > >> > >> Kelly, I too am an airline guy. Also an ag pilot guy, also an old >> > >> single pilot 135 guy, etc. Statistics are statistics. Nothing >> > >> more. Two (or more) engines are sometimes more safe than one. I >> > >> can't think of any circumstance that a WELL TRAINED, PROFICIENT >> > >> pilot in a WELL MAINTAINED twin would be less safe than in a >>single. >> > >> Lots of the light twin accidents were from lack of training or >> > >> lack of maintenance. That has nothing to do with an intrinsic >>lack >> > >> of safety of light or heavy twins. There will always be a time of >> > >> flight that it's better to pull the good engine back and land >> > >> straight ahead, or head for the nearest open spot. This is where >> > >> proficiency comes in. You can take the statistics wherever you >>want >> > >> to go, but if I'm on top or in the clouds in a well maintained >>twin >> > >> and lose one engine, I'll have a much better chance of getting down >> > >> intact than any single losing one engine on earth, no matter how >> > >> well equipped. >> > >> >> > >> do not archive >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Features Navigator to browse >> > > Email List Wiki! >> > > support! >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 06:37:59 PM PST US From: Robert Sultzbach Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach Hi Charlie, How's it going? I think the reason light twins are so dangerous is the very slim performance margin afforded by the power of the remaining engine. Twin engine jets are a whole different animal. I also agree that pilot proficiency is a huge factor in the light twin fatality rate. Professional pilots train all the time for V1 cuts and other types of engine outs. They are challenging and I'll bet just about every pilot goons one in the simulator now and again but for the most part they become a known quantity. I have landed twice at airports with one engine running and one dead on the wing/tail and I never claimed to be Lindbergh. Both times the training was invaluable and the real deal was a nonevent. It really was just like the simulator! If pilots in nonprofessional (not forced to undergo recurrent training)environments don't train for engine outs, they become very dangerous when an engine fails. It has been documented that some pilots cannot get back to an airport with an enroute engine failure. I believe that is due to lack of practice. How well would you land if you never did it until you had to? Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach P.S. Are you going to Oshkosh this year? __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:37 PM PST US Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) From: "Dan Beadle" Insurance companies are forcing recurrent training on almost all insured twin drivers. I know, I have been going to Flight Safety several times a year for the past 5 years. I have been lucky enough to never lose control in the simulator during the 6-10 simulated failures per session. I agree that training is everything. Like you, I have had more than my share of issues in flight - a precautionary engine shutdown IMC at night (try that in a single) over mountainous terrain (Mt. Whitney). I have had failures of pressurization system, alternators, vacuum, landing gear, and more I can't remember. And this is in a very well maintained airplane. (if it might be broken, fix it) That said, I really think I am far safer in my twin than in a single, especially IFR, at night, in the ice. Part is dual everything: engine, vacuum, alternators, etc. Part is the fact that the systems are more sophisticated: deice, RADAR, pressurization, etc. And part is the training. Still, I am building an RV as a SPORT airplane - fun to fly into smaller airports in better conditions. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert Sultzbach Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:35 PM Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach Hi Charlie, How's it going? I think the reason light twins are so dangerous is the very slim performance margin afforded by the power of the remaining engine. Twin engine jets are a whole different animal. I also agree that pilot proficiency is a huge factor in the light twin fatality rate. Professional pilots train all the time for V1 cuts and other types of engine outs. They are challenging and I'll bet just about every pilot goons one in the simulator now and again but for the most part they become a known quantity. I have landed twice at airports with one engine running and one dead on the wing/tail and I never claimed to be Lindbergh. Both times the training was invaluable and the real deal was a nonevent. It really was just like the simulator! If pilots in nonprofessional (not forced to undergo recurrent training)environments don't train for engine outs, they become very dangerous when an engine fails. It has been documented that some pilots cannot get back to an airport with an enroute engine failure. I believe that is due to lack of practice. How well would you land if you never did it until you had to? Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach P.S. Are you going to Oshkosh this year? __________________________________________________ ========================= ========== ========================= ========== ========================= ========== ========================= ==========