Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:42 AM - FW: Electric failure (Jeffery J. Morgan)
2. 06:54 AM - Re: Wiring batteries in parallel? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:17 AM - Re: FW: Electric failure (James Clark)
4. 08:15 AM - Re: FW: Electric failure (Brian Lloyd)
5. 08:17 AM - Re: Wiring batteries in parallel? (Brian Lloyd)
6. 08:57 AM - Re: Electric failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:03 AM - Drop-out relay (John Burnaby)
8. 09:31 AM - Re: Drop-out relay (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 09:36 AM - Re: Drop-out relay (Konrad L. Werner)
10. 09:46 AM - Re: TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK (Jan Sundin)
11. 09:52 AM - Re: Re: Electric failure (Brian Lloyd)
12. 09:58 AM - Re: Drop-out relay (Rogers, Bob J.)
13. 10:08 AM - Re: Drop-out relay (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
14. 10:10 AM - Re: Drop-out relay (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
15. 04:58 PM - Re: Re: Electric failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 05:20 PM - Re: (Craig Thomas)
17. 05:31 PM - Re: (Jim Michael)
18. 05:44 PM - Re: (Dale Ensing)
19. 06:23 PM - Re: Re: Electric failure (Brian Lloyd)
20. 07:18 PM - Re: Electric failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 08:04 PM - Re: (Eric Newton)
22. 10:21 PM - Re: Re: Electric failure (Guy Buchanan)
23. 11:22 PM - Re: (Jim Jewell)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | FW: Electric failure |
Hi all,
I am curious if I am just naive in my thinking and design goals, or if
this is a truly a dooms day approach to the whole glass panel idea. I
was reading the FAA Aviation News for June and there is an extensive
article about training for glass and the approaches/needs/goals. As I
read this part, I was trying to decide if it was a realistic situation
that is worth the effort.
" In our TAA Aircraft course completion ride, I use a four airport
scenario. The first airport is a VFR arrival at a class D airport with
touch and go and a VFR departure. The second airport is an ILS to a
published missed approach to a holding pattern. This is where I dim the
MFD simulating an alternator failure and watch the pilot try to figure
out how to do an intersection hold with no on screen map and just the
CDI and DBAR on the HSI. Hmmm, same results time after time. The pilots
get lost interpreting the DI and figuring out how to set up the "To"
and "From" of the two defining VOR radials. A loss of Electronic
Situational Awareness and inadequate working memory of the IFR basics
leads to a potentially dangerous situation. I know they were taught it
when hey got their IFR ticket, but they obviously are not current using
it."
I find this a bit troubling as I am thinking that the situational
testing is not really trying to figure out how to truly give a situation
that is realistic. With batteries and the proper setup, most glass will
give 30 min plus to get on the ground. One could argue that 60 is
better, but if you did things correctly, according to training, an
alternator failure in IMC is an "Emergency" and such should be declared.
With that, if you are in the air more than 30, there are bigger problems
than finding an intersection with VOR.
I agree that those are important skills that one should keep up on, and
not suggesting that we should pitch the VOR or other Nav aids because we
have batteries, but just trying to determine the validity of this and
wonder if we as pilots shouldn't ask more pressing questions about
training and standards that are more likely to mirror the reality of
flight that we are likely to encounter.
The other thing I do find humorous here is that if there is an
Alternator failure, wouldn't VOR go to? MFD failure is considerably
less likely, especially on two screens setup properly, yet that seems to
be the focus for so many folks in training. I have read over and over
that the best training is one that parallels what one will encounter in
real life, so is it me, or is this type of thinking not realistic? I
open the bashing gates to the discussion, but think this is something
that we should help shape so that it is realistic. If my design ideas
are wrong, then I would like to hear that. I understand that part of the
design is determining acceptable risk, and just starting the plane bring
some.
Thanks
Jeff
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wiring batteries in parallel? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:19 AM 7/18/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>Deems; IN Z-14 when you crossfeed the systems that is precisly what
>you are doing. Combining two 17 amp to make one 34 amp battery.
That, and some other things.
One may close the cross-feed contactor during cranking to achieve
the effect of a "stronger" battery irrespective of what size
batteries are used. The only caveat is that the batteries should
individually be capable of delivering engine cranking currents.
E.g., you wouldn't want to cross-feed a 17 ah battery with a 7 ah
battery for starting.
Otherwise, the cross-feed contactor is left open for all normal
ops and closed only when it makes sense to share the capabilities
of a working system to offset the failed capability in the other
system.
One can run dual or triple or even quad batteries in any
of the z-figures if design goals show that the capability
is useful and offsets some potentially catastrophic hazard.
It's very rare that more than two batteries will be needed.
Z-30 shows how additional batteries may be added over and
above existing batteries to provide another always-hot bus
for some task.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: FW: Electric failure |
Jeff,
I thik I kind of agree with you.
There are two DIFFERENT failures here that might be mixed in the training.
If the alternator goes then so does all the OTHER electrical stuff as you
say. The more realistic training MIGHT be how to use the Garmin handheld to
get to safety (along with the handheld radio). This all assumes a quick
failure with no time to communicate with and get assistance from ATC.
Furthermore some of the EFIS systems (at least the experimental ones) allow
multiple voltage inputs ... SO the EFIS could in fact run off a little
dedicated battery and last LONGER than the VOR radio and CDI.
Finally the EFIS itself could fail for reasons having little or nothing to
do with power. No **THAT** failure is one where you would need to be able to
revert to the "old stuff". I hope I never have theproblem, but I must say
that I always have my Garmin 396 running in parallel for situational
awareness, so if I have "other" failures", I am still "aware" at some level
and can point the nose towards home or some other safe haven.
James
On 7/18/06, Jeffery J. Morgan <jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am curious if I am just naive in my thinking and design goals, or if
> this is a truly a dooms day approach to the whole glass panel idea. I was
> reading the FAA Aviation News for June and there is an extensive article
> about training for glass and the approaches/needs/goals. As I read this
> part, I was trying to decide if it was a realistic situation that is worth
> the effort.
>
> " In our TAA Aircraft course completion ride, I use a four airport
> scenario. The first airport is a VFR arrival at a class D airport with
> touch and go and a VFR departure. The second airport is an ILS to a
> published missed approach to a holding pattern. This is where I dim the
> MFD simulating an alternator failure and watch the pilot try to figure out
> how to do an intersection hold with no on screen map and just the CDI and
> DBAR on the HSI. Hmmm, same results time after time. The pilots get lost
> interpreting the DI and figuring out how to set up the "To" and "From" of
> the two defining VOR radials. A loss of Electronic Situational Awareness
> and inadequate working memory of the IFR basics leads to a potentially
> dangerous situation. I know they were taught it when hey got their IFR
> ticket, but they obviously are not current using it."
>
>
> I find this a bit troubling as I am thinking that the situational testing
> is not really trying to figure out how to truly give a situation that is
> realistic. With batteries and the proper setup, most glass will give 30
> min plus to get on the ground. One could argue that 60 is better, but if
> you did things correctly, according to training, an alternator failure in
> IMC is an "Emergency" and such should be declared. With that, if you are in
> the air more than 30, there are bigger problems than finding an intersection
> with VOR.
>
>
> I agree that those are important skills that one should keep up on, and
> not suggesting that we should pitch the VOR or other Nav aids because we
> have batteries, but just trying to determine the validity of this and wonder
> if we as pilots shouldn't ask more pressing questions about training and
> standards that are more likely to mirror the reality of flight that we are
> likely to encounter.
>
>
> The other thing I do find humorous here is that if there is an Alternator
> failure, wouldn't VOR go to? MFD failure is considerably less likely,
> especially on two screens setup properly, yet that seems to be the focus for
> so many folks in training. I have read over and over that the best training
> is one that parallels what one will encounter in real life, so is it me, or
> is this type of thinking not realistic? I open the bashing gates to the
> discussion, but think this is something that we should help shape so that
> it is realistic. If my design ideas are wrong, then I would like to hear
> that. I understand that part of the design is determining acceptable risk,
> and just starting the plane bring some.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Jeff
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james@nextupventures.com .
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: FW: Electric failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:
> I agree that those are important skills that one should keep up on,
> and not suggesting that we should pitch the VOR or other Nav aids
> because we have batteries, but just trying to determine the
> validity of this and wonder if we as pilots shouldn't ask more
> pressing questions about training and standards that are more
> likely to mirror the reality of flight that we are likely to
> encounter.
I have been thinking about this from the point of view how cockpit
automation (what we are really talking about when we talk about smart
glass displays) affects things when the scenario suddenly changes.
The effect isn't only when you have a systems failure but when you
have a sudden change in routing or weather that involves
reprogramming the automation on-the-fly. There is an excellent
article about this here:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_bca_story.jsp?id=news/
glass_0206.xml
I remember hearing a 737 crew grousing to ATC about a rerouting that
was so massive that they had to throw out the flight plan in their
FMS and start from scratch. They even asked ATC to give them a
rerouting that was not so onerous. The funny thing was that the new
routing started with turning direct to a different VOR. How hard
would it have been for them to tune in the new VOR, look at the RMI,
and turn until the needle was on the nose and THEN start messing with
the flight plan in the FMS? The captain could have flow the plane to
the VOR while the FO was working on the next leg of the flight plan
in the FMS. It didn't even occur to them to do that. (And all of this
was on the radio for everyone to hear. Scary.)
I have experienced the problem myself when I was trying to run my
older IFR LORAN while IFR and received three new clearances in the
space of ten minutes. I went head down twice before falling back to
thinking about what needed to be done and just flying the airplane.
We are tending more and more to lean on our "smarter" automation. I
bet everyone here who flies has a GPS and uses that GPS for primary
navigation. It is just so bloody easy to type in "direct to kabc"
than it is to haul out a map and a plotter. The problem is what to do
when that goes away. I have an EHSI and GPS with moving map in my
currently-flying aircraft. It is so seductive to program that, turn
on the autopilot, and just watch.
But I have had too many GPS failures to be comfortable relying on
GPS. I spend as much time seeing to it that my ancient KNS-80 RNAV is
set up as I do my GPS. When I am in the Caribbean I back up my GPS
with ADF. The hard part is making the transition from GPS to my
backup nav system when GPS fails. (Notice my use of the word "when"
instead of "if"? That was intentional.)
I have found that when new routing comes in or I have to make a rapid
change, it is often easier to switch to using raw VOR or ADF as my
primary nav and then go back to reprogram the GPS (or FMS) *AFTER* I
am reestablished and comfortable. There have even been times when I
never did have time to go back to reprogram the GPS so at that point
the GPS was useless for navigation. The only thing it was doing at
that point was feeding position information to the moving map which I
was using as a backup to help me maintain situational awareness.
So, yes, becoming dependent on the automation *is* a two-edged sword.
It can make you a lot more precise when it is working and it can
really mess you up when it is no longer delivering service (for
whatever reason).
So when all else fails, do you know how to fly to a VOR radial
defined intersection and hold?
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wiring batteries in parallel? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> One may close the cross-feed contactor during cranking to achieve
> the effect of a "stronger" battery irrespective of what size
> batteries are used. The only caveat is that the batteries should
> individually be capable of delivering engine cranking currents.
> E.g., you wouldn't want to cross-feed a 17 ah battery with a 7 ah
> battery for starting.
Uh, why not? If the two batteries are of the same type they will
deliver current proportional to their capacity. Even tying an almost
depleted battery with an almost full battery will increase the
available starting current. The only thing I don't think you would
want to do is tie a gel-cell together with an AGM but for starting
even that would probably be OK. (It would definitely not be OK for
charging tho'.)
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:28 AM 7/18/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I am curious if I am just naive in my thinking and design goals, or if
>this is a truly a dooms day approach to the whole glass panel idea. I was
>reading the FAA Aviation News for June and there is an extensive article
>about training for glass and the approaches/needs/goals. As I read this
>part, I was trying to decide if it was a realistic situation that is worth
>the effort.
>
>
<snip>
>
>
>The other thing I do find humorous here is that if there is an Alternator
>failure, wouldn't VOR go to? MFD failure is considerably less likely,
>especially on two screens setup properly, yet that seems to be the focus
>for so many folks in training. I have read over and over that the best
>training is one that parallels what one will encounter in real life, so is
>it me, or is this type of thinking not realistic? I open the bashing
>gates to the discussion, but think this is something that we should help
>shape so that it is realistic. If my design ideas are wrong, then I would
>like to hear that. I understand that part of the design is determining
>acceptable risk, and just starting the plane bring some.
This is typical of the mind-set of most pilots, the folks
who write rules governing the behavior of pilots and still
more folks who write rules on how airplanes should be configured.
Instead of worrying about "what do I do if the panel goes
black", how about considering ways to keep the panel from
going black. This means failure tolerant design in some
form or another. It's a failure mode effects analysis that
considers NOT "what's the likelihood of this part failing?"
but instead "What is my plan-b for when this part does fail?"
We worry about alternator failures because (1) they've got
a poor track record in certified aviation when compared with
automobiles over the past 60 years, (2) we've read too many
dark-n-stormy-night stories involving rare but tense electrical
system failures that have (3) distracted us into unwarranted
concentration on the alternator. This happens at the expense
of crafting a plan-b: Well-maintained battery(ies) and/or
second engine driven power sources.
These narrowly focused, single-minded worries are the byproduct
of designers and particularly legislators that do not take
the system-wide view of reliability. We spec and test the
crap out of items assigned to very important tasks without
considering that design and qualification have only a
small part to play in the product's service life. Then
there are $kilo$ meetings with lots of deer-in-the-headlights
expressions when the "golden" device won't perform in the field
well enough to stay off the top-ten problems list. I can
show you very complex systems and components with design
and qualification numbers that run in the thousands of
hours but in fact don't run 30 hours without lighting a
"fail" light.
The simple idea here is to have at least TWO independent
ways to accomplish any critical task such that no single
piece of equipment becomes critical to the outcome of that
task. One begins by accepting the notion that we can craft
systems wherein NO single item of equipment is critical
such that failure of that item is never cause to break
a sweat. This includes alternators. Architecture, understanding
and reasonable preventative maintenance goes a VERY long
way to avoiding a bad day in the cockpit without spending
the Crown Jewels on super-spec components that can fall
victim to inattention or accident at any time.
So when you read any article that opens with an experienced
or hypothesized single failure that caused a bad day in the
cockpit, the remainder of that article is essentially
useless to consider . . . not because the experiences or
hypothesis are not real but because they're writing about
a collection of hardware that was poorly assembled and/or
maintained. The better article to publish is now one achieves
failure tolerance at reasonable costs. Once achieved,
probability of needing to write (or read) all the other
articles goes very close to zero. This includes the article
you cited no doubt written by well intentioned people
who's salaries and retirements are paid out of our pockets.
In chapter 17 of the 'Connection I offered:
Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design
sez: "Things break"
The second: "Systems shall be designed so that
when things break, no immediate hazard is created."
The third: "Things needed for comfortable termination
of flight require backup or special consideration
to insure operation and availability"
The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability,
longevity, or capability of a part shall be because
you're tired of replacing it or want some new feature,
not because it damned near got you killed."
Bob . . .
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
John
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drop-out relay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:36 AM 7/18/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
>Suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
>John
How can you SENSE that it's dry? Output pressure? Current flow?
liquid level at the inlet?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drop-out relay |
How about a Fuel Pressure Switch (normally open if no pressure is
present).
Hit the Transfer Start Button, pump until pressure goes away and then
switch opens circuit to pump.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: John Burnaby
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Drop-out relay
I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/17/2006
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jan Sundin" <jan.sundin@ljusdal.net>
I defenetly think the radio is possesed or it is a bad conection in the
headset wiering. If he frequently shaking his head while keeping watch on
the mysterious frequensy you will see the approach will break through. If he
shakes to much there will be a RFI (radio frequency interference) which can
be like the ANR systems in the special ANR head sets. However I think he
will feel pain before that happens. I would just defenetly avoid that
frequency.
Hope I was to some help // Jan SM3EXN
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:27 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker"
<brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> I suggested to him that his altitude and placement from the
> atc antenna might be the problem, but he explained to me that he did try
it
> from several radials and also when he was within sight of the airport.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 5:42 PM
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
<brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> >
> >
> > On Jul 17, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Brinker wrote:
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-
> >> internet.com>
> >>
> >> I have a friend with a TKM mx300 radio that has a strange problem.
> >> He cannot hear KLIT approach on one of thier frequencies but he
can
> >> talk to them. He can hear other planes around him and talk to other
> >> planes on that frequency. He can change over to the other approach
> >> frequency and he can hear and talk just fine to control. This has
> >> happened to him twice. I his radio possesed ? Can it be excersied ?
> >
> > My guess would be a null in the antenna pattern in one direction.
> > Obviously the radio is receiving and transmitting. It could also be a
> > null off of ATC's transmitting antenna. I have had this happen to me
> > before too. Turning the airplane and/or getting to a different place
> > usually fixes the problem.
> >
> > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> > brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
> >
> > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> > Antoine de Saint-Exupry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > http://wiki.matronics.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Instead of worrying about "what do I do if the panel goes
> black", how about considering ways to keep the panel from
> going black. This means failure tolerant design in some
> form or another. It's a failure mode effects analysis that
> considers NOT "what's the likelihood of this part failing?"
> but instead "What is my plan-b for when this part does fail?"
But the real issue with all the new glass stuff is that we are moving
beyond the realm of being able to prevent the glass from going dark.
When my panel was a collection of small, autonomous devices I could
address the problem by providing overlap of functionality and
redundancy of supporting systems (electrical power mostly). When my
AI went TU I could fall back on needle-ball and airspeed.
Now consider the rate at which Garmin seems to be coming up with new
firmware for the G1000 because it seems to be prone to flaking at
inopportune moments. Garmin has removed my ability to prevent
darkness from falling.
So, plan-B is a very necessary evil and one that seems to be more and
more required rather than less as integration becomes more complete
and complex. This is a problem with monolithic systems design. It is
soo simple because it is all in one integrated box while forgetting
that failure is so complete because it is all in one integrated box.
Now it is back to redesigning for no-single-point-of-failure but now
at a higher level.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Check out the product(s) at this web page. It might just be what you
are looking for.
http://www.ppavionics.com/XFR.htm
________________________________
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Burnaby
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:36 AM
I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
John
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Here it is...:)
Frank
http://www.ppavionics.com/XFR.htm
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:26 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:36 AM 7/18/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
>Suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
>John
How can you SENSE that it's dry? Output pressure? Current flow?
liquid level at the inlet?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
A while back there was a device that did light a warning light when the
current flow dropped, indicating a dry pump...Can't remember where it
came from though.
Typically it is a bad idea to run a pump dry but the facets apparently
are completely unphased by running dry.
The light could be used to switch a relay instead to drop the pump off
line.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:26 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:36 AM 7/18/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>I have a fuel transfer pump that I want to drop-out when it goes dry.
>Suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
>John
How can you SENSE that it's dry? Output pressure? Current flow?
liquid level at the inlet?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:46 PM 7/18/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> Instead of worrying about "what do I do if the panel goes
>> black", how about considering ways to keep the panel from
>> going black. This means failure tolerant design in some
>> form or another. It's a failure mode effects analysis that
>> considers NOT "what's the likelihood of this part failing?"
>> but instead "What is my plan-b for when this part does fail?"
>
>But the real issue with all the new glass stuff is that we are moving
>beyond the realm of being able to prevent the glass from going dark.
>When my panel was a collection of small, autonomous devices I could
>address the problem by providing overlap of functionality and
>redundancy of supporting systems (electrical power mostly). When my
>AI went TU I could fall back on needle-ball and airspeed.
>
>Now consider the rate at which Garmin seems to be coming up with new
>firmware for the G1000 because it seems to be prone to flaking at
>inopportune moments. Garmin has removed my ability to prevent
>darkness from falling.
>
>So, plan-B is a very necessary evil and one that seems to be more and
>more required rather than less as integration becomes more complete
>and complex. This is a problem with monolithic systems design. It is
>soo simple because it is all in one integrated box while forgetting
>that failure is so complete because it is all in one integrated box.
>
>Now it is back to redesigning for no-single-point-of-failure but now
>at a higher level.
How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of
all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.
No matter what things on the panel do, the airplane stays
right side up, the pilot has time and low pressure environment
to dig out the hand-helds, or simply compass steer to known
VMC, . . . . whatever.
If I were going to poke long tunnels in clouds, this is
the kind of plan-b that smoothly backs up anything that
glass or gages on the panel decide to do.
Bob . . .
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Thomas" <craig_california@hotmail.com>
HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX. I HAVE
LIKE 150 A DAY!!
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Michael <jm@10squaredcorp.com>
Tip: When you subscribe to a mail list save the subscription info that
you are sent. I have a folder called Misc Signup Info that I save
mine to. Then when I want to unsubscribe I have the info I need.
Here's the info I received for this group:
****************************************
*** How to Subscribe and Unsubscribe ***
****************************************
Simply go to the Web Page shown below and enter your email address
and
select the List(s) that you wish to subscribe or unsubscribed from.
You
may also use the handy "Find" function to determine the exact
syntax of
your email address as it is subscribed to the List. Please see the
complete instructions at the top of the Web Page for more
information.
The Subscribe/Unsubscribe web page is:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Cheers,
Jim
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 00:17, Craig Thomas wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Thomas"
> <craig_california@hotmail.com>
>
> HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY
> INBOX. I HAVE LIKE 150 A DAY!!
>
>
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
To Craig Thomas
go to
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
and follow the instructions to unsubscribe to one or all the list.
do not archieve
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:17 PM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Thomas"
<craig_california@hotmail.com>
>
> HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX. I
HAVE
> LIKE 150 A DAY!!
>
>
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 18, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> So, plan-B is a very necessary evil and one that seems to be more and
>> more required rather than less as integration becomes more complete
>> and complex. This is a problem with monolithic systems design. It is
>> soo simple because it is all in one integrated box while forgetting
>> that failure is so complete because it is all in one integrated box.
>>
>> Now it is back to redesigning for no-single-point-of-failure but now
>> at a higher level.
>
> How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of
> all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.
Oh, no doubt it can be done. It is just that I am realizing that all
this complexity is not meeting the promise of reduced cockpit workload.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>> How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of
>> all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.
>
>Oh, no doubt it can be done. It is just that I am realizing that all
>this complexity is not meeting the promise of reduced cockpit workload.
As long as any operating mode requires a human to observe,
and interpret displays, and react in the appropriate controls
inputs to aviate, then there is nothing anyone can do with either
brass or glass to "reduce cockpit workload". Who ever is promising
lower workloads while leaving the pilot in the loop is blowing
lots of smoke you-know-where.
We used to EXPECT a pilot to belly up to that bar with
the aplomb of Lindbergh and the daring-do of a WWI flying
ace and show us how a "real pilot" does it.
But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps
the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than
a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.
Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for
success. When the bill of materials and lines of software
to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display
(that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)
I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant
solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely
guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Newton" <enewton57@cableone.net>
Craig,
1. Your foul language is uncalled for and shows your lack of character.
2. I can never figure out how people are smart enough to subscribe to these
lists but are always too stupid or ignorant to figure out how to unsubscribe
from them. Very frustrating.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:17 PM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Thomas"
> <craig_california@hotmail.com>
>
> HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX. I
> HAVE LIKE 150 A DAY!!
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 07:00 PM 7/18/2006, you wrote:
> But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps
> the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than
> a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.
> Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for
> success. When the bill of materials and lines of software
> to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display
> (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)
> I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant
> solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely
> guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.
Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not? If so,
who does it?
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Eric,
Perhaps at least some of these people might be getting subscribed by some
other individual that the may or may not have offended previously.
Certainly frustrating all the same.
Jim in Kelowna do not archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:59 PM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Newton"
> <enewton57@cableone.net>
>
> Craig,
>
> 1. Your foul language is uncalled for and shows your lack of character.
>
> 2. I can never figure out how people are smart enough to subscribe to
> these lists but are always too stupid or ignorant to figure out how to
> unsubscribe from them. Very frustrating.
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:17 PM
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Thomas"
>> <craig_california@hotmail.com>
>>
>> HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX. I
>> HAVE LIKE 150 A DAY!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|