---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 07/18/06: 23 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:42:55 AM PST US From: "Jeffery J. Morgan" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:54:53 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring batteries in parallel? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:17:42 AM PST US From: "James Clark" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:15:40 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FW: Electric failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:17:26 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring batteries in parallel? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:57:20 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electric failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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. > > > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:03:57 AM PST US From: "John Burnaby" 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 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:31:56 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Drop-out relay --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:36:48 AM PST US From: "Konrad L. Werner" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:46:14 AM PST US From: "Jan Sundin" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jan Sundin" 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" > > 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 > > > > > > On Jul 17, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Brinker wrote: > > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:36 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electric failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:58:07 AM PST US From: "Rogers, Bob J." Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Drop-out relay 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:08:52 AM PST US From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Drop-out relay --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" 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" --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:02 AM PST US From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Drop-out relay --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" 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" --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:58:01 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electric failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:46 PM 7/18/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:20:17 PM PST US From: "Craig Thomas" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Thomas" HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX. I HAVE LIKE 150 A DAY!! ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 05:31:12 PM PST US From: Jim Michael Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Michael 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" > > > HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY > INBOX. I HAVE LIKE 150 A DAY!! > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 05:44:55 PM PST US From: "Dale Ensing" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" 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" > > HOW DO I STOP THESE FUCKING ANNOYING EMAILS COMMING THRU TO MY INBOX. I HAVE > LIKE 150 A DAY!! > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 06:23:25 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electric failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:18:15 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electric failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:04:35 PM PST US From: "Eric Newton" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Newton" 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" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:21:06 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electric failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:12 PM PST US From: "Jim Jewell" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" 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" > > > 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" >> >> >> 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 > > >