Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:14 AM - Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 08:39 AM - Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe (Charles Plumery)
3. 08:48 AM - Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe (jonlaury)
4. 09:07 AM - Re: Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:16 AM - MIL SPEC spoof (Janet Amtmann)
6. 09:47 AM - Re: MIL SPEC spoof (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: | Re: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
> . . . AC43-13 went back to the word processor
> and didn't get released for another year or so . . .
> for reasons beyond my understanding.
>
> If they'd given EAA the thing in Word, we would
> have had it cleaned up in a few days. The final
> publication was better but was still sprinkled
> with technical and practical inaccuracies.
I've not located my input to the EAA critical review
of the proposed revision to AC43-13 but I did find
a copy of Earl Lawrence's letter to FAA outlining
EAA recommendations
http://tinyurl.com/c5rm43k
. . . I believe that less than half of
my findings were included in Earl's letter
to FAA.
The significance of this activity resides not
in the details of errors noted but the shear
numbers of error and degree by which the
writers showed a disconnect with the technology
and processes over which they claim expertise.
These are all well meaning, gentle folks given
a job. But until you've successfully baked brownies
for millions of satisfied, repeat customers
and do it profitably in a free-market economy,
you are NOT qualified to write a specification
for the production of brownies in the uber-regulated
economy either.
When somebody determines that a specification
is needed, x-numbers of folks are given the
task, any y-numbers of folks are charged with
review and approval. From this policy/procedure
driven management style there is risk that
the work product will be vague, inapplicable
or cannot be complied with by any competent
baker of brownies or builders of airplanes.
Bob . . .
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: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
Hi Bob,
I read parts of the specification you highlighted at the end of this communi
cation to my spouse and she said " that is beyond absurd ". And we wonder wh
y our society is faltering.
Sent from my iPad,
Chuck
=9CA nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cann
ot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, fo
r he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst t
hose within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alley
s, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not
a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their
face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the h
earts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknow
n in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body pol
itic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.=9D
On Aug 2, 2013, at 10:35 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
> At 08:05 PM 8/2/2013, you wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> The FAA publishes a range of Advisory Circulars that provide certificatio
n compliance guidance. These documents aren't technically regulatory but pr
ovide an official interpretation of and sometimes an historical background t
o the regulations.
>>
>> The following 'Systems and Equipment Guide for Certification of Part 23 A
irplanes and Airships' may provide some clarity for your question.
>> http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2023-17C.pd
f
>> See page 282
>
> On page 282 we read:
>
> "After further review, FAA has concluded that the proposal should not be l
imited to airplanes that
> operate above 25,000 feet since emergencies resulting in the loss of norma
l electrical power
> are critical for all airplanes. Five minutes is considered adequate time t
o cope with such an emergency so
> that pilot can operate the airplane safely and assess the reason for the l
oss of normal electrical power."
>
> This seems to have been written by individuals
> who've never sought the elegant solution to a
> failure tolerant design, never flown an airplane
> and been faced with a "five minuted window'
> considered adequate for a pilot to put on his
> mechanic's hat and "assess the reason for loss of
> normal electrical power."
>
> Okay, so assume he DOES correctly assess the
> reason . . . now what? Whip out the toolbox and fix it?
> Besides, what's 25,000 feet got to do with anything?
> FMEA considers all anticipated operating conditions
> from the ground up.
>
> This is but one example of many pages of 'advisory
> floobydust' for which the authors of such documents
> are famous. After AC43-13 sat stagnant for dozens of
> years and was being revised some years back. The FAA
> 'invited' the EAA membership to . . . uh . . .
> help proofread the document.
>
> I wrote about 12 pages of critical review on the
> electrical section. Similar feedback was offered
> by others who were highly skilled in their
> disciplines. AC43-13 went back to the word processor
> and didn't get released for another year or so . . .
> for reasons beyond my understanding.
>
> If they'd given EAA the thing in Word, we would
> have had it cleaned up in a few days. The final
> publication was better but was still sprinkled
> with technical and practical inaccuracies.
>
> Don't know who sat on the various committees
> tasked with revising these documents but for sure,
> there were no Bill Lears, Kelly Johnsons, Duane
> Wallaces, Glen Rawdons, et. als.
>
> My advice to any reader suggests that understanding
> and mitigating the effects for loss of any piece
> of equipment is stone simple. Just imagine how you're
> going to get on the ground with that breaker
> pulled. If you don't like the outcome of the
> exercise, then fix it. It's not hard. Once it's
> fixed, then you don't need a 'five minute assessment
> window' . . . you flip to Plan-B and keep on
> truck'n and you don't mess with the breaker.
>
> Be wary of pronouncements from high places.
> Our tax dollars pay millions of salaries,
> benefits and retirement packages for individuals
> who add no merchantable value to the general
> welfare of domestic economy. The FAA is no
> exception to the condition. Here's another
> example . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mn55arc
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
[quote="nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect"]At 08:05 PM 8/2/2013, you wrote:
[quote]John,
snip....
Be wary of pronouncements from high places.
Our tax dollars pay millions of salaries,
benefits and retirement packages for individuals
who add no merchantable value to the general
welfare of domestic economy. The FAA is no
exception to the condition. Here's another
example . . .
http://tinyurl.com/mn55arc
Bob . . .
> [b]
Initially, I thought this was a parody of government specification. When I realized
that this is the real deal, I just found it positively scary that there are
people capable of such inane gibberish. Even scarier that it has only been
reviewed once in 26 years and STILL (apparently) passed muster as having value.
I'm sure that each of these cookies and brownies, made to spec, cost taxpayers
about $636,947.53 each. Not to mention that the poor guys and gals out in the
field, diligently trying to avoid being shot, are being poisoned by their gov't
spec'd cookies full of hydrogenated oils (trans fat), enthroned as probably
the worst dietary, cardiac health bad actor EVER!
No doubt that Donald Hamlin, Team Leader of this Alice in Wonderland, kafkaesque
recipe/specification has found a career home in the industrial food sector,
pumping out anti-nutrition, disguised as food by sugar and man-made palatables.
John
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405855#405855
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: FAR 23 and airplanes of any stripe |
>
>Initially, I thought this was a parody of government specification.
>When I realized that this is the real deal, I just found it
>positively scary that there are people capable of such inane
>gibberish. Even scarier that it has only been reviewed once in 26
>years and STILL (apparently) passed muster as having value.
Absolutely. I have advanced this discussion at the risk
of upsetting readers for the injection of politics and
opinion from outside the framework of the AeroElectric-List.
I humbly submit that no opinion or politics are involved
here . . . just a simple acknowledgement of demonstrable
fact. The goal is to reinforce the idea that our airplanes
are collections of simple-ideas, recipes for success that
yield very well to common sense supported by experience
and lessons learned. I suggest further that notions of
'criticality' of electrical systems are hugely overblown.
Solutions for dealing with failure of systems useful for
comfortable termination of a flight are generally quite
simple.
If anyone is worried about any aspect of their projects
configuration or performance, bring it up on the List.
The sum total of talent and experience here far outweighs
anything one will find in the constellation of
'official' documents. You'll get answers here that
are understood as opposed to being dictated requirements.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Bob, I thought for sure that the Brownie Spec was a spoof, considering the
misspelling of the title. But to no one's surprise, it was real according
to the gov. web site. And we are paying for this?
Do not archive.
J=FCrgen Amtmann RV6A
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: MIL SPEC spoof |
At 11:16 AM 8/3/2013, you wrote:
>Bob, I thought for sure that the Brownie Spec was a spoof, considering
>the misspelling of the title. But to no one's surprise, it was real
>according to the gov. web site. And we are paying for this?
Yes. Again, it has nothing to do with politics
and everything to do with how our constitution
was written. The administrative state is doomed
to self destruct because it grows without boundaries
and eventually becomes more powerful than those
with a charter to watch over it.
It's a classic study in the power of governors
over the governed. USofA were founded on honorable
principals and force of just law that gave the majority
governed power over a minority of governors. Socrates
hypothesized a time where guardians are manipulated to
guard themselves against themselves by means of deception
he called the "Noble Lie".
Strength of purpose in OBAM aviation lies with us. But
external forces may prevent us from passing that on to
those who follow. Mil-Spec brownies and vague, erroneous
advisory circulars are but pebbles in the noble lies mountain
which is at risk of washing out from under us.
do not archive
Bob . . .
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! --
|