Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:26 AM - Re: Fire Sale = Phase IV (Michael Orth)
2. 03:40 AM - Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (mmayfield)
3. 05:54 AM - Re: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (Stuart Hutchison)
4. 08:05 AM - Re: Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 10:47 AM - Re: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 02:36 PM - Re: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (B Tomm)
8. 03:03 PM - Re: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 03:27 PM - Re: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (Lyle Peterson)
10. 10:36 PM - Re: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (Bob Verwey)
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: Fire Sale = Phase IV |
Bob,
Will you ship to Canada via USPS?
Michael
mosurf@xplornet.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:07 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fire Sale = Phase IV
I have several thousand solder-sleeves with pigtails
for terminating shielded wires. Not sure what the part
number is but as you can see here, it shrinks down
well onto a 22AWG twisted trio.
Thought I'd give the List members first crack at them
before I put 'em up on eBay as a big lot.'
Bag of 30 pieces postage paid to US addresses is $10.
Email me directly please . . .
Bob . . .
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
10/01/14
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: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? |
Well Bob, you need to write to Boeing about addressing those issues and their system
design or poorly conceived procedures because they are direct from the Boeing
FCOM. Best of luck with that!
The "tea and biscuits" metaphor was just that. Yes he was called to explain what
happened but in this particular case I don't believe it was actually an inquisitorial
meeting (notwithstanding that it can be). However there was a reminder
issued that checking the breaker panels is a preflight requirement and it was
a big deal.
Even in my small plane, the breakers are there. They should all be in for engine
start. Just like every other switch position I check before engine start in
a standard panel scan, the breakers are part of that scan.
As an interesting aside, the Airbus A330 has all its physical breakers down in
the electronics compartment. Technically it's accessible, but not within arms
reach. However Airbus needed a way of allowing pilots to pull and reset power
to systems so they created an overhead panel with "breaker-like" switches - they
do not function as circuit protection but look exactly like breakers, and physically
pull and push in the same manner!
It is quite common on the Airbus to use these to reset a system, both on the ground
and in the air.
--------
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432067#432067
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: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in |
flight?
Gday Mike,
There might be a few chuckles over your remark not even Bob has a patent on good
ideas, but mortals are on a hiding to nothing arguing electrical architectures
with him :-) I have a long P3 Orion background where CBs are used (and sometimes
abused) by the hundreds too, but it never ceases to amaze me how much
common sense and experience Bob has in his head and how well he can describe it
!
Were in your debt onya Bob.
Cheers, Stu
On 20 Oct 2014, at 9:39 pm, mmayfield <mmayfield@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Well Bob, you need to write to Boeing about addressing those issues and their
system design or poorly conceived procedures because they are direct from the
Boeing FCOM. Best of luck with that!
>
> The "tea and biscuits" metaphor was just that. Yes he was called to explain what
happened but in this particular case I don't believe it was actually an inquisitorial
meeting (notwithstanding that it can be). However there was a reminder
issued that checking the breaker panels is a preflight requirement and it
was a big deal.
>
> Even in my small plane, the breakers are there. They should all be in for engine
start. Just like every other switch position I check before engine start in
a standard panel scan, the breakers are part of that scan.
>
> As an interesting aside, the Airbus A330 has all its physical breakers down in
the electronics compartment. Technically it's accessible, but not within arms
reach. However Airbus needed a way of allowing pilots to pull and reset power
to systems so they created an overhead panel with "breaker-like" switches -
they do not function as circuit protection but look exactly like breakers, and
physically pull and push in the same manner!
>
> It is quite common on the Airbus to use these to reset a system, both on the
ground and in the air.
>
> --------
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432067#432067
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
At 10:20 2014-10-18, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob
> just read through the emails quickly but I get the feeling and
> also had the feeling looking at the panel itself on the link I
> provided earlier that this might be over complicated and quite
> experimental in the sense of what I will be using the airplane for.
I found the pictures you cited earlier. Clearly, this airplane
has been fitted with WWWWAAaaayyy too much hardware for
the missions on which it's likely to be flown.
I remember when Ken Rand first debuted the KR series airplanes.
Very impressive cost/performance ratios! But just as Burt
Rutan would roll his eyes at the notion of putting an IO320
engine, 60A electrical system with auto pilot in a LongEze,
I'm sure Ken would have been similarly distressed to
see how this example of his vision was being 'expanded'.
The instrumentation package is pretty dated. You might
spend as many dollars getting all the existing hardware
flight worthy as it costs to replace them with more
modern, lighter, smaller and simpler components.
This can be and should be a simple, practical, fun machine
with few CTCTOF factors. Let's talk about your needs
and plans here on the List . . . this is a great opportunity
for learning for all of us.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
At 05:39 2014-10-20, you wrote:
><mmayfield@ozemail.com.au>
>
>Well Bob, you need to write to Boeing about addressing those issues
>and their system design or poorly conceived procedures because they
>are direct from the Boeing FCOM. Best of luck with that!
You miss my point. I fully understand and empathize with
the good folks at Boeing. Their accomplishments are without
peer . . . something one may expect from people with
"the right stuff" . . .
http://tinyurl.com/n7zo6ms
On the other hand, history has given us millions of
examples of "Aww s*%t!" epiphanies suffered by
successful and capable designers in companies of all sizes
and technologies. Consider recalls in the automotive
industries and other consumer products. I've had
a few of those myself in a company of only 100
employees. To date, the worst case of stubbing my toe
only cost the boss about $25K and didn't make it
onto any airplanes before it was caught.
>The "tea and biscuits" metaphor was just that. Yes he was called to
>explain what happened but in this particular case I don't believe it
>was actually an inquisitorial meeting (notwithstanding that it can
>be). However there was a reminder issued that checking the breaker
>panels is a preflight requirement and it was a big deal.
>Even in my small plane, the breakers are there. They should all be
>in for engine start. Just like every other switch position I check
>before engine start in a standard panel scan, the breakers are part
>of that scan.
My point was not to argue against the general
statement for checking breakers. To be sure, finding
a breaker open in pre-flight offers data worthy of
further consideration. This assumes that the breaker
powers a CFCTOF=0 system and is 'tied open' by maintenance.
The point I was promoting is based on an inarguable
fact that unlike the OPEN breaker, the CLOSED breaker guarantees
nothing. It follows then that FMEA conducted during design
and verification in flight test should go to giving
the crew ALL information necessary for pre-flight
verification of integrity for all systems with CFCTOF=1.
To be sure, few "Aw s$#t" epiphanies in Boeing class
aircraft are going to generate an AD (recall) ESPECIALLY
when a 'fix' can be implemented with some new words in the
AFM.
Fortunately, OUR airplanes do not suffer from the square-
law effects the gargantuan institutions. The potential for
an "Aw s#@t" moment goes up with the square of influential
individuals not directly tasked with the design and verification
of a device. The discovery of something needing a fix in
an RV will cost perhaps a 100 times fewer dollars than
fixing a similar shortfall on a C-172 and a factor of a
100,000 less than a B787.
>As an interesting aside, the Airbus A330 has all its physical
>breakers down in the electronics compartment. Technically it's
>accessible, but not within arms reach. However Airbus needed a way
>of allowing pilots to pull and reset power to systems so they
>created an overhead panel with "breaker-like" switches - they do not
>function as circuit protection but look exactly like breakers, and
>physically pull and push in the same manner!
Yup, you may find that these are actually 1A breakers
that are crowbared open in response to signals from
a "remotely controlled circuit breaker" (RCCB). There's
a bunch of them on the Eclipse that are controlled via
touch-screen buttons. Here is one of dozens of such
devices . . .
http://tinyurl.com/mtjcsyb
>It is quite common on the Airbus to use these to reset a system,
>both on the ground and in the air.
No argument . . . when it's well considered procedure that
arises from the guys at the drawing boards. These are precisely
the tools needed for competent operation.
My point was to decry a DEPENDANCE upon catching
an open breaker . . . in a panel full of breakers . . .
for a system with a CTCTOF=1 . . . a system that apparently
enjoyed NO OTHER means for pre-flight verification.
Breakers and fuses are for the protection of wires and
to prevent a fault from propagating across multiple systems.
The prudent designer (and OBAM aircraft builder) will strive
to fit EVERY system with CTCTOF=1 with
1) pre-flight verifiable integrity that goes beyond
checking for a closed breaker -AND-
(2) plan-B for mitigating loss of that system
whether or not the breaker is open.
Finally, as OBAM aircraft owners and operators, we're
encouraged and privileged to FIX any latent shortfalls
in design with something more than a band-aid to the
procedures in the AFM.
Bob . . .
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: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
At 10:20 2014-10-18, you wrote:
Hi Bob
just read through the emails quickly but I get the feeling and also
had the feeling looking at the panel itself on the link I provided
earlier that this might be over complicated and quite experimental in
the sense of what I will be using the airplane for.
Yeah . . . he speaks to Figure Z-14 which is an
exceedingly capable system tailored for airplanes
MUCH larger than a IMC KR-2. I recall that
conversation a bit now . . . I tried to get him
to down-size.
I am guessing that Bob has the book and that I will get that along
with other documentation for the project when I pick it up.
Perhaps you need the book now. Understand you're
getting the airplane next spring. Now is the time
to start boning up on the options.
I did try to go to the links on you sire but for some reason could
not access the downloadable pdfs
Don't understand this. The .pdf file is the compilation
of e-mails I found. The .htm file is a copy of a page
from his website found on the WayBack machine . . .
an organization that endeavors to take periodic 'snapshots'
of websites and preserve them. The page you cited from
Bob's website happened to be one of those captures on
the WayBack servers.
I just checked both links at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Bob_Lee/
and they're working . . .
I will try again, and also the links to Bob's architecture are gone
because his site is no longer active. If you have copies and could
send to me that would be interesting reading for me.
If you have any specific links to old pages, you
can try searching for them at http://archive.org/web/
I thank you for your help with understanding this and I think your
first suggestion of starting over may be the ticket. I just feel
sticking as close to the KISS principle is often a good decision. I
will have enough to do without complicating my flight demands .
Thanks Again
Bob R
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be
reset in flight?
At 05:39 2014-10-20, you wrote:
<mmayfield@ozemail.com.au>
Well Bob, you need to write to Boeing about addressing those issues and
their system design or poorly conceived procedures because they are direct
from the Boeing FCOM. Best of luck with that!
You miss my point. I fully understand and empathize with
the good folks at Boeing. Their accomplishments are without
peer . . . something one may expect from people with
"the right stuff" . . .
http://tinyurl.com/n7zo6ms
On the other hand, history has given us millions of
examples of "Aww s*%t!" epiphanies suffered by
successful and capable designers in companies of all sizes
and technologies. Consider recalls in the automotive
industries and other consumer products. I've had
a few of those myself in a company of only 100
employees. To date, the worst case of stubbing my toe
only cost the boss about $25K and didn't make it
onto any airplanes before it was caught.
The "tea and biscuits" metaphor was just that. Yes he was called to explain
what happened but in this particular case I don't believe it was actually an
inquisitorial meeting (notwithstanding that it can be). However there was a
reminder issued that checking the breaker panels is a preflight requirement
and it was a big deal.
Even in my small plane, the breakers are there. They should all be in for
engine start. Just like every other switch position I check before engine
start in a standard panel scan, the breakers are part of that scan.
My point was not to argue against the general
statement for checking breakers. To be sure, finding
a breaker open in pre-flight offers data worthy of
further consideration. This assumes that the breaker
powers a CFCTOF=0 system and is 'tied open' by maintenance.
The point I was promoting is based on an inarguable
fact that unlike the OPEN breaker, the CLOSED breaker guarantees
nothing. It follows then that FMEA conducted during design
and verification in flight test should go to giving
the crew ALL information necessary for pre-flight
verification of integrity for all systems with CFCTOF=1.
To be sure, few "Aw s$#t" epiphanies in Boeing class
aircraft are going to generate an AD (recall) ESPECIALLY
when a 'fix' can be implemented with some new words in the
AFM.
Fortunately, OUR airplanes do not suffer from the square-
law effects the gargantuan institutions. The potential for
an "Aw s#@t" moment goes up with the square of influential
individuals not directly tasked with the design and verification
of a device. The discovery of something needing a fix in
an RV will cost perhaps a 100 times fewer dollars than
fixing a similar shortfall on a C-172 and a factor of a
100,000 less than a B787.
As an interesting aside, the Airbus A330 has all its physical breakers down
in the electronics compartment. Technically it's accessible, but not within
arms reach. However Airbus needed a way of allowing pilots to pull and reset
power to systems so they created an overhead panel with "breaker-like"
switches - they do not function as circuit protection but look exactly like
breakers, and physically pull and push in the same manner!
Yup, you may find that these are actually 1A breakers
that are crowbared open in response to signals from
a "remotely controlled circuit breaker" (RCCB). There's
a bunch of them on the Eclipse that are controlled via
touch-screen buttons. Here is one of dozens of such
devices . . .
http://tinyurl.com/mtjcsyb
It is quite common on the Airbus to use these to reset a system, both on the
ground and in the air.
No argument . . . when it's well considered procedure that
arises from the guys at the drawing boards. These are precisely
the tools needed for competent operation.
My point was to decry a DEPENDANCE upon catching
an open breaker . . . in a panel full of breakers . . .
for a system with a CTCTOF=1 . . . a system that apparently
enjoyed NO OTHER means for pre-flight verification.
Breakers and fuses are for the protection of wires and
to prevent a fault from propagating across multiple systems.
The prudent designer (and OBAM aircraft builder) will strive
to fit EVERY system with CTCTOF=1 with
1) pre-flight verifiable integrity that goes beyond
checking for a closed breaker -AND-
(2) plan-B for mitigating loss of that system
whether or not the breaker is open.
Finally, as OBAM aircraft owners and operators, we're
encouraged and privileged to FIX any latent shortfalls
in design with something more than a band-aid to the
procedures in the AFM.
Bob . . .
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: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
At 16:35 2014-10-20, you wrote:
>What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
>
>Bevan
Critical For Comfortable Termination Of Flight.
Includes things like wings, fuel lines, propellers
etc. It can also include fundamental navigation,
communication and cockpit illumination. Then there
are things like providing independent sources of
power for dual ignition systems, etc.
A CFCTOF factor of zero means you could launch
into the blue with comfort knowing the device has
no influence on your comfort level. A factor
of 1 suggests that the appliance is worthy of
careful thought as to what your plan-of-action
will be if the critter rolls TU.
Bob . . .
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: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
Acronyms suck!
On 10/20/2014 5:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 16:35 2014-10-20, you wrote:
>> What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
>>
>> Bevan
>
> Critical For Comfortable Termination Of Flight.
>
> Includes things like wings, fuel lines, propellers
> etc. It can also include fundamental navigation,
> communication and cockpit illumination. Then there
> are things like providing independent sources of
> power for dual ignition systems, etc.
>
> A CFCTOF factor of zero means you could launch
> into the blue with comfort knowing the device has
> no influence on your comfort level. A factor
> of 1 suggests that the appliance is worthy of
> careful thought as to what your plan-of-action
> will be if the critter rolls TU.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Lyle
Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop
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: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
Guys this has been a great thread and I learned a lot!
Did'nt even know some of this stuff existed!
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 21 October 2014 00:25, Lyle Peterson <lyleap@centurylink.net> wrote:
> Acronyms suck!
>
>
> On 10/20/2014 5:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 16:35 2014-10-20, you wrote:
>
> What does... CFCTOF=0 mean?
>
> Bevan
>
>
> Critical For Comfortable Termination Of Flight.
>
> Includes things like wings, fuel lines, propellers
> etc. It can also include fundamental navigation,
> communication and cockpit illumination. Then there
> are things like providing independent sources of
> power for dual ignition systems, etc.
>
> A CFCTOF factor of zero means you could launch
> into the blue with comfort knowing the device has
> no influence on your comfort level. A factor
> of 1 suggests that the appliance is worthy of
> careful thought as to what your plan-of-action
> will be if the critter rolls TU.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> Lyle
>
> Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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! --
|