Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:42 AM - CFI techniques for glass panel pilots (Andy Elliott)
2. 11:53 AM - Re: The down-side of "glass panels" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:17 PM - Factory Certified but is this safe? (Michael Wynn)
4. 07:05 PM - Re: Factory Certified but is this safe? (user9253)
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: | CFI techniques for glass panel pilots |
I am an ex-military IP and civilian CFI for just over 40 years. (Ancient.) These
days I mainly do flight reviews and WINGS
instruction in experimentals with experienced pilots. It is true that part of
the experimental community is especially enamored of
glass panels and I have seen many panels with *no* back-up instruments.
One technique I find especially good is to have the pilot remove/disable the moving
map display(s) and turn off his tablet, then go
to a local airport he has been to many times. The pilot has to look at the map
ahead of time and pick out some visible landmarks,
and find them in flight. Just like 40 years ago! Autopilot is allowed (Makes for
much better traffic scanning), but only in the
heading mode. No course tracking.
Using this technique is especially interesting at night, where the advantage of
lit-up towns and highways outside of cities is
counterbalanced by the difficulty in finding things (like runways) in the dense
sea of lights in modern cities. The sighting
differences associated with altitude can be extreme, both favorably and un-.
Pilots are apprehensive to start, but quickly regain basic flying/navigating skills,
and invariably "find" all kinds of things
enroute that they've been flying over for years and never seen! Every single pilot
I've done this with has thought it a valuable
training experience.
FWIW,
Andy Elliott
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: The down-side of "glass panels" |
At 05:16 PM 6/17/2019, you wrote:
>Dear Bob, you're forwarding fake news.
>
>MCAS is not optional and is on all 737 MAX. It was part of the
>certification of the aircraft. The launch and major customer of the
>737 is not the Chinese government but Southwest airlines. It is not
>possible to disable MCAS depending on the skin color of the pilots.
I too am skeptical of that assertion
by the author. Without a doubt, the
new engine mods, while economically
prudent, had a profound effect on
handling qualities . . . effects
that admittedly called for a new
type rating. Maintaining the old 'type'
required software to wash-out deleterious
effects with automatic operation of
motors connected to flight controls.
I've been trying to imagine how my superiors
would have responded to some change
to our fleet of products that would
required such profound assistance from
the autopilot to maintain feel, stability
and ride comfort of the original type.
I don't think we could have sold such a thing.
>I'm a 40 year old white guy with time on the 737. I am not at all
>certain that I could have done better with the situation presented
>to the Ethiopian Airlines pilots (unreliable airspeed and stall
>warning, followed later by the aggressive trim down while they were
>dealing with the former).
Errors of display aside, the airplane
was demonstrably plagued with an electro-
mechanically induced pitching moment. I'm told
that old Boeings had a mechanism in
the control column that would mechanically
lock the trim system should the pilot(s)
find it necessary to put high pitch
forces into the yoke. Airplanes I
worked on had wheel master disconnect
buttons that would remove power
from every motor driving a control surface.
This was a clear breakdown in the chain of
data from flight test engineering to the
pilots. Delays in punching the motors
OFF contributed to increased airspeed
that made manual recovery impossible.
A trim actuator in a Learjet only has to
push about 300 pounds in cruising flight
but we had to qualify those actuators to
MOVE 10,000 pounds in an upset condition
(probably wishful thinking. Speeds that
produce that kind of load was super-
sonic . . . so any bets for 'hand flying' the
airplane were moot). It illustrates the
over arching urgency for very fast pilot
response to unexpected, pitching events
especially at high power. Killing flight
surface motors and pulling back throttles
needed to happen first and quickly
. . . or the thing was going to become
an uncontrollable sled ride.
Admittedly nothing to do with 'glass
panels' as information delivery systems.
However, it has everything to do with a
necessity for pilots to 'become one with
the airplane'.
The narratives we're hearing suggest
a disconnect between design changes
driven by a desire not to create a new
aircraft type and the crews expected
to manage all the failure modes not
adequately addressed in the design.
Tip of the hat to AeroElectric-Lister
Robert Sultzbach for a heads-up on
another example of pilots wrestling
with a recalcitrant piece of hardware
with inadequate training or management
tools:
https://tinyurl.com/ybap8z7x
Fascinating presentation . . .
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: | Factory Certified but is this safe? |
Hi all,
I am rebuilding and restoring a 1977 factory certified S1-S Pitts.=C2- Th
e electrical system is pretty basic but there is one aspect that I am tryin
g to understand.=C2- The battery is located behind the pilot's seat.=C2
- There is a contactor directly adjacent that energizes the starter.=C2
- There is a large wire, #8 or so, that goes from the battery that goes d
own the frame to the console between the pilot's legs where the circuit bre
akers and switches reside.=C2- That wire goes into an ammeter and from th
ere to the main bus, on which the various circuit breakers reside.=C2- Th
ere is no fuse, contactor or other circuit interruption device between the
battery and the console.=C2- If that main feed wire were to erode through
or otherwise short, there would be nothing to stop the welding action unti
l the battery died.
I wired my RV8 per the excellent instructions in the Aeroelectric Connectio
n.=C2- I feel quite safe about it.=C2- There is a very short run betwee
n the batter and the main contactor but all other wires are protected.=C2
- Not so with the factory Pitts wiring.=C2- Should I be adding a fuse o
r contactor or something near the battery to protect this circuit?
Regards,
Michael WynnRV8Pitts S1-SLivermore, CA
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: Factory Certified but is this safe? |
A pilot should have the ability to shut off electrical power near each source.
A 40 amp automotive relay will work for this situation. I would NOT install
a fuse or circuit breaker at the battery.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=489728#489728
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! --
|