Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:38 AM - Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy (Mark Ritter)
2. 04:42 AM - Re: FS: MT Prop Gov (Neal George)
3. 05:48 AM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (MauleDriver)
4. 06:10 AM - Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy (John Jessen)
5. 06:12 AM - Re: Re: Gas leak (Rhonda Bewley)
6. 06:44 AM - Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy (John Cram)
7. 06:47 AM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Paul Grimstad)
8. 06:50 AM - Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
9. 07:19 AM - Tax the internet (David McNeill)
10. 07:32 AM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Jesse Saint)
11. 07:57 AM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (John Jessen)
12. 09:12 AM - Re: Tax the internet (John Gonzalez)
13. 11:03 AM - Re: Re: Gas leak (Kelly McMullen)
14. 12:02 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Tim Olson)
15. 12:14 PM - Re: Tax the internet (Dave Saylor)
16. 12:24 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Rob Kermanj)
17. 12:28 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Phillips, Jack)
18. 01:03 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Mark Ritter)
19. 01:06 PM - Re: Tax the internet (johngoodman)
20. 01:08 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (John Jessen)
21. 02:10 PM - mid seat rail support (Jay Rowe)
22. 03:02 PM - Re: mid seat rail support (Vern W. Smith)
23. 04:49 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
24. 05:34 PM - Air Tank Tip (Bill Reining)
25. 05:50 PM - Re: Upper Fwd Fuse (McGANN, Ron)
26. 06:11 PM - Re: mid seat rail support (Aaron Gleixner)
27. 07:27 PM - Re: mid seat rail support (Jay Rowe)
28. 07:27 PM - Re: mid seat rail support (Jay Rowe)
29. 08:03 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Bill Schlatterer)
30. 08:22 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
31. 08:31 PM - Re: mid seat rail support (Jesse Saint)
32. 08:44 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Jesse Saint)
33. 08:44 PM - Trueflight 190 (Scott Schmidt)
34. 08:44 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Jesse Saint)
35. 08:46 PM - Re: Re: Tax the internet (Dave Leikam)
36. 08:46 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Jesse Saint)
37. 08:46 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Jesse Saint)
38. 08:49 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Jesse Saint)
39. 09:02 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Kelly McMullen)
40. 09:05 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Scott Schmidt)
41. 09:08 PM - Rear Heat Vent Tube (Scott Schmidt)
42. 09:58 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Tim Olson)
43. 10:18 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W (Tim Olson)
44. 10:47 PM - Re: The Perfect Panel - The Perfect airplane (Richard Sipp)
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: | Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy |
Yeh! I hear he just purchased a G-5 to take all those kids to college.
Wonder what part my $25 contribution bought?
Mark
N410MR
>From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>To: "rv10-list@matronics.com" <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
>Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:34:37 -0500
>
>Not a surprise that I wouldn't be given a personal invite given my past
>comments on Doug's operation. I'm just not big on having my posts edited
>and then posted with no comment that it was edited. But hey, it's putting
>his kids through college (and his kids kids, and the kids down the street,
>and their kids, etc). I just have a thing about business being run under
>false pretences, but that's just me.
>
>Oh ya, and you're jaded. :-)
>
>Do not archive
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
>Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:09 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
>
>Okay, call me jaded but I just received an invitation to migrate over to
>the RV-10 web reflector offered by Doug Reeves. Question #1 - Now, am I
>the only one?
>
>Question #2, is it correct that this list has become a private conversation
>between Saint Aviation and individuals who cannot take private
>conversations private? Cause I am not on any list for Rosen Visors or
>Saint Aviation business endevours nor see value in the build for knowing
>who they all are. Tim, is that how you handled the axle extension offer?
>
>At one time this was a sharing forum for diverse builders with common
>interests.
>
>John Cox #40600
>
>________________________________
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cal Hoffman
>Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:56 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
>
>Count me in - I am at the right point to install.
>
>Cal Hoffman
>97 Myrick Street
>Barnwell, SC 29812
>803-541-5242
>cehoffman@bellsouth.net
>I would like a full set of visors.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jesse Saint<mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:32 PM
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
>
>I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail
>and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half
>set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping
>address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in
>with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to
>do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but
>they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send.
>
>GOD BLESS!
>
>Jesse Saint
>Saint Aviation, Inc.
>jesse@saintaviation.com<mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>www.saintaviation.com<http://www.saintaviation.com>
>Cell: 352-427-0285
>Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
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 |
|
I bought the governor before I made the final decision on the prop. Greg
Anderson says my WW 200RV would be perfectly happy with the MT. He offers a
different governor, and that sounds a lot like a recommendation - one I'm
inclined to follow.
neal
Why would you sell? What are you going to run with?
John
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: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
A real good discussion Bill & Tim and all - Thanks for hashing this one
around. Before making a few additional observations, a little
background on my experience. I earned my IFR rating and 100% of my IMC
experience in a minimally equipped Maule. A Garmin 300XL, regular steam
stack, no autopilot, and a Precise Flight vac backup. A simple, slow
aircraft with minimal but well maintained equipment. Most notably, I
flew it hard for 5+ years in the southeast US with a schedule that
encouraged me to fly every week, day and night, with specific
destinations in mind. Think personal short haul airline for the wife
and I. I'm sure that 90+% of the flying was in VFR conditions though
90+% of it was flown on an IFR plan. And that my actual IMC flight time
is still under 20 hours. I've probably flown fewer than 5 approaches to
minimums. But the IFR system is what makes light aircraft travel easy,
fun, and safe for this pilot. In exchange for the rating, you get to
run your own personal airline. With the RV10 you get to fly it your own
personal aircraft. An unimaginable privilege. Anyway,
Mission is the big issue we all face. And life tends to make one's
mission change over time. I agree that a VFR-only ship needs only the
most basic panel with a 496 for Wx. IFR capability adds the $$$ no
matter what route you take. But how can you predict your mission while
in the middle of one of the more life changing experiences you may ever
experience - building an plane? Ironically, my decision to build my
dream cross country cruiser has completely changed my flying - no more
personal airline, I now want to stay home and build. Who knew? When I
finish the '10, will I return to personal airliner mode? No idea.
Mission drives the big and small decisions but I know my ability to
predict my mission is close to zero. Some critical decisions you simply
have to make and live with the consequences.
Tim's observations on Wx match mine. It is a total game changer for VFR
and IFR where I live. Sort of like the invention of the wheel for those
that travel. I used the infamous Cheap Bastard software on an old RF
Palm before the 396. When dodging buildups in central Florida, a single
30 min old picture is worth a thousand words from those incredibly
helpful JAX controllers.
I've never flown behind an autopilot!! Can't wait. Needing to hand fly
the Maule in all conditions drives all aspects of my IFR flight planning
and execution. Nothing that is done well is done casually. Every map
is folded, every plate indexed, pencils are halved and dulled, backup
pencils mounted, flashlights charged, headlights worn. relief bag
prepped. Did I mention avionics yet? I am convinced that the autopilot
capability is paramount. Many of my panel planning decisions will
revolve around maximizing this capability and it's proper integration.
Let me add my 2 cents on the "I'm only going to do layer busting with
the occasional approach to 500 and 5" discussion. I totally agree with
the point that, the less you plan to do low approaches to minimums the
more you will benefit from the high end equipment. No matter how well
you plan, or at least no matter how well you plan to plan, safety
dictates you have to be prepared to fly to standard in all
situations....wait! Let me get off that high horse... here's the
experience and situation that brought it home to me. The typical late
flight home to my base. Sun is setting, conditions are benign. I may
have to poke thru some broken to get down to 2,000 or so before VFRing
home. 20 minutes out, I notice the ground temperature dropping to the
dew point and suddenly fog has turned RDU IFR at minimums or less.
Whoa! Let's see, I can backtrack to GSO. Nope, same thing. RIC? Same
thing. As far as I can 'see', a light fog is developing over every
airport within 1.5 hours of my home. A day VFR trip with an evening
landing has turned into multiple night approaches into fog! I've since
come to understand that this is not an uncommon unforecast situation
here in the summer. Fortunately, if fog isn't predicted, it will
probably disappear in an hour or so. Probably. I still don't know how
to plan myself out of this one. The less you plan to use the ticket,
the more you need all the help you can get.
I haven't seriously begun my panel planning but I'm convinced that the
latest equipment (HITS, Wx, integrated autopilot, etc) provides
significantly greater capability than the steam stack needles with
moving map. Most important, it can provide a large safety margin and
great risk mitigation for the more casual, recreational pilot. Yes,
there are some traps in that thinking but one can avoid many others with
ease.
Bill "dreaming of a great panel while sorting thru the beginnings of a
wiring layout for my wings" Watson
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Bill, This is a fantastic reply. I hope you don't get the idea that I'm
> dictating to anyone or suggesting that everyone do the same, or even
> that my choices are the "right" or necessary choices. It's really
> all so widely individual that indeed there are as many appropriate
> combinations as there are builders....although not all builders
> choose appropriate combinations for themselves. ;)
>
> As far as philosophy of IFR flight goes, I can tell that we agree far
> more than any disagreement...that's for sure. Your thoughts are
> pretty much really good and valid as far as I'm concerned. About the
> only thing I disagree with below is that jumping to some of the
> more expensive stuff only adds marginal improvement. For 80-90% of
> the feature list, I'd agree, but I really think there are a couple
> of things available today that if widely used would no doubt change
> the accident rates significantly. But from a general point, you're
> right...the more money you throw at anything, the more marginal
> the return gets. LNav/Vnav GPS approaches vs. LPV approaches is
> an example.
>
> Regarding your last question about Wx. I have actually said that
> before. The single best thing in my plane that changes everything
> is the onboard Wx as far as changing the overall possiblities of
> flight. It's well worth the fee. Behind that I'd have to say is
> the synthetic vision and HITS and the ability for the AP to
> actually do a hands-off approach. Coming from a steam gauge
> background, the WX changes completely the situations you'd get
> in to. But then the Synthetic vision and HITS completely change the
> ease at which approaches are flown. If someone were on their
> last few hundred bucks on their panel though, with even a VFR
> panel, my #1 recommendation would be for WX...and that's even
> for any VFR x/c pilot. You're right that it's just a totally
> experience changing feature.
>
> The features I see as far less useful are things like on-screen
> charts. There are good ways to deal with that for much less
> money. Many people don't realize that Jepp subscriptions for
> things like that are very very pricey, and the feature itself
> costs a fortune too. The G900 unlock code for chartview
> costs $3000 alone, plus the subscription. The GMX-200 costs
> $2000 for the unlock code, and then *requires* a subscription
> to jeppview for $738/yr + 100 to activate it. Jeppview is
> only available for Garmin and Avidyne right now. I have a
> pricey database subscription for the Chelton, which is a
> necessary evil just like on a GNS-430/530/480, but charts
> are much more reasonable on a tablet. $400 or less for
> the software, and $200/yr for a complete set of IFR/VFR/
> Hi-Lo Alt Enroute, WAC's, and the works. That's actually
> affordable....and it's not the cheapest possible way to do things.
> So there are definitely features that are "nice" to have and
> add lots of cost, but only provide some marginal improvements.
> Even my tablet will overlay my plane on an approach chart, and
> it'll do it without messing up my screen display.
>
> Bill, I totally appreciate your 100% gentlemanly posts, and very
> great points. I know there are a lot of people reading, and it's
> a very worthy discussion. Having it with a guy with your demeanor
> is fantastic. No flame suit required.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> Tim, also great points but all I was really suggesting is that while
>> everyone that flies IFR should be capable of safe easy flight to
>> mins, there
>> are different ways to get there. I agree that one shouldn't fly IFR
>> if they
>> can only handle "light" IFR but the equipment you choose can dictate how
>> much risk you are willing to handle. Like you I'm sure, there should
>> be no
>> IFR flight without a solid backup(out)plan. If I have an autopilot
>> failure,
>> I'm not going to mins if there is any way out but I would probably
>> hand fly
>> to LOC mins plus 500 with no qualms. Risk management is what IFR is all
>> about. You feel better with a full load of equipment, my suggestion
>> is that
>> it isn't required for the majority of IFR flight BUT if I had the
>> budget I
>> would have it too. BTW, I consider an AP mandatory for single pilot
>> IFR so
>> I would not even consider a true "minimalist" approach to panel choices.
>>
>> Also not arguing the "light IFR" point, but there is VFR and Marginal
>> VFR
>> and there really is IFR and LOW IFR so you do get to make a choice of
>> how
>> much you're willing to bite off. Your mode of risk management is to
>> load up
>> the airplane, be very pilot current, and you're good to go. More
>> equipment
>> IS better risk management but at a cost. If you can do it, I would
>> too but
>> after the first 15K of equipment, the next 10K or 20K is just cause
>> it makes
>> us marginally safer if you attack the same conditions. If you just
>> don't go
>> there when the ceiling is 300, that's a way to do it as well.
>>
>> Nice discussion, always enjoy reading your posts. So last question,...
>> Would you say that a basic IFR airplane with AP and on board Wx is safer
>> than a loaded panel with no weather ? We do have to make choices on
>> limited
>> budgets ;-) A real question for a lot of folks is to either have a
>> better(more expensive) AP/NAV combination or alternately add WX with
>> some
>> additional monthly fees. Personally, I will take the Wx every time if I
>> can't afford both.
>>
>> Bill S
>>
>>
>> BTW, I did opt for a dual GRT, 430W, TT VSVG, Garmin 396 with WX and
>> backup
>> instruments in my 7 and would have done Chelton if I had the dough but
>> didn't :-(
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:31 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
>>
>>
>> Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>>> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>>>
>>> Just another view but picking the right panel becomes a lot easier
>>> if you define the mission first. Chelton are great, Fully coupled
>>> autopilots are wonderful, WAAS GPS supreme and you can get it all
>>> for only a gazillion dollars. The question in my mind is how much
>>> do we really need,... Granted if it's a "want" then all the
>>> discussion about price and package is moot. ( BTW, Tim defined his
>>> mission as "a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that grey thick
>>> wet layer of clouds as a perfect day" so if that is not you, it will
>>> make a difference")
>>>
>>
>> Actually, that statement I made was less of my "mission", but much
>> more my
>> "style". My "mission" might better be summed up like this slightly
>> edited
>> reply to an offline comment I got.
>>
>> "When people say I don't "need" all that stuff in the panel, I
>> think....as
>> far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing to trust my "superior"
>> (laughing) skills are good enough to put my families life on the line
>> with, risking their lives unnecessarily. For me, what I "need" is
>> "the best
>> I can do". It may cost a few dollars, but I want every bit of ease,
>> safety,
>> and help that I can get, so that I can be more assured that I'll have
>> another day to fly another flight."
>>
>> For me, it's about totally enjoying IFR flight, but putting all the
>> technology to good use in actually keeping my family and passengers
>> alive.
>> IFR flight isn't something you dabble in. VFR and IFR are absolute
>> black
>> and white, when you play by the rules. For a VFR only pilot, I
>> wouldn't get
>> any of the high-end systems, and my main GPS would just be a 496 even
>> as a
>> gadget guy. For an IFR pilot, there is a lot more at stake. The
>> accident
>> records clearly state the highly increased risk in GA IFR flight,
>> especially
>> single-pilot. Having a very good system at your hands is like having
>> a 2nd
>> pilot. In fact, when I first began my actual IFR experience
>> post-training,
>> I immediately purchased an autopilot for my old plane, because I was not
>> willing to even consider flying my family IFR without an autopilot.
>> This is
>> just an extension of that caution, brought about by a little more
>> experience, and, because it's possible to GREATLY increase the survival
>> chances in an IFR aircraft with the technology today. There are so
>> absolutely many accidents that need never happen. I remember reading an
>> article recently where a plane flew a few hundred feet below the
>> glideslope
>> due to some misc. errors in reading when to descend on final. With
>> todays
>> synthetic vision approaches, that kind of thing just doesn't need to
>> happen.
>> It's a world where the slightest mis-interpretation of a piece of
>> paper can
>> mean sudden death. Even WITH the equipment, there is plenty of risk,
>> but
>> for those who fly their families (IFR), what do you want to do to
>> minimize
>> it? I'm selfish enough in that I love IFR flight so much that I'll
>> actually
>> be willing to FLY IFR with them on board, whereas I could just adamantly
>> become a VFR pilot, and ignore that risk. But, I'm also not willing
>> to make it harder than I have to, to ensure their long-term health.
>> Many have seen my kids photos.....what do YOU think I should consider
>> Danielle's value as.....$5,000, $20,000, or $50,000? And is Colleen
>> worth
>> more, or less? Quite literally, the money I spent has the potential
>> to save
>> just one, very minor, mistake while in IMC, at some point in our
>> lives, that
>> will make even $100,000 for that extra "software feature" worth every
>> penny.
>>
>> So my mission is the ability to fly in IMC with as little risk of
>> life and
>> limb as possible.
>>
>> Also, I know that this kind of discussion bores the ba-jeeses out of
>> some
>> people, but keep in mind that in that survey done by Van's way back
>> as to
>> what kind of plane (IFR or VFR) the builders were building, the vast
>> majority were building IFR aircraft. So, I usually prefer to consider
>> meaningful panel discussions as IFR panel discussions. If it's a VFR
>> panel,
>> there's very little that is critical about planning a panel.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be cool if 5 years from now, the accident record for IFR
>> flight
>> were to actually equal what it is for VFR flight...and then some!?!
>> (If we
>> could just get people to fill up with fuel when needed, that would
>> even help
>> the VFR's safety record)
>>
>>
>>> For example, I fly a lot in the south, Ark, LA, Texas, Ok and
>>> normally approaches flown to mins plus 500 are good enough. I would
>>> guess that to be 80% of the time when you actually need an approach
>>> which is an even smaller amount of your total flight time. This is
>>> from memory but I have flown about 40 cross country trips in the
>>> last two years (200-400) miles. All have been filed IFR, of them
>>> only 5 or 6 actually required an approach at the end and then only
>>> one was to mins plus about 300. Everything else was basically just
>>> to let down through a layer to about 1,000 agl. BTW, My whole
>>> attitude/experience would be different if I flew in the North East
>>> or in California Coastal
>> fog!
>>
>> Very true...but now you're arguing that a person who's only going to be
>> doing minimal low approaches should maybe think about lesser equipment,
>> right? IMHO, it's probably the opposite, and your point would be
>> perfectly
>> valid. Here's my thought....
>>
>> It's hard enough for a private pilot to stay IFR current, with plenty
>> of IMC
>> experience. If you're going to fly approaches in IMC, the pilot with
>> less
>> currency could probably benefit more from some of the more substantial
>> equipment than the guy who does it every week, which your 40 flights is
>> quite a portion of a year. You may indeed have the "superior" skills
>> that I
>> laughingly mentioned about myself above.
>> Then, it's just a matter of the same economics of what is the value
>> to you
>> in life and limb dollars? (Keep in mind I really believe that some of
>> today's technology has the breakthrough possibility of changing the
>> accident
>> rate....and SOMEBODY is going to die doing it, so why not err on the
>> safe
>> side?)
>>
>>
>>> All of the really nice IFR stuff is only needed at the mins so you
>>> are buying a lot of equipment for the rare approach to mins. In
>>> most cases, you are put on vectors, intercept the approach NAV
>>> course from vectors, and then descend from the FAF at a fixed rate
>>> of 400-800 fpm to mins plus 400- 500 or more. Given that, any
>>> equipment that will let you fly with a heading bug while holding
>>> altitude, while monitoring the approach VOR or GPS but
>>> preferentially by GPS for spatial awareness will comfortably work
>>> for any but the most die hard IFR pilots. At the FAF, dial in your
>>> descent rate and leave the NAV coupled and you really don't need a
>>> coupled glide slope to get comfortably
>> to mins plus 500 or so.
>>
>>
>> I don't disagree with your thoughts for the most part. That's how I
>> feel
>> about my backup gauges....I mean, how much do you absolutely need
>> when the
>> crap hits the fan? With ATC help, and radar contact, you can
>> probably pull
>> off a whole lot if you stay calm. As far as I'm concerned, you have it
>> exactly right for how I feel if I have a major EFIS failure. Other than
>> that though, for a few bucks I have the opportunity to keep that safety
>> level up. For what it's worth, some of my more fearful moments were
>> not on
>> the low portion of an approach.
>> In fact, on the last few seconds before breaking out, it hasn't been
>> bad at
>> all. For me the climb phase, and some enroute and vectoring phase
>> time has
>> been pretty tough. Spatial disorientation is something I became acutely
>> aware of, along with vertigo. Interestingly, while I commonly at
>> least felt
>> the "leans" in turbulent IMC before, I haven't had that experience with
>> synthetic vision. I can only surmise that this is partly due to the
>> added
>> "visibility" I'm now seeing. There are times, that I can honestly
>> say that
>> I had my hands full just keeping myself hand-flying the plane to keep it
>> upright while feeling the leans in a big way. Having that experience
>> was
>> pretty humbling.
>> I do understand that it's something that can be overcome, but, does the
>> *average* IFR pilot fly enough approaches to realistically keep their
>> proficiency to what is *really* required for safety? (Not the
>> standard legal
>> definition of currency)
>>
>> Also, it wouldn't be responsible of me to tell someone that there's
>> such a
>> thing as "light" IFR where you just go busting through thin layers
>> and then
>> continue on top. You truly can get yourself into some situations
>> that way.
>>
>> I catch your comment about if you were in the North East or California's
>> coastal fog, but in almost all areas of the country you can find some
>> tough
>> IFR flying, and the question is are you planning to take your plane
>> all over
>> the country and just fly VFR when you get some soggy clouds in your way?
>>
>>
>>> Now, all of this is up for grabs if you really want to fly to 200'
>>> mins on the rare occasion but reasonable risk management on the
>>> ground prior to take-off makes even the most basic equipment more
>>> than adequate "most" of the time.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is that you can have a nice economical IFR panel that
>>> will work well with nominal flight management or a really high
>>> dollar system that will take you to mins with your hands off.
>>> Knowing which you will be comfortable with should be the first part
>>> of the planning process. In some cases, we just can't afford the
>>> stuff we would like to have and fly with less but manage the risk
>>> better. Your call, but knowing what you really want to do "most" of
>>> the time is important. The other question you have to ask is "if I
>>> buy this fancy system, will I (the pilot) be ready to take it to
>>> mins when the time comes."
>>>
>>
>> All good points. I do agree that financial things do play a part in the
>> decision process. For me, I would probably be more of an IFR avoider
>> with
>> the family on board without the gear, yet I feel that experience is
>> experience, and the only way to actually GET the experience is to DO the
>> flight, if Convection, hail, ice, and lightning, and turbulence aren't
>> involved. Personally, knowing that not everyone can afford exactly what
>> they want, I would encourage people to do whatever they can from a
>> proficiency and personal-minimums standpoint to minimize their risk.
>> Proficiency is expensive though too, as it costs $50/hr just for the
>> fuel to
>> keep proficient.
>>
>> Also, I agree with your sentiments about will the pilot be ready, if
>> they
>> are used to flying the fancy system. Having that fancy system also
>> requires
>> you to stay proficient at it's operation...the same as any
>> GPS/NAV/COM of
>> course. I worried about how it would be if not only the EFIS failed,
>> but
>> what if I had to hand-fly with or without the EFIS. So far I haven't
>> felt
>> like I will have a problem keeping hand-flying proficient, although it's
>> tough to fly as good as the computer these days. It pays to try to stay
>> current in all regards. There again, the pilots best friend in an
>> emergency
>> is his autopilot...if it's still working.
>>
>>> If you plan on serious IFR and need that kind of panel for really
>>> hard IFR, then don't forget that heated pitot and static ports and
>>> fuel vents are things to consider just like wing and prop de-ice.
>>> All nice but more complexity and more dollars. HOWEVER if you fly
>>> IFR at all, you just gotta have a Garmin 396/496 with weather! It's
>>> the real minimum IFR equipment in my mind.
>>
>> Also great points. You're absolutely right about the Wx. It's one
>> of those
>> things that I don't know what I'd do without. Attached is a WSI
>> screenshot
>> from Saturday. It was very helpful knowing exactly which direction
>> held the
>> large cells, and how thick the line was.
>> It was a VFR flight, which is much more comfortable when you have any
>> red
>> spots in your area. The visual picture said go, but only when diverting
>> from the direct route.
>>
>> FWIW, I actually had the offer of wing de-ice, but decided to pass on
>> that
>> one in favor of avoiding ice altogether. But since I passed, a good
>> buddy
>> o'pal of mine will now get the honors of having the first de-ice'd
>> RV-10 out
>> there. Yep, it's coming available down the road.
>>
>> Add my .02 to everyone's .02, and pretty soon we'll be millionaires!
>>
>> Just read Deems's post. Totally wonderful information there as well.
>> I especially agree with #4. While I know some of the limitations of
>> some of
>> the other systems, I don't know all of the exact positive features, so I
>> speak mainly to my own knowledge base of the Chelton.
>> Many of the others got scratched off the list as I went along when I
>> found
>> something that was a deal-breaker to me...but that doesn't mean that
>> it's
>> not something that fits your goals. I love talking about the
>> capabilities
>> of what I have. Unlike when you talk about the RV-10 and have to
>> admit that
>> the doors suck, when I talk EFIS I really have very little to complain
>> about, and that's after getting married to it and having the
>> honeymoon pass.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>> Pick the mission, then pick the panel.
>>> Just my .02
>>>
>>> Bill S
>>> 7a Ark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:11 PM
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was
>>> GNS-430W
>>>
>>>
>>> This list cracks me up sometimes. ;)
>>>
>>> I have to say, to me, a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that
>>> grey thick wet layer of clouds as a perfect day to go for a pleasure
>>> flight and build some experience, the panel is my favorite part of
>>> the plane.
>>> It's not a status thing, or an ego thing, but a genuine interest in
>>> actually taking a creation I made, and have it do flights with ease
>>> that were painful to me only 2,3, or 5 years ago. There is no
>>> comparison to the old equipment when you l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy |
#1. Nope, got no private invite. Have tried to use his site from time to
time, but find this one easier, friendlier, more informative, although I
would like to encourage more participation by those who feel too shy or too
hurried or too self absorbed to help the group think and learning process.
Don't really care if he's putting his kids through college, but do care
about unsolicited editing.
#2. Have no care whatsoever, and in fact encourage that Jesse or Tim or
anyone else publicly helping folks create a solution, and, although I
commented to Jesse off-line, am not at all offended by the email traffic.
$3. How 'bout them Red Sox? Lost 2 of 3 from the Bombers. Sky is falling!
John J
#328
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:09 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Okay, call me jaded but I just received an invitation to migrate over to the
RV-10 web reflector offered by Doug Reeves. Question #1 - Now, am I the
only one?
Question #2, is it correct that this list has become a private conversation
between Saint Aviation and individuals who cannot take private conversations
private? Cause I am not on any list for Rosen Visors or Saint Aviation
business endevours nor see value in the build for knowing who they all are.
Tim, is that how you handled the axle extension offer?
At one time this was a sharing forum for diverse builders with common
interests.
John Cox #40600
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cal Hoffman
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Count me in - I am at the right point to install.
Cal Hoffman
97 Myrick Street
Barnwell, SC 29812
803-541-5242
cehoffman@bellsouth.net
I would like a full set of visors.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com> Saint
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and
let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set
for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and
phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check
after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate
USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee,
so I would need the fee added to the amount you send.
GOD BLESS!
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
Try your local industrial bearing supplier. Mine keeps it in stock.
Rhonda
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of orchidman
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:41 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Gas leak
flysrv10(at)gmail.com wrote:
> You did not ask for a fix but I will tell you in case you did not know. Use Loctite
290. It works wonders. I had the same issue with my QB wings.
I am looking for a source of this product. Can someone direct me to a supplier?
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N410GB reserved)
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114486#114486
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: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy |
It's still early John.. We were due for the slump..... John Cram 40569
----- Original Message -----
From: John Jessen<mailto:jjessen@rcn.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
#1. Nope, got no private invite. Have tried to use his site from
time to time, but find this one easier, friendlier, more informative,
although I would like to encourage more participation by those who feel
too shy or too hurried or too self absorbed to help the group think and
learning process. Don't really care if he's putting his kids through
college, but do care about unsolicited editing.
#2. Have no care whatsoever, and in fact encourage that Jesse or Tim
or anyone else publicly helping folks create a solution, and, although I
commented to Jesse off-line, am not at all offended by the email
traffic.
$3. How 'bout them Red Sox? Lost 2 of 3 from the Bombers. Sky is
falling!
John J
#328
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:09 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Okay, call me jaded but I just received an invitation to migrate over
to the RV-10 web reflector offered by Doug Reeves. Question #1 - Now,
am I the only one?
Question #2, is it correct that this list has become a private
conversation between Saint Aviation and individuals who cannot take
private conversations private? Cause I am not on any list for Rosen
Visors or Saint Aviation business endevours nor see value in the build
for knowing who they all are. Tim, is that how you handled the axle
extension offer?
At one time this was a sharing forum for diverse builders with common
interests.
John Cox #40600
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cal Hoffman
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:56 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Count me in - I am at the right point to install.
Cal Hoffman
97 Myrick Street
Barnwell, SC 29812
803-541-5242
cehoffman@bellsouth.net
I would like a full set of visors.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint<mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this
e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping
or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired
shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you
can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I
should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do
accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to
the amount you send.
GOD BLESS!
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com<mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
www.saintaviation.com<http://www.saintaviation.com/>
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List<http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?RV10-List>
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: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Bill and others on topic
Thanks for your input. On my recent trip to SnF, I considered instrument
choices the most difficult. Sort of feels like being in the fog. I found
making one choice and then building around that selection helps clear your
path. It's nice to have all the wonderful products to choose from. I am
still undecided on panel design and instrumentation. I'm concentrating on
fuselage details and watching the technology grow, products improve and
prices becoming more competitive.
Paul Grimstad
RV10 40450
Portland, Or.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "MauleDriver" <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
>
> A real good discussion Bill & Tim and all - Thanks for hashing this one
> around. Before making a few additional observations, a little background
> on my experience. I earned my IFR rating and 100% of my IMC experience in
> a minimally equipped Maule. A Garmin 300XL, regular steam stack, no
> autopilot, and a Precise Flight vac backup. A simple, slow aircraft with
> minimal but well maintained equipment. Most notably, I flew it hard for
> 5+ years in the southeast US with a schedule that encouraged me to fly
> every week, day and night, with specific destinations in mind. Think
> personal short haul airline for the wife and I. I'm sure that 90+% of the
> flying was in VFR conditions though 90+% of it was flown on an IFR plan.
> And that my actual IMC flight time is still under 20 hours. I've probably
> flown fewer than 5 approaches to minimums. But the IFR system is what
> makes light aircraft travel easy, fun, and safe for this pilot. In
> exchange for the rating, you get to run your own personal airline. With
> the RV10 you get to fly it your own personal aircraft. An unimaginable
> privilege. Anyway,
>
> Mission is the big issue we all face. And life tends to make one's
> mission change over time. I agree that a VFR-only ship needs only the
> most basic panel with a 496 for Wx. IFR capability adds the $$$ no matter
> what route you take. But how can you predict your mission while in the
> middle of one of the more life changing experiences you may ever
> experience - building an plane? Ironically, my decision to build my dream
> cross country cruiser has completely changed my flying - no more personal
> airline, I now want to stay home and build. Who knew? When I finish the
> '10, will I return to personal airliner mode? No idea. Mission drives
> the big and small decisions but I know my ability to predict my mission is
> close to zero. Some critical decisions you simply have to make and live
> with the consequences.
>
> Tim's observations on Wx match mine. It is a total game changer for VFR
> and IFR where I live. Sort of like the invention of the wheel for those
> that travel. I used the infamous Cheap Bastard software on an old RF Palm
> before the 396. When dodging buildups in central Florida, a single 30 min
> old picture is worth a thousand words from those incredibly helpful JAX
> controllers.
>
> I've never flown behind an autopilot!! Can't wait. Needing to hand fly
> the Maule in all conditions drives all aspects of my IFR flight planning
> and execution. Nothing that is done well is done casually. Every map is
> folded, every plate indexed, pencils are halved and dulled, backup pencils
> mounted, flashlights charged, headlights worn. relief bag prepped. Did I
> mention avionics yet? I am convinced that the autopilot capability is
> paramount. Many of my panel planning decisions will revolve around
> maximizing this capability and it's proper integration.
>
> Let me add my 2 cents on the "I'm only going to do layer busting with the
> occasional approach to 500 and 5" discussion. I totally agree with the
> point that, the less you plan to do low approaches to minimums the more
> you will benefit from the high end equipment. No matter how well you
> plan, or at least no matter how well you plan to plan, safety dictates you
> have to be prepared to fly to standard in all situations....wait! Let me
> get off that high horse... here's the experience and situation that
> brought it home to me. The typical late flight home to my base. Sun is
> setting, conditions are benign. I may have to poke thru some broken to
> get down to 2,000 or so before VFRing home. 20 minutes out, I notice the
> ground temperature dropping to the dew point and suddenly fog has turned
> RDU IFR at minimums or less. Whoa! Let's see, I can backtrack to GSO.
> Nope, same thing. RIC? Same thing. As far as I can 'see', a light fog
> is developing over every airport within 1.5 hours of my home. A day VFR
> trip with an evening landing has turned into multiple night approaches
> into fog! I've since come to understand that this is not an uncommon
> unforecast situation here in the summer. Fortunately, if fog isn't
> predicted, it will probably disappear in an hour or so. Probably. I
> still don't know how to plan myself out of this one. The less you plan to
> use the ticket, the more you need all the help you can get.
>
> I haven't seriously begun my panel planning but I'm convinced that the
> latest equipment (HITS, Wx, integrated autopilot, etc) provides
> significantly greater capability than the steam stack needles with moving
> map. Most important, it can provide a large safety margin and great risk
> mitigation for the more casual, recreational pilot. Yes, there are some
> traps in that thinking but one can avoid many others with ease.
>
> Bill "dreaming of a great panel while sorting thru the beginnings of a
> wiring layout for my wings" Watson
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> Bill, This is a fantastic reply. I hope you don't get the idea that I'm
>> dictating to anyone or suggesting that everyone do the same, or even
>> that my choices are the "right" or necessary choices. It's really
>> all so widely individual that indeed there are as many appropriate
>> combinations as there are builders....although not all builders
>> choose appropriate combinations for themselves. ;)
>>
>> As far as philosophy of IFR flight goes, I can tell that we agree far
>> more than any disagreement...that's for sure. Your thoughts are
>> pretty much really good and valid as far as I'm concerned. About the
>> only thing I disagree with below is that jumping to some of the
>> more expensive stuff only adds marginal improvement. For 80-90% of
>> the feature list, I'd agree, but I really think there are a couple
>> of things available today that if widely used would no doubt change
>> the accident rates significantly. But from a general point, you're
>> right...the more money you throw at anything, the more marginal
>> the return gets. LNav/Vnav GPS approaches vs. LPV approaches is
>> an example.
>>
>> Regarding your last question about Wx. I have actually said that
>> before. The single best thing in my plane that changes everything
>> is the onboard Wx as far as changing the overall possiblities of
>> flight. It's well worth the fee. Behind that I'd have to say is
>> the synthetic vision and HITS and the ability for the AP to
>> actually do a hands-off approach. Coming from a steam gauge
>> background, the WX changes completely the situations you'd get
>> in to. But then the Synthetic vision and HITS completely change the
>> ease at which approaches are flown. If someone were on their
>> last few hundred bucks on their panel though, with even a VFR
>> panel, my #1 recommendation would be for WX...and that's even
>> for any VFR x/c pilot. You're right that it's just a totally
>> experience changing feature.
>>
>> The features I see as far less useful are things like on-screen
>> charts. There are good ways to deal with that for much less
>> money. Many people don't realize that Jepp subscriptions for
>> things like that are very very pricey, and the feature itself
>> costs a fortune too. The G900 unlock code for chartview
>> costs $3000 alone, plus the subscription. The GMX-200 costs
>> $2000 for the unlock code, and then *requires* a subscription
>> to jeppview for $738/yr + 100 to activate it. Jeppview is
>> only available for Garmin and Avidyne right now. I have a
>> pricey database subscription for the Chelton, which is a
>> necessary evil just like on a GNS-430/530/480, but charts
>> are much more reasonable on a tablet. $400 or less for
>> the software, and $200/yr for a complete set of IFR/VFR/
>> Hi-Lo Alt Enroute, WAC's, and the works. That's actually
>> affordable....and it's not the cheapest possible way to do things.
>> So there are definitely features that are "nice" to have and
>> add lots of cost, but only provide some marginal improvements.
>> Even my tablet will overlay my plane on an approach chart, and
>> it'll do it without messing up my screen display.
>>
>> Bill, I totally appreciate your 100% gentlemanly posts, and very
>> great points. I know there are a lot of people reading, and it's
>> a very worthy discussion. Having it with a guy with your demeanor
>> is fantastic. No flame suit required.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>>> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>>>
>>> Tim, also great points but all I was really suggesting is that while
>>> everyone that flies IFR should be capable of safe easy flight to mins,
>>> there
>>> are different ways to get there. I agree that one shouldn't fly IFR if
>>> they
>>> can only handle "light" IFR but the equipment you choose can dictate how
>>> much risk you are willing to handle. Like you I'm sure, there should be
>>> no
>>> IFR flight without a solid backup(out)plan. If I have an autopilot
>>> failure,
>>> I'm not going to mins if there is any way out but I would probably hand
>>> fly
>>> to LOC mins plus 500 with no qualms. Risk management is what IFR is all
>>> about. You feel better with a full load of equipment, my suggestion is
>>> that
>>> it isn't required for the majority of IFR flight BUT if I had the budget
>>> I
>>> would have it too. BTW, I consider an AP mandatory for single pilot IFR
>>> so
>>> I would not even consider a true "minimalist" approach to panel choices.
>>>
>>> Also not arguing the "light IFR" point, but there is VFR and Marginal
>>> VFR
>>> and there really is IFR and LOW IFR so you do get to make a choice of
>>> how
>>> much you're willing to bite off. Your mode of risk management is to
>>> load up
>>> the airplane, be very pilot current, and you're good to go. More
>>> equipment
>>> IS better risk management but at a cost. If you can do it, I would too
>>> but
>>> after the first 15K of equipment, the next 10K or 20K is just cause it
>>> makes
>>> us marginally safer if you attack the same conditions. If you just
>>> don't go
>>> there when the ceiling is 300, that's a way to do it as well.
>>>
>>> Nice discussion, always enjoy reading your posts. So last question,...
>>> Would you say that a basic IFR airplane with AP and on board Wx is safer
>>> than a loaded panel with no weather ? We do have to make choices on
>>> limited
>>> budgets ;-) A real question for a lot of folks is to either have a
>>> better(more expensive) AP/NAV combination or alternately add WX with
>>> some
>>> additional monthly fees. Personally, I will take the Wx every time if I
>>> can't afford both.
>>>
>>> Bill S
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, I did opt for a dual GRT, 430W, TT VSVG, Garmin 396 with WX and
>>> backup
>>> instruments in my 7 and would have done Chelton if I had the dough but
>>> didn't :-(
>>>
>>> Do not archive
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:31 PM
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>>>> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>
>>>> Just another view but picking the right panel becomes a lot easier if
>>>> you define the mission first. Chelton are great, Fully coupled
>>>> autopilots are wonderful, WAAS GPS supreme and you can get it all for
>>>> only a gazillion dollars. The question in my mind is how much do we
>>>> really need,... Granted if it's a "want" then all the discussion about
>>>> price and package is moot. ( BTW, Tim defined his mission as "a real
>>>> geek, and a pilot who looks at that grey thick wet layer of clouds as a
>>>> perfect day" so if that is not you, it will make a difference")
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, that statement I made was less of my "mission", but much more
>>> my
>>> "style". My "mission" might better be summed up like this slightly
>>> edited
>>> reply to an offline comment I got.
>>>
>>> "When people say I don't "need" all that stuff in the panel, I
>>> think....as
>>> far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing to trust my "superior"
>>> (laughing) skills are good enough to put my families life on the line
>>> with, risking their lives unnecessarily. For me, what I "need" is "the
>>> best
>>> I can do". It may cost a few dollars, but I want every bit of ease,
>>> safety,
>>> and help that I can get, so that I can be more assured that I'll have
>>> another day to fly another flight."
>>>
>>> For me, it's about totally enjoying IFR flight, but putting all the
>>> technology to good use in actually keeping my family and passengers
>>> alive.
>>> IFR flight isn't something you dabble in. VFR and IFR are absolute
>>> black
>>> and white, when you play by the rules. For a VFR only pilot, I wouldn't
>>> get
>>> any of the high-end systems, and my main GPS would just be a 496 even as
>>> a
>>> gadget guy. For an IFR pilot, there is a lot more at stake. The
>>> accident
>>> records clearly state the highly increased risk in GA IFR flight,
>>> especially
>>> single-pilot. Having a very good system at your hands is like having a
>>> 2nd
>>> pilot. In fact, when I first began my actual IFR experience
>>> post-training,
>>> I immediately purchased an autopilot for my old plane, because I was not
>>> willing to even consider flying my family IFR without an autopilot.
>>> This is
>>> just an extension of that caution, brought about by a little more
>>> experience, and, because it's possible to GREATLY increase the survival
>>> chances in an IFR aircraft with the technology today. There are so
>>> absolutely many accidents that need never happen. I remember reading an
>>> article recently where a plane flew a few hundred feet below the
>>> glideslope
>>> due to some misc. errors in reading when to descend on final. With
>>> todays
>>> synthetic vision approaches, that kind of thing just doesn't need to
>>> happen.
>>> It's a world where the slightest mis-interpretation of a piece of paper
>>> can
>>> mean sudden death. Even WITH the equipment, there is plenty of risk,
>>> but
>>> for those who fly their families (IFR), what do you want to do to
>>> minimize
>>> it? I'm selfish enough in that I love IFR flight so much that I'll
>>> actually
>>> be willing to FLY IFR with them on board, whereas I could just adamantly
>>> become a VFR pilot, and ignore that risk. But, I'm also not willing
>>> to make it harder than I have to, to ensure their long-term health.
>>> Many have seen my kids photos.....what do YOU think I should consider
>>> Danielle's value as.....$5,000, $20,000, or $50,000? And is Colleen
>>> worth
>>> more, or less? Quite literally, the money I spent has the potential to
>>> save
>>> just one, very minor, mistake while in IMC, at some point in our lives,
>>> that
>>> will make even $100,000 for that extra "software feature" worth every
>>> penny.
>>>
>>> So my mission is the ability to fly in IMC with as little risk of life
>>> and
>>> limb as possible.
>>>
>>> Also, I know that this kind of discussion bores the ba-jeeses out of
>>> some
>>> people, but keep in mind that in that survey done by Van's way back as
>>> to
>>> what kind of plane (IFR or VFR) the builders were building, the vast
>>> majority were building IFR aircraft. So, I usually prefer to consider
>>> meaningful panel discussions as IFR panel discussions. If it's a VFR
>>> panel,
>>> there's very little that is critical about planning a panel.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be cool if 5 years from now, the accident record for IFR
>>> flight
>>> were to actually equal what it is for VFR flight...and then some!?! (If
>>> we
>>> could just get people to fill up with fuel when needed, that would even
>>> help
>>> the VFR's safety record)
>>>
>>>
>>>> For example, I fly a lot in the south, Ark, LA, Texas, Ok and normally
>>>> approaches flown to mins plus 500 are good enough. I would guess that
>>>> to be 80% of the time when you actually need an approach which is an
>>>> even smaller amount of your total flight time. This is from memory but
>>>> I have flown about 40 cross country trips in the last two years
>>>> (200-400) miles. All have been filed IFR, of them only 5 or 6 actually
>>>> required an approach at the end and then only one was to mins plus
>>>> about 300. Everything else was basically just to let down through a
>>>> layer to about 1,000 agl. BTW, My whole attitude/experience would be
>>>> different if I flew in the North East or in California Coastal
>>> fog!
>>>
>>> Very true...but now you're arguing that a person who's only going to be
>>> doing minimal low approaches should maybe think about lesser equipment,
>>> right? IMHO, it's probably the opposite, and your point would be
>>> perfectly
>>> valid. Here's my thought....
>>>
>>> It's hard enough for a private pilot to stay IFR current, with plenty of
>>> IMC
>>> experience. If you're going to fly approaches in IMC, the pilot with
>>> less
>>> currency could probably benefit more from some of the more substantial
>>> equipment than the guy who does it every week, which your 40 flights is
>>> quite a portion of a year. You may indeed have the "superior" skills
>>> that I
>>> laughingly mentioned about myself above.
>>> Then, it's just a matter of the same economics of what is the value to
>>> you
>>> in life and limb dollars? (Keep in mind I really believe that some of
>>> today's technology has the breakthrough possibility of changing the
>>> accident
>>> rate....and SOMEBODY is going to die doing it, so why not err on the
>>> safe
>>> side?)
>>>
>>>
>>>> All of the really nice IFR stuff is only needed at the mins so you are
>>>> buying a lot of equipment for the rare approach to mins. In most
>>>> cases, you are put on vectors, intercept the approach NAV course from
>>>> vectors, and then descend from the FAF at a fixed rate of 400-800 fpm
>>>> to mins plus 400- 500 or more. Given that, any equipment that will let
>>>> you fly with a heading bug while holding altitude, while monitoring the
>>>> approach VOR or GPS but preferentially by GPS for spatial awareness
>>>> will comfortably work for any but the most die hard IFR pilots. At the
>>>> FAF, dial in your descent rate and leave the NAV coupled and you really
>>>> don't need a coupled glide slope to get comfortably
>>> to mins plus 500 or so.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't disagree with your thoughts for the most part. That's how I
>>> feel
>>> about my backup gauges....I mean, how much do you absolutely need when
>>> the
>>> crap hits the fan? With ATC help, and radar contact, you can probably
>>> pull
>>> off a whole lot if you stay calm. As far as I'm concerned, you have it
>>> exactly right for how I feel if I have a major EFIS failure. Other than
>>> that though, for a few bucks I have the opportunity to keep that safety
>>> level up. For what it's worth, some of my more fearful moments were not
>>> on
>>> the low portion of an approach.
>>> In fact, on the last few seconds before breaking out, it hasn't been bad
>>> at
>>> all. For me the climb phase, and some enroute and vectoring phase time
>>> has
>>> been pretty tough. Spatial disorientation is something I became acutely
>>> aware of, along with vertigo. Interestingly, while I commonly at least
>>> felt
>>> the "leans" in turbulent IMC before, I haven't had that experience with
>>> synthetic vision. I can only surmise that this is partly due to the
>>> added
>>> "visibility" I'm now seeing. There are times, that I can honestly say
>>> that
>>> I had my hands full just keeping myself hand-flying the plane to keep it
>>> upright while feeling the leans in a big way. Having that experience
>>> was
>>> pretty humbling.
>>> I do understand that it's something that can be overcome, but, does the
>>> *average* IFR pilot fly enough approaches to realistically keep their
>>> proficiency to what is *really* required for safety? (Not the standard
>>> legal
>>> definition of currency)
>>>
>>> Also, it wouldn't be responsible of me to tell someone that there's such
>>> a
>>> thing as "light" IFR where you just go busting through thin layers and
>>> then
>>> continue on top. You truly can get yourself into some situations that
>>> way.
>>>
>>> I catch your comment about if you were in the North East or California's
>>> coastal fog, but in almost all areas of the country you can find some
>>> tough
>>> IFR flying, and the question is are you planning to take your plane all
>>> over
>>> the country and just fly VFR when you get some soggy clouds in your way?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now, all of this is up for grabs if you really want to fly to 200' mins
>>>> on the rare occasion but reasonable risk management on the ground prior
>>>> to take-off makes even the most basic equipment more than adequate
>>>> "most" of the time.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line is that you can have a nice economical IFR panel that will
>>>> work well with nominal flight management or a really high dollar system
>>>> that will take you to mins with your hands off. Knowing which you will
>>>> be comfortable with should be the first part of the planning process.
>>>> In some cases, we just can't afford the stuff we would like to have and
>>>> fly with less but manage the risk better. Your call, but knowing what
>>>> you really want to do "most" of the time is important. The other
>>>> question you have to ask is "if I buy this fancy system, will I (the
>>>> pilot) be ready to take it to mins when the time comes."
>>>>
>>>
>>> All good points. I do agree that financial things do play a part in the
>>> decision process. For me, I would probably be more of an IFR avoider
>>> with
>>> the family on board without the gear, yet I feel that experience is
>>> experience, and the only way to actually GET the experience is to DO the
>>> flight, if Convection, hail, ice, and lightning, and turbulence aren't
>>> involved. Personally, knowing that not everyone can afford exactly what
>>> they want, I would encourage people to do whatever they can from a
>>> proficiency and personal-minimums standpoint to minimize their risk.
>>> Proficiency is expensive though too, as it costs $50/hr just for the
>>> fuel to
>>> keep proficient.
>>>
>>> Also, I agree with your sentiments about will the pilot be ready, if
>>> they
>>> are used to flying the fancy system. Having that fancy system also
>>> requires
>>> you to stay proficient at it's operation...the same as any GPS/NAV/COM
>>> of
>>> course. I worried about how it would be if not only the EFIS failed,
>>> but
>>> what if I had to hand-fly with or without the EFIS. So far I haven't
>>> felt
>>> like I will have a problem keeping hand-flying proficient, although it's
>>> tough to fly as good as the computer these days. It pays to try to stay
>>> current in all regards. There again, the pilots best friend in an
>>> emergency
>>> is his autopilot...if it's still working.
>>>
>>>> If you plan on serious IFR and need that kind of panel for really hard
>>>> IFR, then don't forget that heated pitot and static ports and fuel
>>>> vents are things to consider just like wing and prop de-ice. All nice
>>>> but more complexity and more dollars. HOWEVER if you fly IFR at all,
>>>> you just gotta have a Garmin 396/496 with weather! It's the real
>>>> minimum IFR equipment in my mind.
>>>
>>> Also great points. You're absolutely right about the Wx. It's one of
>>> those
>>> things that I don't know what I'd do without. Attached is a WSI
>>> screenshot
>>> from Saturday. It was very helpful knowing exactly which direction held
>>> the
>>> large cells, and how thick the line was.
>>> It was a VFR flight, which is much more comfortable when you have any
>>> red
>>> spots in your area. The visual picture said go, but only when diverting
>>> from the direct route.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I actually had the offer of wing de-ice, but decided to pass on
>>> that
>>> one in favor of avoiding ice altogether. But since I passed, a good
>>> buddy
>>> o'pal of mine will now get the honors of having the first de-ice'd RV-10
>>> out
>>> there. Yep, it's coming available down the road.
>>>
>>> Add my .02 to everyone's .02, and pretty soon we'll be millionaires!
>>>
>>> Just read Deems's post. Totally wonderful information there as well.
>>> I especially agree with #4. While I know some of the limitations of
>>> some of
>>> the other systems, I don't know all of the exact positive features, so I
>>> speak mainly to my own knowledge base of the Chelton.
>>> Many of the others got scratched off the list as I went along when I
>>> found
>>> something that was a deal-breaker to me...but that doesn't mean that
>>> it's
>>> not something that fits your goals. I love talking about the
>>> capabilities
>>> of what I have. Unlike when you talk about the RV-10 and have to admit
>>> that
>>> the doors suck, when I talk EFIS I really have very little to complain
>>> about, and that's after getting married to it and having the honeymoon
>>> pass.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>> Pick the mission, then pick the panel. Just my .02
>>>>
>>>> Bill S
>>>> 7a Ark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:11 PM
>>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was
>>>> GNS-430W
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This list cracks me up sometimes. ;)
>>>>
>>>> I have to say, to me, a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that grey
>>>> thick wet layer of clouds as a perfect day to go for a pleasure flight
>>>> and build some experience, the panel is my favorite part of the plane.
>>>> It's not a status thing, or an ego thing, but a genuine interest in
>>>> actually taking a creation I made, and have it do flights with ease
>>>> that were painful to me only 2,3, or 5 years ago. There is no
>>>> comparison to the old equipment when you l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy |
Of course you did, he has to invite people so that he can justify his
outrageous rates for advertising. Are we forgetting how he does not
"EDIT" anyone's responses, as long as they do not say anything negative
about any paying vendor on his site that is. He is once again trying to
sway the market with a new set of builders and especially a group of
builders that have deeper pockets, so he can raise the advertising rates
for his advertisers to reach a higher end target market?
Call me jaded, but at least Matt is letting us post our opinions freely,
and attachments to boot!
Dan
N289DT RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:09 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Okay, call me jaded but I just received an invitation to migrate over to
the RV-10 web reflector offered by Doug Reeves. Question #1 - Now, am I
the only one?
Question #2, is it correct that this list has become a private
conversation between Saint Aviation and individuals who cannot take
private conversations private? Cause I am not on any list for Rosen
Visors or Saint Aviation business endevours nor see value in the build
for knowing who they all are. Tim, is that how you handled the axle
extension offer?
At one time this was a sharing forum for diverse builders with common
interests.
John Cox #40600
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cal Hoffman
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Count me in - I am at the right point to install.
Cal Hoffman
97 Myrick Street
Barnwell, SC 29812
803-541-5242
cehoffman@bellsouth.net
I would like a full set of visors.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to
this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus
shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the
desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice
that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping
charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like
that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the
fee added to the amount you send.
GOD BLESS!
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Tax the internet |
Just a heads up. Congress is out to tax the internet again. If you want to
see the results of the AL Gore tax to internet the schools, watch them waste
tax dollars to rip out the wires to go wireless. Or look at the extra books
the kids bring home from school this time of year, many are hardly used. All
paid for by our tax dollars at the direction of Teddy and the "no child left
behind".
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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
I agree that products improve, but I don't know about the prices becoming
more competitive. This is just shooting from the hip, but I don't remember
any price drops in any instruments that I have been buying for a long time.
It seems like prices are going up if any change at all. I guess you could
argue that, because of inflation, prices are dropping, but I think that
probably accounts for some of the price hikes.
I certainly haven't seen Hartzell prices come down since MT and Aero
Composites have become more popular.
I haven't seen Garmin prices come down since Chelton and GRT have entered
the market, and they certainly aren't even considering Dynon, AFS and
TruTrak as competition. In fact, I seem to remember the price of the
GNS-480 going UP when the 430W and 530W came out. They have just started
offering their G900X, but the price on that doesn't seem to be driven by
competition.
This is not a slam, just pointing out that, while products may become more
powerful, you aren't probably going to be paying anything less for them in 2
years than you would now (not counting the time value of money - there's
that accountant in me coming out).
I do very much agree, however, that mission should be the first driving
factor, then budget (to the degree that it matters, which for some is very
little and for others is enormous), then picking the most important piece of
equipment and building around it. For some, this will be starting with the
Chelton. For others, it will start with the GNS-430, 480 or 530. For the
VFR folks, it will probably start with the 296, 396 or 496. Some may even
start with the Auto Pilot and work out from there based on what drives it
best.
This same process should also drive instrument panel layout IMHO, with the
important things close and the less important things a little further away
(I sure like having the radios left of center - bracing).
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Grimstad
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Bill and others on topic
Thanks for your input. On my recent trip to SnF, I considered instrument
choices the most difficult. Sort of feels like being in the fog. I found
making one choice and then building around that selection helps clear your
path. It's nice to have all the wonderful products to choose from. I am
still undecided on panel design and instrumentation. I'm concentrating on
fuselage details and watching the technology grow, products improve and
prices becoming more competitive.
Paul Grimstad
RV10 40450
Portland, Or.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "MauleDriver" <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
>
> A real good discussion Bill & Tim and all - Thanks for hashing this one
> around. Before making a few additional observations, a little background
> on my experience. I earned my IFR rating and 100% of my IMC experience in
> a minimally equipped Maule. A Garmin 300XL, regular steam stack, no
> autopilot, and a Precise Flight vac backup. A simple, slow aircraft with
> minimal but well maintained equipment. Most notably, I flew it hard for
> 5+ years in the southeast US with a schedule that encouraged me to fly
> every week, day and night, with specific destinations in mind. Think
> personal short haul airline for the wife and I. I'm sure that 90+% of the
> flying was in VFR conditions though 90+% of it was flown on an IFR plan.
> And that my actual IMC flight time is still under 20 hours. I've probably
> flown fewer than 5 approaches to minimums. But the IFR system is what
> makes light aircraft travel easy, fun, and safe for this pilot. In
> exchange for the rating, you get to run your own personal airline. With
> the RV10 you get to fly it your own personal aircraft. An unimaginable
> privilege. Anyway,
>
> Mission is the big issue we all face. And life tends to make one's
> mission change over time. I agree that a VFR-only ship needs only the
> most basic panel with a 496 for Wx. IFR capability adds the $$$ no matter
> what route you take. But how can you predict your mission while in the
> middle of one of the more life changing experiences you may ever
> experience - building an plane? Ironically, my decision to build my dream
> cross country cruiser has completely changed my flying - no more personal
> airline, I now want to stay home and build. Who knew? When I finish the
> '10, will I return to personal airliner mode? No idea. Mission drives
> the big and small decisions but I know my ability to predict my mission is
> close to zero. Some critical decisions you simply have to make and live
> with the consequences.
>
> Tim's observations on Wx match mine. It is a total game changer for VFR
> and IFR where I live. Sort of like the invention of the wheel for those
> that travel. I used the infamous Cheap Bastard software on an old RF Palm
> before the 396. When dodging buildups in central Florida, a single 30 min
> old picture is worth a thousand words from those incredibly helpful JAX
> controllers.
>
> I've never flown behind an autopilot!! Can't wait. Needing to hand fly
> the Maule in all conditions drives all aspects of my IFR flight planning
> and execution. Nothing that is done well is done casually. Every map is
> folded, every plate indexed, pencils are halved and dulled, backup pencils
> mounted, flashlights charged, headlights worn. relief bag prepped. Did I
> mention avionics yet? I am convinced that the autopilot capability is
> paramount. Many of my panel planning decisions will revolve around
> maximizing this capability and it's proper integration.
>
> Let me add my 2 cents on the "I'm only going to do layer busting with the
> occasional approach to 500 and 5" discussion. I totally agree with the
> point that, the less you plan to do low approaches to minimums the more
> you will benefit from the high end equipment. No matter how well you
> plan, or at least no matter how well you plan to plan, safety dictates you
> have to be prepared to fly to standard in all situations....wait! Let me
> get off that high horse... here's the experience and situation that
> brought it home to me. The typical late flight home to my base. Sun is
> setting, conditions are benign. I may have to poke thru some broken to
> get down to 2,000 or so before VFRing home. 20 minutes out, I notice the
> ground temperature dropping to the dew point and suddenly fog has turned
> RDU IFR at minimums or less. Whoa! Let's see, I can backtrack to GSO.
> Nope, same thing. RIC? Same thing. As far as I can 'see', a light fog
> is developing over every airport within 1.5 hours of my home. A day VFR
> trip with an evening landing has turned into multiple night approaches
> into fog! I've since come to understand that this is not an uncommon
> unforecast situation here in the summer. Fortunately, if fog isn't
> predicted, it will probably disappear in an hour or so. Probably. I
> still don't know how to plan myself out of this one. The less you plan to
> use the ticket, the more you need all the help you can get.
>
> I haven't seriously begun my panel planning but I'm convinced that the
> latest equipment (HITS, Wx, integrated autopilot, etc) provides
> significantly greater capability than the steam stack needles with moving
> map. Most important, it can provide a large safety margin and great risk
> mitigation for the more casual, recreational pilot. Yes, there are some
> traps in that thinking but one can avoid many others with ease.
>
> Bill "dreaming of a great panel while sorting thru the beginnings of a
> wiring layout for my wings" Watson
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> Bill, This is a fantastic reply. I hope you don't get the idea that I'm
>> dictating to anyone or suggesting that everyone do the same, or even
>> that my choices are the "right" or necessary choices. It's really
>> all so widely individual that indeed there are as many appropriate
>> combinations as there are builders....although not all builders
>> choose appropriate combinations for themselves. ;)
>>
>> As far as philosophy of IFR flight goes, I can tell that we agree far
>> more than any disagreement...that's for sure. Your thoughts are
>> pretty much really good and valid as far as I'm concerned. About the
>> only thing I disagree with below is that jumping to some of the
>> more expensive stuff only adds marginal improvement. For 80-90% of
>> the feature list, I'd agree, but I really think there are a couple
>> of things available today that if widely used would no doubt change
>> the accident rates significantly. But from a general point, you're
>> right...the more money you throw at anything, the more marginal
>> the return gets. LNav/Vnav GPS approaches vs. LPV approaches is
>> an example.
>>
>> Regarding your last question about Wx. I have actually said that
>> before. The single best thing in my plane that changes everything
>> is the onboard Wx as far as changing the overall possiblities of
>> flight. It's well worth the fee. Behind that I'd have to say is
>> the synthetic vision and HITS and the ability for the AP to
>> actually do a hands-off approach. Coming from a steam gauge
>> background, the WX changes completely the situations you'd get
>> in to. But then the Synthetic vision and HITS completely change the
>> ease at which approaches are flown. If someone were on their
>> last few hundred bucks on their panel though, with even a VFR
>> panel, my #1 recommendation would be for WX...and that's even
>> for any VFR x/c pilot. You're right that it's just a totally
>> experience changing feature.
>>
>> The features I see as far less useful are things like on-screen
>> charts. There are good ways to deal with that for much less
>> money. Many people don't realize that Jepp subscriptions for
>> things like that are very very pricey, and the feature itself
>> costs a fortune too. The G900 unlock code for chartview
>> costs $3000 alone, plus the subscription. The GMX-200 costs
>> $2000 for the unlock code, and then *requires* a subscription
>> to jeppview for $738/yr + 100 to activate it. Jeppview is
>> only available for Garmin and Avidyne right now. I have a
>> pricey database subscription for the Chelton, which is a
>> necessary evil just like on a GNS-430/530/480, but charts
>> are much more reasonable on a tablet. $400 or less for
>> the software, and $200/yr for a complete set of IFR/VFR/
>> Hi-Lo Alt Enroute, WAC's, and the works. That's actually
>> affordable....and it's not the cheapest possible way to do things.
>> So there are definitely features that are "nice" to have and
>> add lots of cost, but only provide some marginal improvements.
>> Even my tablet will overlay my plane on an approach chart, and
>> it'll do it without messing up my screen display.
>>
>> Bill, I totally appreciate your 100% gentlemanly posts, and very
>> great points. I know there are a lot of people reading, and it's
>> a very worthy discussion. Having it with a guy with your demeanor
>> is fantastic. No flame suit required.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>>> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>>>
>>> Tim, also great points but all I was really suggesting is that while
>>> everyone that flies IFR should be capable of safe easy flight to mins,
>>> there
>>> are different ways to get there. I agree that one shouldn't fly IFR if
>>> they
>>> can only handle "light" IFR but the equipment you choose can dictate how
>>> much risk you are willing to handle. Like you I'm sure, there should be
>>> no
>>> IFR flight without a solid backup(out)plan. If I have an autopilot
>>> failure,
>>> I'm not going to mins if there is any way out but I would probably hand
>>> fly
>>> to LOC mins plus 500 with no qualms. Risk management is what IFR is all
>>> about. You feel better with a full load of equipment, my suggestion is
>>> that
>>> it isn't required for the majority of IFR flight BUT if I had the budget
>>> I
>>> would have it too. BTW, I consider an AP mandatory for single pilot IFR
>>> so
>>> I would not even consider a true "minimalist" approach to panel choices.
>>>
>>> Also not arguing the "light IFR" point, but there is VFR and Marginal
>>> VFR
>>> and there really is IFR and LOW IFR so you do get to make a choice of
>>> how
>>> much you're willing to bite off. Your mode of risk management is to
>>> load up
>>> the airplane, be very pilot current, and you're good to go. More
>>> equipment
>>> IS better risk management but at a cost. If you can do it, I would too
>>> but
>>> after the first 15K of equipment, the next 10K or 20K is just cause it
>>> makes
>>> us marginally safer if you attack the same conditions. If you just
>>> don't go
>>> there when the ceiling is 300, that's a way to do it as well.
>>>
>>> Nice discussion, always enjoy reading your posts. So last question,...
>>> Would you say that a basic IFR airplane with AP and on board Wx is safer
>>> than a loaded panel with no weather ? We do have to make choices on
>>> limited
>>> budgets ;-) A real question for a lot of folks is to either have a
>>> better(more expensive) AP/NAV combination or alternately add WX with
>>> some
>>> additional monthly fees. Personally, I will take the Wx every time if I
>>> can't afford both.
>>>
>>> Bill S
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, I did opt for a dual GRT, 430W, TT VSVG, Garmin 396 with WX and
>>> backup
>>> instruments in my 7 and would have done Chelton if I had the dough but
>>> didn't :-(
>>>
>>> Do not archive
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:31 PM
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>>>> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>
>>>> Just another view but picking the right panel becomes a lot easier if
>>>> you define the mission first. Chelton are great, Fully coupled
>>>> autopilots are wonderful, WAAS GPS supreme and you can get it all for
>>>> only a gazillion dollars. The question in my mind is how much do we
>>>> really need,... Granted if it's a "want" then all the discussion about
>>>> price and package is moot. ( BTW, Tim defined his mission as "a real
>>>> geek, and a pilot who looks at that grey thick wet layer of clouds as a
>>>> perfect day" so if that is not you, it will make a difference")
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, that statement I made was less of my "mission", but much more
>>> my
>>> "style". My "mission" might better be summed up like this slightly
>>> edited
>>> reply to an offline comment I got.
>>>
>>> "When people say I don't "need" all that stuff in the panel, I
>>> think....as
>>> far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing to trust my "superior"
>>> (laughing) skills are good enough to put my families life on the line
>>> with, risking their lives unnecessarily. For me, what I "need" is "the
>>> best
>>> I can do". It may cost a few dollars, but I want every bit of ease,
>>> safety,
>>> and help that I can get, so that I can be more assured that I'll have
>>> another day to fly another flight."
>>>
>>> For me, it's about totally enjoying IFR flight, but putting all the
>>> technology to good use in actually keeping my family and passengers
>>> alive.
>>> IFR flight isn't something you dabble in. VFR and IFR are absolute
>>> black
>>> and white, when you play by the rules. For a VFR only pilot, I wouldn't
>>> get
>>> any of the high-end systems, and my main GPS would just be a 496 even as
>>> a
>>> gadget guy. For an IFR pilot, there is a lot more at stake. The
>>> accident
>>> records clearly state the highly increased risk in GA IFR flight,
>>> especially
>>> single-pilot. Having a very good system at your hands is like having a
>>> 2nd
>>> pilot. In fact, when I first began my actual IFR experience
>>> post-training,
>>> I immediately purchased an autopilot for my old plane, because I was not
>>> willing to even consider flying my family IFR without an autopilot.
>>> This is
>>> just an extension of that caution, brought about by a little more
>>> experience, and, because it's possible to GREATLY increase the survival
>>> chances in an IFR aircraft with the technology today. There are so
>>> absolutely many accidents that need never happen. I remember reading an
>>> article recently where a plane flew a few hundred feet below the
>>> glideslope
>>> due to some misc. errors in reading when to descend on final. With
>>> todays
>>> synthetic vision approaches, that kind of thing just doesn't need to
>>> happen.
>>> It's a world where the slightest mis-interpretation of a piece of paper
>>> can
>>> mean sudden death. Even WITH the equipment, there is plenty of risk,
>>> but
>>> for those who fly their families (IFR), what do you want to do to
>>> minimize
>>> it? I'm selfish enough in that I love IFR flight so much that I'll
>>> actually
>>> be willing to FLY IFR with them on board, whereas I could just adamantly
>>> become a VFR pilot, and ignore that risk. But, I'm also not willing
>>> to make it harder than I have to, to ensure their long-term health.
>>> Many have seen my kids photos.....what do YOU think I should consider
>>> Danielle's value as.....$5,000, $20,000, or $50,000? And is Colleen
>>> worth
>>> more, or less? Quite literally, the money I spent has the potential to
>>> save
>>> just one, very minor, mistake while in IMC, at some point in our lives,
>>> that
>>> will make even $100,000 for that extra "software feature" worth every
>>> penny.
>>>
>>> So my mission is the ability to fly in IMC with as little risk of life
>>> and
>>> limb as possible.
>>>
>>> Also, I know that this kind of discussion bores the ba-jeeses out of
>>> some
>>> people, but keep in mind that in that survey done by Van's way back as
>>> to
>>> what kind of plane (IFR or VFR) the builders were building, the vast
>>> majority were building IFR aircraft. So, I usually prefer to consider
>>> meaningful panel discussions as IFR panel discussions. If it's a VFR
>>> panel,
>>> there's very little that is critical about planning a panel.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be cool if 5 years from now, the accident record for IFR
>>> flight
>>> were to actually equal what it is for VFR flight...and then some!?! (If
>>> we
>>> could just get people to fill up with fuel when needed, that would even
>>> help
>>> the VFR's safety record)
>>>
>>>
>>>> For example, I fly a lot in the south, Ark, LA, Texas, Ok and normally
>>>> approaches flown to mins plus 500 are good enough. I would guess that
>>>> to be 80% of the time when you actually need an approach which is an
>>>> even smaller amount of your total flight time. This is from memory but
>>>> I have flown about 40 cross country trips in the last two years
>>>> (200-400) miles. All have been filed IFR, of them only 5 or 6 actually
>>>> required an approach at the end and then only one was to mins plus
>>>> about 300. Everything else was basically just to let down through a
>>>> layer to about 1,000 agl. BTW, My whole attitude/experience would be
>>>> different if I flew in the North East or in California Coastal
>>> fog!
>>>
>>> Very true...but now you're arguing that a person who's only going to be
>>> doing minimal low approaches should maybe think about lesser equipment,
>>> right? IMHO, it's probably the opposite, and your point would be
>>> perfectly
>>> valid. Here's my thought....
>>>
>>> It's hard enough for a private pilot to stay IFR current, with plenty of
>>> IMC
>>> experience. If you're going to fly approaches in IMC, the pilot with
>>> less
>>> currency could probably benefit more from some of the more substantial
>>> equipment than the guy who does it every week, which your 40 flights is
>>> quite a portion of a year. You may indeed have the "superior" skills
>>> that I
>>> laughingly mentioned about myself above.
>>> Then, it's just a matter of the same economics of what is the value to
>>> you
>>> in life and limb dollars? (Keep in mind I really believe that some of
>>> today's technology has the breakthrough possibility of changing the
>>> accident
>>> rate....and SOMEBODY is going to die doing it, so why not err on the
>>> safe
>>> side?)
>>>
>>>
>>>> All of the really nice IFR stuff is only needed at the mins so you are
>>>> buying a lot of equipment for the rare approach to mins. In most
>>>> cases, you are put on vectors, intercept the approach NAV course from
>>>> vectors, and then descend from the FAF at a fixed rate of 400-800 fpm
>>>> to mins plus 400- 500 or more. Given that, any equipment that will let
>>>> you fly with a heading bug while holding altitude, while monitoring the
>>>> approach VOR or GPS but preferentially by GPS for spatial awareness
>>>> will comfortably work for any but the most die hard IFR pilots. At the
>>>> FAF, dial in your descent rate and leave the NAV coupled and you really
>>>> don't need a coupled glide slope to get comfortably
>>> to mins plus 500 or so.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't disagree with your thoughts for the most part. That's how I
>>> feel
>>> about my backup gauges....I mean, how much do you absolutely need when
>>> the
>>> crap hits the fan? With ATC help, and radar contact, you can probably
>>> pull
>>> off a whole lot if you stay calm. As far as I'm concerned, you have it
>>> exactly right for how I feel if I have a major EFIS failure. Other than
>>> that though, for a few bucks I have the opportunity to keep that safety
>>> level up. For what it's worth, some of my more fearful moments were not
>>> on
>>> the low portion of an approach.
>>> In fact, on the last few seconds before breaking out, it hasn't been bad
>>> at
>>> all. For me the climb phase, and some enroute and vectoring phase time
>>> has
>>> been pretty tough. Spatial disorientation is something I became acutely
>>> aware of, along with vertigo. Interestingly, while I commonly at least
>>> felt
>>> the "leans" in turbulent IMC before, I haven't had that experience with
>>> synthetic vision. I can only surmise that this is partly due to the
>>> added
>>> "visibility" I'm now seeing. There are times, that I can honestly say
>>> that
>>> I had my hands full just keeping myself hand-flying the plane to keep it
>>> upright while feeling the leans in a big way. Having that experience
>>> was
>>> pretty humbling.
>>> I do understand that it's something that can be overcome, but, does the
>>> *average* IFR pilot fly enough approaches to realistically keep their
>>> proficiency to what is *really* required for safety? (Not the standard
>>> legal
>>> definition of currency)
>>>
>>> Also, it wouldn't be responsible of me to tell someone that there's such
>>> a
>>> thing as "light" IFR where you just go busting through thin layers and
>>> then
>>> continue on top. You truly can get yourself into some situations that
>>> way.
>>>
>>> I catch your comment about if you were in the North East or California's
>>> coastal fog, but in almost all areas of the country you can find some
>>> tough
>>> IFR flying, and the question is are you planning to take your plane all
>>> over
>>> the country and just fly VFR when you get some soggy clouds in your way?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now, all of this is up for grabs if you really want to fly to 200' mins
>>>> on the rare occasion but reasonable risk management on the ground prior
>>>> to take-off makes even the most basic equipment more than adequate
>>>> "most" of the time.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line is that you can have a nice economical IFR panel that will
>>>> work well with nominal flight management or a really high dollar system
>>>> that will take you to mins with your hands off. Knowing which you will
>>>> be comfortable with should be the first part of the planning process.
>>>> In some cases, we just can't afford the stuff we would like to have and
>>>> fly with less but manage the risk better. Your call, but knowing what
>>>> you really want to do "most" of the time is important. The other
>>>> question you have to ask is "if I buy this fancy system, will I (the
>>>> pilot) be ready to take it to mins when the time comes."
>>>>
>>>
>>> All good points. I do agree that financial things do play a part in the
>>> decision process. For me, I would probably be more of an IFR avoider
>>> with
>>> the family on board without the gear, yet I feel that experience is
>>> experience, and the only way to actually GET the experience is to DO the
>>> flight, if Convection, hail, ice, and lightning, and turbulence aren't
>>> involved. Personally, knowing that not everyone can afford exactly what
>>> they want, I would encourage people to do whatever they can from a
>>> proficiency and personal-minimums standpoint to minimize their risk.
>>> Proficiency is expensive though too, as it costs $50/hr just for the
>>> fuel to
>>> keep proficient.
>>>
>>> Also, I agree with your sentiments about will the pilot be ready, if
>>> they
>>> are used to flying the fancy system. Having that fancy system also
>>> requires
>>> you to stay proficient at it's operation...the same as any GPS/NAV/COM
>>> of
>>> course. I worried about how it would be if not only the EFIS failed,
>>> but
>>> what if I had to hand-fly with or without the EFIS. So far I haven't
>>> felt
>>> like I will have a problem keeping hand-flying proficient, although it's
>>> tough to fly as good as the computer these days. It pays to try to stay
>>> current in all regards. There again, the pilots best friend in an
>>> emergency
>>> is his autopilot...if it's still working.
>>>
>>>> If you plan on serious IFR and need that kind of panel for really hard
>>>> IFR, then don't forget that heated pitot and static ports and fuel
>>>> vents are things to consider just like wing and prop de-ice. All nice
>>>> but more complexity and more dollars. HOWEVER if you fly IFR at all,
>>>> you just gotta have a Garmin 396/496 with weather! It's the real
>>>> minimum IFR equipment in my mind.
>>>
>>> Also great points. You're absolutely right about the Wx. It's one of
>>> those
>>> things that I don't know what I'd do without. Attached is a WSI
>>> screenshot
>>> from Saturday. It was very helpful knowing exactly which direction held
>>> the
>>> large cells, and how thick the line was.
>>> It was a VFR flight, which is much more comfortable when you have any
>>> red
>>> spots in your area. The visual picture said go, but only when diverting
>>> from the direct route.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I actually had the offer of wing de-ice, but decided to pass on
>>> that
>>> one in favor of avoiding ice altogether. But since I passed, a good
>>> buddy
>>> o'pal of mine will now get the honors of having the first de-ice'd RV-10
>>> out
>>> there. Yep, it's coming available down the road.
>>>
>>> Add my .02 to everyone's .02, and pretty soon we'll be millionaires!
>>>
>>> Just read Deems's post. Totally wonderful information there as well.
>>> I especially agree with #4. While I know some of the limitations of
>>> some of
>>> the other systems, I don't know all of the exact positive features, so I
>>> speak mainly to my own knowledge base of the Chelton.
>>> Many of the others got scratched off the list as I went along when I
>>> found
>>> something that was a deal-breaker to me...but that doesn't mean that
>>> it's
>>> not something that fits your goals. I love talking about the
>>> capabilities
>>> of what I have. Unlike when you talk about the RV-10 and have to admit
>>> that
>>> the doors suck, when I talk EFIS I really have very little to complain
>>> about, and that's after getting married to it and having the honeymoon
>>> pass.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>> Pick the mission, then pick the panel. Just my .02
>>>>
>>>> Bill S
>>>> 7a Ark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:11 PM
>>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was
>>>> GNS-430W
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This list cracks me up sometimes. ;)
>>>>
>>>> I have to say, to me, a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that grey
>>>> thick wet layer of clouds as a perfect day to go for a pleasure flight
>>>> and build some experience, the panel is my favorite part of the plane.
>>>> It's not a status thing, or an ego thing, but a genuine interest in
>>>> actually taking a creation I made, and have it do flights with ease
>>>> that were painful to me only 2,3, or 5 years ago. There is no
>>>> comparison to the old equipment when you l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
3:59 PM
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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Bill, thanks for this excellent post. Now we're getting down to brass
tacks.
This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is handled by the glossing
replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too complex, too many
options, too many situations, so just go fly some examples. Problem is, if
you don't know what your looking for or what questions to ask, well, then,
this is why the learning experience of others is so valuable as a starting
point.
Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog. I've been on two VFR flights
where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current. One was a similar fog
scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business airspace. The
fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick, and I could have
diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I was vulnerable. The
white out was very illuminating. IMC in an instant. VFR guys calling in
from all over asking for help. Went down on the instruments and felt very
in control and comfortable keeping the 182 stable and headed in the right
direction, but it made me very conscious that I didn't have the right
knowledge nor experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but keep her
stable. Flight following was great. My flight plan got me to my VOR, then
made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got vectored in and
given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great. Finally got to where
I could see and the crises was over. But that is a real situation that can
be described in terms of what one needs, what one can do, what creates the
consequent issues that dictate flight deck actions. The mission was a
benign cross-country flight to visit with a client. No hurry no worry.
I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission. Also, I think we
can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation for take off,
take off, en route, approach, landing, etc. The more scenarios the better.
The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to describe, and
it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but very
enlightening for all others. How does one use the equipment in front of
them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC presents, and
all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?
Collins (Flying magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us that
"what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight. In short, you
should be prepared for almost anything, because at some point in time you'll
get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or traffic or the kids in the
back seat. That's not to say you need the full monty in your panel, but
that you need to understand and practice how to use what you have. Fine.
This we know.
But when you're planning said panel, what are the, and I won't say "nice to
haves" but something more like "makes the execution more efficient, easier
and safer" because of what? Tim did a good job of describing his one flight
that started to get him spatially disoriented and was appreciative of the
HITS and computer generated terrain. This is an important point and based
on a flying example. Being told to enter a holding pattern is another
example. Flying to minimums and having to execute a go around is another.
There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand why a
particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.
It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one else's. What
matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the reasons that
your set up is good, bad or indifferent. By working through the scenarios
presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation flight, one should be able
to gain an even better appreciation of the panel you have or are going to
have.
Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even plunked down dollars
for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who have a panel, and
especially those who have been flying, is huge.
My suggestion is that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki (something
that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy has done enough
for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be mission x type of IFR
scenario, then have folks describe how their panel choice makes flying such
a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a down right PITA, and the reasons why
(too difficult to punch in new numbers while be tossed around, just fly the
boxes, whatever the reason). The baseline panel would be something like
Randy's, which is what I would think anyone would say to be a darn good,
basic IFR panel. Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI (and thus
much more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot with GPSS, an
MX-20. This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and effectively.
Tim and Deems have very high end panels. Etc etc.
But the key is to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration, then
describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.
Any takers?
John Jessen
#328
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
A real good discussion Bill & Tim and all - Thanks for hashing this one
around. Before making a few additional observations, a little background on
my experience.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Tax the internet |
>From someone who does not watch the television, only reads the news and/or
listens to NPR, (not R. Limbaugh, A. Colter, or H. Stern) I don't really
comprehend sound bites too well.
Perhaps you can explain to me on or offline what exactly you are trying to
say so that I may better educate myself on what it is that you feel is
happening. What books are hardly used. Is it that the books are supposed to
be read by the students, but aren't, therefore the books are hardly used or
is it a conspiracy to have the children only carry the books so that there
backs and abdominal muscles get stronger so their minds will wither away.
While going wireless, it is pretty obvious that pulling out all the copper
from the wires will help net a profit to some large corporations as they
sell all the copper to China. Then China can sell it back to us at Wall Mart
in the form of toasters, blenders, toys and other electric motor stuff.
The problems, I think the country's coffer is running out of money and some
rich people need to make so more money.
The country need more money. The little people need more happiness. We need
more advertising on television so we can buy more stuff. Buying more stuff
will keep us HAPPY. Buying more stuff in the end, will raise more taxes.
I don't like high taxes either, especially when the money it raises is
wasted.
John Gonzalez( No Relation to Alberto)
Tarnishing the last name as far as I am concerned!
>From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV10-List: Tax the internet
>Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:12:51 -0700
>
>Just a heads up. Congress is out to tax the internet again. If you want to
>see the results of the AL Gore tax to internet the schools, watch them
>waste
>tax dollars to rip out the wires to go wireless. Or look at the extra books
>the kids bring home from school this time of year, many are hardly used.
>All
>paid for by our tax dollars at the direction of Teddy and the "no child
>left
>behind".
>
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 |
|
Your friendly NAPA or Autozone, etc. auto parts store, in their
(aircraft) sealant's area. Right along with their Form a gasket,
Permatex #2 & #3, epoxies, etc.
On 5/23/07, orchidman <gary@wingscc.com> wrote:
>
>
> flysrv10(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > You did not ask for a fix but I will tell you in case you did not know. Use
Loctite 290. It works wonders. I had the same issue with my QB wings.
>
> I am looking for a source of this product. Can someone direct me to a supplier?
>
> --------
> Gary Blankenbiller
> RV10 - # 40674
> (N410GB reserved)
> do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114486#114486
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
John J,
I'll run through a quick example of a couple things. One thing about
the Chelton and instrument flying sudden-ties is this. I remember
a flight in the old plane a few years ago, when I was freshly
minted with an IFR ticket. Enroute to Florida, over the mountains
near Chattanooga, I was VFR and it was getting dark from a
storm to the west. A layer started building below me, but it
was pretty thin. I realized that if I continued to Atlanta, it would
get darker, from evening and from the storm. I then realized I
forgot my prescription glasses at home and I didn't really care to
tackle a night VFR on top trip over the mountains without
100% clear vision...and I didn't want to go night IFR over
them either....because I had no onboard Wx and didn't want to
run into something unseen. Time to divert. Descended, towards
Chattanooga, and worked down through what was a hole in the now
thickening layer below....still semi comfortable that if all else
failed I could climb back to at least 7500 and do a 180 and be
in acceptable conditions within 20 minutes. The "hole" ended
up going far lower to ground level than I thought, and all the
houses and cars I distinctly remember had lights on. It was
*dark* down there. I flew towards the nearest airport on my
handheld, but realized that I'd be flying either into clouds,
or darkness that was enough that I didn't know where terrain was.
My personal thought to myself was "You know, it's RIGHT now, at
THIS point, where continuing makes me exactly like the magazine
articles I read about." Without a 2nd thought, I did a 180,
aimed the plane right back on my previous reverse course, and
started climbing, while ignoring the clouds altogether, deciding
to just simply climb straight go right through them until I busted
out. As I did this, my wife scrambled for the charts, and I
told her to pull out Chattanooga. I tried to remain level-headed,
and although I was very on-edge, I was also calm. I contacted
Chattanooga approach...told them I had been VFR on top and
descended and realized it was not good, and that I wanted
help getting set up for an approach to Chattanooga. They
were very nice, and said something like "climb and maintain
4500', turn Left heading 180 for vectors for the ILS-XX".
Immediately, it was a total relief, and although it got dark
as night, I became comfortable and felt secure. I briefed
myself on the ILS approach chart, now that I could calmly
just hold heading on the AP and altitude by hand. Surprisingly,
I was between layers for a while, and although only 500' at times
over the city, I saw absolutely no lights below. I flew the
ILS, in rain, to about 300' and broke out, at night with the lights
blazing in front of me. One of the best experiences in my life
and it was a great time indeed. My fault for trying to continue
VFR a little too long. My credit for recognizing that and taking
the proper way to resolve the situation. NEVER, EVER, EVER, be
afraid to ask for help.
How could this be different? Well, with onboard Wx, I can not
only see rain and storm areas, that's a simple one. But, with
WSI I also can frequently punch "Nearest - WX" along my route
and get local winds and altimeter and weather conditions including
graphical METARS (those colored circles at airports coded for
wx conditions), on many airports along the way. So now I could
have easily realized the airports around me were IFR. Considering
I'd have terrain on board, I wouldn't continue towards a small
nearby airport, but I certainly would know if my fate was in danger.
From there, with the EFIS I could have had almost immediate access
to the ATC and Approach facilities, as well as the ILS frequencies,
and loaded the approach with ease. The Chelton approach loading
procedure is slick as can be...I can literally go from
realizing I'm lost to having a fully loaded instrument approach
to a nearby airport and locked in to the autopilot within 8-10
seconds...and that's not an exaggeration. It's very very simple
to use. That would have made it very easy to punch in the
approach, and still take heading vectors as required and
basically have a hands-off approach. The alternative in
this case would have also been slick....I could have looked
for nearest ATC, picked up a pop-up IFR clearance, and in all
reality given the instrumentation AND the aircraft I'm now
flying, I would have probably just continued to Atlanta.
It would be so much simpler to know where the weather was,
and the EFIS very much turns a night flight into a day
flight in some respects. With full terrain, including
synthetic vision with mountains in front of me, I could
have comfortably continued over the mountains without as
much worry. And, the RV-10 would make the altitude easier
to obtain to keep good clearance, and the speed would have
made the ability to get there in daylight much nicer. In all
reality, the ride was dead smooth, the weather was plenty
flyable, and the trip was easy to continue safely...but given
my limitations in the actual senario I was best folding my hand
early....whereas now I have plenty of kings and aces.
As for the missed approach topic....one other cool thing
about the EFIS is that as you are past the FAF, you get an
ARM and a MISS softkey that pops up. Just hit ARM on the
way down, and, as soon as you hit MISS, it will start
flying the missed approach point. You have VSI, V-speed,
Airspeed, MDA/DH and many more bugs you can use to aid
you along the way, but once you hit minimums, you can
hit one single key, and then throttle up and clean up the
flaps and the plane will fly itself for the published missed
approach. Now THAT is some piece of mind when flying IFR
on a low day....and not only that, but it includes the
HITS, so even without an autopilot it's a breeze.
I had a good phone conversation last night and heard a story
about a pilot who's theory was to take every flight, and
break just one link in the chain. That's to say, accidents
happen because of a chain of events gone wrong. If you can
remove just one link in the chain, you can prevent that
accident from happening. To me, I feel the equipment has
the ability to shorten and sever that chain in many respects.
Some links are strictly up to the pilot. Some are the
maintainer. Piloting in IFR conditions can make you feel
very "vinceable"....so every bit of comfort is great.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Jessen wrote:
>
> Bill, thanks for this excellent post. Now we're getting down to brass
> tacks.
>
> This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is handled by the glossing
> replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too complex, too many
> options, too many situations, so just go fly some examples. Problem is, if
> you don't know what your looking for or what questions to ask, well, then,
> this is why the learning experience of others is so valuable as a starting
> point.
>
> Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog. I've been on two VFR flights
> where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current. One was a similar fog
> scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business airspace. The
> fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick, and I could have
> diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I was vulnerable. The
> white out was very illuminating. IMC in an instant. VFR guys calling in
> from all over asking for help. Went down on the instruments and felt very
> in control and comfortable keeping the 182 stable and headed in the right
> direction, but it made me very conscious that I didn't have the right
> knowledge nor experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but keep her
> stable. Flight following was great. My flight plan got me to my VOR, then
> made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got vectored in and
> given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great. Finally got to where
> I could see and the crises was over. But that is a real situation that can
> be described in terms of what one needs, what one can do, what creates the
> consequent issues that dictate flight deck actions. The mission was a
> benign cross-country flight to visit with a client. No hurry no worry.
>
> I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission. Also, I think we
> can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation for take off,
> take off, en route, approach, landing, etc. The more scenarios the better.
> The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to describe, and
> it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but very
> enlightening for all others. How does one use the equipment in front of
> them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC presents, and
> all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?
>
> Collins (Flying magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us that
> "what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight. In short, you
> should be prepared for almost anything, because at some point in time you'll
> get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or traffic or the kids in the
> back seat. That's not to say you need the full monty in your panel, but
> that you need to understand and practice how to use what you have. Fine.
> This we know.
>
> But when you're planning said panel, what are the, and I won't say "nice to
> haves" but something more like "makes the execution more efficient, easier
> and safer" because of what? Tim did a good job of describing his one flight
> that started to get him spatially disoriented and was appreciative of the
> HITS and computer generated terrain. This is an important point and based
> on a flying example. Being told to enter a holding pattern is another
> example. Flying to minimums and having to execute a go around is another.
> There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand why a
> particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.
>
> It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one else's. What
> matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the reasons that
> your set up is good, bad or indifferent. By working through the scenarios
> presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation flight, one should be able
> to gain an even better appreciation of the panel you have or are going to
> have.
>
> Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even plunked down dollars
> for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who have a panel, and
> especially those who have been flying, is huge.
>
> My suggestion is that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki (something
> that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy has done enough
> for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be mission x type of IFR
> scenario, then have folks describe how their panel choice makes flying such
> a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a down right PITA, and the reasons why
> (too difficult to punch in new numbers while be tossed around, just fly the
> boxes, whatever the reason). The baseline panel would be something like
> Randy's, which is what I would think anyone would say to be a darn good,
> basic IFR panel. Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI (and thus
> much more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot with GPSS, an
> MX-20. This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and effectively.
> Tim and Deems have very high end panels. Etc etc.
>
> But the key is to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration, then
> describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.
>
> Any takers?
>
> John Jessen
> #328
>
> do not archive
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: | Tax the internet |
I know this forum is a broad community for many users, but...can please we
keep it to RV10s, or at least aviation topics?
Do Not Archive
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:13 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Tax the internet
Just a heads up. Congress is out to tax the internet again. If you want to
see the results of the AL Gore tax to internet the schools, watch them waste
tax dollars to rip out the wires to go wireless. Or look at the extra books
the kids bring home from school this time of year, many are hardly used. All
paid for by our tax dollars at the direction of Teddy and the "no child left
behind".
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Tim, Stop with this Chelton stuff! It makes me sick.
Do not archive
On May 24, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> John J,
>
> I'll run through a quick example of a couple things. One thing about
> the Chelton and instrument flying sudden-ties is this. I remember
> a flight in the old plane a few years ago, when I was freshly
> minted with an IFR ticket. Enroute to Florida, over the mountains
> near Chattanooga, I was VFR and it was getting dark from a
> storm to the west. A layer started building below me, but it
> was pretty thin. I realized that if I continued to Atlanta, it would
> get darker, from evening and from the storm. I then realized I
> forgot my prescription glasses at home and I didn't really care to
> tackle a night VFR on top trip over the mountains without
> 100% clear vision...and I didn't want to go night IFR over
> them either....because I had no onboard Wx and didn't want to
> run into something unseen. Time to divert. Descended, towards
> Chattanooga, and worked down through what was a hole in the now
> thickening layer below....still semi comfortable that if all else
> failed I could climb back to at least 7500 and do a 180 and be
> in acceptable conditions within 20 minutes. The "hole" ended
> up going far lower to ground level than I thought, and all the
> houses and cars I distinctly remember had lights on. It was
> *dark* down there. I flew towards the nearest airport on my
> handheld, but realized that I'd be flying either into clouds,
> or darkness that was enough that I didn't know where terrain was.
> My personal thought to myself was "You know, it's RIGHT now, at
> THIS point, where continuing makes me exactly like the magazine
> articles I read about." Without a 2nd thought, I did a 180,
> aimed the plane right back on my previous reverse course, and
> started climbing, while ignoring the clouds altogether, deciding
> to just simply climb straight go right through them until I busted
> out. As I did this, my wife scrambled for the charts, and I
> told her to pull out Chattanooga. I tried to remain level-headed,
> and although I was very on-edge, I was also calm. I contacted
> Chattanooga approach...told them I had been VFR on top and
> descended and realized it was not good, and that I wanted
> help getting set up for an approach to Chattanooga. They
> were very nice, and said something like "climb and maintain
> 4500', turn Left heading 180 for vectors for the ILS-XX".
> Immediately, it was a total relief, and although it got dark
> as night, I became comfortable and felt secure. I briefed
> myself on the ILS approach chart, now that I could calmly
> just hold heading on the AP and altitude by hand. Surprisingly,
> I was between layers for a while, and although only 500' at times
> over the city, I saw absolutely no lights below. I flew the
> ILS, in rain, to about 300' and broke out, at night with the lights
> blazing in front of me. One of the best experiences in my life
> and it was a great time indeed. My fault for trying to continue
> VFR a little too long. My credit for recognizing that and taking
> the proper way to resolve the situation. NEVER, EVER, EVER, be
> afraid to ask for help.
>
> How could this be different? Well, with onboard Wx, I can not
> only see rain and storm areas, that's a simple one. But, with
> WSI I also can frequently punch "Nearest - WX" along my route
> and get local winds and altimeter and weather conditions including
> graphical METARS (those colored circles at airports coded for
> wx conditions), on many airports along the way. So now I could
> have easily realized the airports around me were IFR. Considering
> I'd have terrain on board, I wouldn't continue towards a small
> nearby airport, but I certainly would know if my fate was in danger.
> From there, with the EFIS I could have had almost immediate access
> to the ATC and Approach facilities, as well as the ILS frequencies,
> and loaded the approach with ease. The Chelton approach loading
> procedure is slick as can be...I can literally go from
> realizing I'm lost to having a fully loaded instrument approach
> to a nearby airport and locked in to the autopilot within 8-10
> seconds...and that's not an exaggeration. It's very very simple
> to use. That would have made it very easy to punch in the
> approach, and still take heading vectors as required and
> basically have a hands-off approach. The alternative in
> this case would have also been slick....I could have looked
> for nearest ATC, picked up a pop-up IFR clearance, and in all
> reality given the instrumentation AND the aircraft I'm now
> flying, I would have probably just continued to Atlanta.
> It would be so much simpler to know where the weather was,
> and the EFIS very much turns a night flight into a day
> flight in some respects. With full terrain, including
> synthetic vision with mountains in front of me, I could
> have comfortably continued over the mountains without as
> much worry. And, the RV-10 would make the altitude easier
> to obtain to keep good clearance, and the speed would have
> made the ability to get there in daylight much nicer. In all
> reality, the ride was dead smooth, the weather was plenty
> flyable, and the trip was easy to continue safely...but given
> my limitations in the actual senario I was best folding my hand
> early....whereas now I have plenty of kings and aces.
>
> As for the missed approach topic....one other cool thing
> about the EFIS is that as you are past the FAF, you get an
> ARM and a MISS softkey that pops up. Just hit ARM on the
> way down, and, as soon as you hit MISS, it will start
> flying the missed approach point. You have VSI, V-speed,
> Airspeed, MDA/DH and many more bugs you can use to aid
> you along the way, but once you hit minimums, you can
> hit one single key, and then throttle up and clean up the
> flaps and the plane will fly itself for the published missed
> approach. Now THAT is some piece of mind when flying IFR
> on a low day....and not only that, but it includes the
> HITS, so even without an autopilot it's a breeze.
>
> I had a good phone conversation last night and heard a story
> about a pilot who's theory was to take every flight, and
> break just one link in the chain. That's to say, accidents
> happen because of a chain of events gone wrong. If you can
> remove just one link in the chain, you can prevent that
> accident from happening. To me, I feel the equipment has
> the ability to shorten and sever that chain in many respects.
> Some links are strictly up to the pilot. Some are the
> maintainer. Piloting in IFR conditions can make you feel
> very "vinceable"....so every bit of comfort is great.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> John Jessen wrote:
>> Bill, thanks for this excellent post. Now we're getting down to
>> brass
>> tacks. This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is
>> handled by the glossing
>> replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too complex,
>> too many
>> options, too many situations, so just go fly some examples.
>> Problem is, if
>> you don't know what your looking for or what questions to ask,
>> well, then,
>> this is why the learning experience of others is so valuable as a
>> starting
>> point.
>> Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog. I've been on two
>> VFR flights
>> where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current. One was a
>> similar fog
>> scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business
>> airspace. The
>> fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick, and I could
>> have
>> diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I was
>> vulnerable. The
>> white out was very illuminating. IMC in an instant. VFR guys
>> calling in
>> from all over asking for help. Went down on the instruments and
>> felt very
>> in control and comfortable keeping the 182 stable and headed in
>> the right
>> direction, but it made me very conscious that I didn't have the right
>> knowledge nor experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but
>> keep her
>> stable. Flight following was great. My flight plan got me to my
>> VOR, then
>> made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got
>> vectored in and
>> given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great. Finally got
>> to where
>> I could see and the crises was over. But that is a real situation
>> that can
>> be described in terms of what one needs, what one can do, what
>> creates the
>> consequent issues that dictate flight deck actions. The mission
>> was a
>> benign cross-country flight to visit with a client. No hurry no
>> worry. I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission.
>> Also, I think we
>> can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation for
>> take off,
>> take off, en route, approach, landing, etc. The more scenarios
>> the better.
>> The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to
>> describe, and
>> it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but
>> very
>> enlightening for all others. How does one use the equipment in
>> front of
>> them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC
>> presents, and
>> all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you? Collins (Flying
>> magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us that
>> "what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight. In
>> short, you
>> should be prepared for almost anything, because at some point in
>> time you'll
>> get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or traffic or the kids
>> in the
>> back seat. That's not to say you need the full monty in your
>> panel, but
>> that you need to understand and practice how to use what you
>> have. Fine.
>> This we know. But when you're planning said panel, what are the,
>> and I won't say "nice to
>> haves" but something more like "makes the execution more
>> efficient, easier
>> and safer" because of what? Tim did a good job of describing his
>> one flight
>> that started to get him spatially disoriented and was appreciative
>> of the
>> HITS and computer generated terrain. This is an important point
>> and based
>> on a flying example. Being told to enter a holding pattern is
>> another
>> example. Flying to minimums and having to execute a go around is
>> another.
>> There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand
>> why a
>> particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.
>> It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one
>> else's. What
>> matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the
>> reasons that
>> your set up is good, bad or indifferent. By working through the
>> scenarios
>> presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation flight, one
>> should be able
>> to gain an even better appreciation of the panel you have or are
>> going to
>> have. Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even
>> plunked down dollars
>> for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who have a
>> panel, and
>> especially those who have been flying, is huge. My suggestion is
>> that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki (something
>> that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy has
>> done enough
>> for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be mission x
>> type of IFR
>> scenario, then have folks describe how their panel choice makes
>> flying such
>> a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a down right PITA, and the
>> reasons why
>> (too difficult to punch in new numbers while be tossed around,
>> just fly the
>> boxes, whatever the reason). The baseline panel would be
>> something like
>> Randy's, which is what I would think anyone would say to be a darn
>> good,
>> basic IFR panel. Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI
>> (and thus
>> much more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot
>> with GPSS, an
>> MX-20. This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and
>> effectively.
>> Tim and Deems have very high end panels. Etc etc. But the key is
>> to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration, then
>> describe its relative pluses and minuses and why. Any takers?
>> John Jessen
>> #328
>> do not archive
>
>
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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
As usual, a great post, Tim.
I wish I could afford the Chelton system. But unless I win the lottery
I will have to see what the next best system is, at about half the price
of the cheton. So far, GRT looks like the one.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Tailcone
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
John J,
I'll run through a quick example of a couple things. One thing about
the Chelton and instrument flying sudden-ties is this. I remember a
flight in the old plane a few years ago, when I was freshly minted with
an IFR ticket. Enroute to Florida, over the mountains near Chattanooga,
I was VFR and it was getting dark from a storm to the west. A layer
started building below me, but it was pretty thin. I realized that if I
continued to Atlanta, it would get darker, from evening and from the
storm. I then realized I forgot my prescription glasses at home and I
didn't really care to tackle a night VFR on top trip over the mountains
without 100% clear vision...and I didn't want to go night IFR over them
either....because I had no onboard Wx and didn't want to run into
something unseen. Time to divert. Descended, towards Chattanooga, and
worked down through what was a hole in the now thickening layer
below....still semi comfortable that if all else failed I could climb
back to at least 7500 and do a 180 and be in acceptable conditions
within 20 minutes. The "hole" ended up going far lower to ground level
than I thought, and all the houses and cars I distinctly remember had
lights on. It was
*dark* down there. I flew towards the nearest airport on my handheld,
but realized that I'd be flying either into clouds, or darkness that was
enough that I didn't know where terrain was.
My personal thought to myself was "You know, it's RIGHT now, at THIS
point, where continuing makes me exactly like the magazine articles I
read about." Without a 2nd thought, I did a 180, aimed the plane right
back on my previous reverse course, and started climbing, while ignoring
the clouds altogether, deciding to just simply climb straight go right
through them until I busted out. As I did this, my wife scrambled for
the charts, and I told her to pull out Chattanooga. I tried to remain
level-headed, and although I was very on-edge, I was also calm. I
contacted Chattanooga approach...told them I had been VFR on top and
descended and realized it was not good, and that I wanted help getting
set up for an approach to Chattanooga. They were very nice, and said
something like "climb and maintain 4500', turn Left heading 180 for
vectors for the ILS-XX".
Immediately, it was a total relief, and although it got dark as night, I
became comfortable and felt secure. I briefed myself on the ILS
approach chart, now that I could calmly just hold heading on the AP and
altitude by hand. Surprisingly, I was between layers for a while, and
although only 500' at times over the city, I saw absolutely no lights
below. I flew the ILS, in rain, to about 300' and broke out, at night
with the lights blazing in front of me. One of the best experiences in
my life and it was a great time indeed. My fault for trying to continue
VFR a little too long. My credit for recognizing that and taking the
proper way to resolve the situation. NEVER, EVER, EVER, be afraid to
ask for help.
How could this be different? Well, with onboard Wx, I can not only see
rain and storm areas, that's a simple one. But, with WSI I also can
frequently punch "Nearest - WX" along my route and get local winds and
altimeter and weather conditions including graphical METARS (those
colored circles at airports coded for wx conditions), on many airports
along the way. So now I could have easily realized the airports around
me were IFR. Considering I'd have terrain on board, I wouldn't continue
towards a small nearby airport, but I certainly would know if my fate
was in danger.
From there, with the EFIS I could have had almost immediate access to
the ATC and Approach facilities, as well as the ILS frequencies, and
loaded the approach with ease. The Chelton approach loading procedure
is slick as can be...I can literally go from realizing I'm lost to
having a fully loaded instrument approach to a nearby airport and locked
in to the autopilot within 8-10 seconds...and that's not an
exaggeration. It's very very simple to use. That would have made it
very easy to punch in the approach, and still take heading vectors as
required and basically have a hands-off approach. The alternative in
this case would have also been slick....I could have looked for nearest
ATC, picked up a pop-up IFR clearance, and in all reality given the
instrumentation AND the aircraft I'm now flying, I would have probably
just continued to Atlanta.
It would be so much simpler to know where the weather was, and the EFIS
very much turns a night flight into a day flight in some respects. With
full terrain, including synthetic vision with mountains in front of me,
I could have comfortably continued over the mountains without as much
worry. And, the RV-10 would make the altitude easier to obtain to keep
good clearance, and the speed would have made the ability to get there
in daylight much nicer. In all reality, the ride was dead smooth, the
weather was plenty flyable, and the trip was easy to continue
safely...but given my limitations in the actual senario I was best
folding my hand early....whereas now I have plenty of kings and aces.
As for the missed approach topic....one other cool thing about the EFIS
is that as you are past the FAF, you get an ARM and a MISS softkey that
pops up. Just hit ARM on the way down, and, as soon as you hit MISS, it
will start flying the missed approach point. You have VSI, V-speed,
Airspeed, MDA/DH and many more bugs you can use to aid you along the
way, but once you hit minimums, you can hit one single key, and then
throttle up and clean up the flaps and the plane will fly itself for the
published missed approach. Now THAT is some piece of mind when flying
IFR on a low day....and not only that, but it includes the HITS, so even
without an autopilot it's a breeze.
I had a good phone conversation last night and heard a story about a
pilot who's theory was to take every flight, and break just one link in
the chain. That's to say, accidents happen because of a chain of events
gone wrong. If you can remove just one link in the chain, you can
prevent that accident from happening. To me, I feel the equipment has
the ability to shorten and sever that chain in many respects.
Some links are strictly up to the pilot. Some are the maintainer.
Piloting in IFR conditions can make you feel very "vinceable"....so
every bit of comfort is great.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Jessen wrote:
>
> Bill, thanks for this excellent post. Now we're getting down to brass
> tacks.
>
> This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is handled by the
> glossing replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too
> complex, too many options, too many situations, so just go fly some
> examples. Problem is, if you don't know what your looking for or what
> questions to ask, well, then, this is why the learning experience of
> others is so valuable as a starting point.
>
> Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog. I've been on two VFR
> flights where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current. One was a
> similar fog scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business
> airspace. The fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick,
> and I could have diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I
> was vulnerable. The white out was very illuminating. IMC in an
> instant. VFR guys calling in from all over asking for help. Went
> down on the instruments and felt very in control and comfortable
> keeping the 182 stable and headed in the right direction, but it made
> me very conscious that I didn't have the right knowledge nor
> experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but keep her stable.
> Flight following was great. My flight plan got me to my VOR, then
> made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got vectored in
> and given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great. Finally got
> to where I could see and the crises was over. But that is a real
> situation that can be described in terms of what one needs, what one
> can do, what creates the consequent issues that dictate flight deck
actions. The mission was a benign cross-country flight to visit with a
client. No hurry no worry.
>
> I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission. Also, I
> think we can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation
> for take off, take off, en route, approach, landing, etc. The more
scenarios the better.
> The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to describe,
> and it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but
> very enlightening for all others. How does one use the equipment in
> front of them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC
presents, and
> all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?
>
> Collins (Flying magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us
> that "what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight. In
> short, you should be prepared for almost anything, because at some
> point in time you'll get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or
> traffic or the kids in the back seat. That's not to say you need the
> full monty in your panel, but that you need to understand and practice
how to use what you have. Fine.
> This we know.
>
> But when you're planning said panel, what are the, and I won't say
> "nice to haves" but something more like "makes the execution more
> efficient, easier and safer" because of what? Tim did a good job of
> describing his one flight that started to get him spatially
> disoriented and was appreciative of the HITS and computer generated
> terrain. This is an important point and based on a flying example.
> Being told to enter a holding pattern is another example. Flying to
minimums and having to execute a go around is another.
> There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand why a
> particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.
>
> It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one else's.
> What matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the
> reasons that your set up is good, bad or indifferent. By working
> through the scenarios presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation
> flight, one should be able to gain an even better appreciation of the
> panel you have or are going to have.
>
> Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even plunked down
> dollars for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who
> have a panel, and especially those who have been flying, is huge.
>
> My suggestion is that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki
> (something that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy
> has done enough for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be
> mission x type of IFR scenario, then have folks describe how their
> panel choice makes flying such a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a
> down right PITA, and the reasons why (too difficult to punch in new
> numbers while be tossed around, just fly the boxes, whatever the
> reason). The baseline panel would be something like Randy's, which is
> what I would think anyone would say to be a darn good, basic IFR
> panel. Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI (and thus much
> more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot with GPSS,
an MX-20. This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and
effectively.
> Tim and Deems have very high end panels. Etc etc.
>
> But the key is to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration,
> then describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.
>
> Any takers?
>
> John Jessen
> #328
>
> do not archive
_________________________________________________
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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Jack,
You get great value with the GRT for the price. I have two GRT screens in
my panel with a GNS 430W, SL 30 and Sorcerer auto pilot. Shooting coupled
approaches with this setup is a snap. GRT is coming out with new Hi Res and
synthetic vision versions later this year. I'm on the upgrade list.
I overlay XM weather, traffic and terrain on a Garmin CMX-200.
After 100 hours I finally got around to replacing the original steel nose
wheel spacers (builder #43) with the new aluminum ones. As Tim and others
have found the old steel spacers were turning and galling the fork. I put a
screw thru the fork into the spacer to keep it from turning.
Mark
N410MR
>From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
>Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:27:48 -0400
>
><Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>
>As usual, a great post, Tim.
>
>I wish I could afford the Chelton system. But unless I win the lottery
>I will have to see what the next best system is, at about half the price
>of the cheton. So far, GRT looks like the one.
>
>Jack Phillips
>#40610
>Tailcone
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:02 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
>
>
>John J,
>
>I'll run through a quick example of a couple things. One thing about
>the Chelton and instrument flying sudden-ties is this. I remember a
>flight in the old plane a few years ago, when I was freshly minted with
>an IFR ticket. Enroute to Florida, over the mountains near Chattanooga,
>I was VFR and it was getting dark from a storm to the west. A layer
>started building below me, but it was pretty thin. I realized that if I
>continued to Atlanta, it would get darker, from evening and from the
>storm. I then realized I forgot my prescription glasses at home and I
>didn't really care to tackle a night VFR on top trip over the mountains
>without 100% clear vision...and I didn't want to go night IFR over them
>either....because I had no onboard Wx and didn't want to run into
>something unseen. Time to divert. Descended, towards Chattanooga, and
>worked down through what was a hole in the now thickening layer
>below....still semi comfortable that if all else failed I could climb
>back to at least 7500 and do a 180 and be in acceptable conditions
>within 20 minutes. The "hole" ended up going far lower to ground level
>than I thought, and all the houses and cars I distinctly remember had
>lights on. It was
>*dark* down there. I flew towards the nearest airport on my handheld,
>but realized that I'd be flying either into clouds, or darkness that was
>enough that I didn't know where terrain was.
>My personal thought to myself was "You know, it's RIGHT now, at THIS
>point, where continuing makes me exactly like the magazine articles I
>read about." Without a 2nd thought, I did a 180, aimed the plane right
>back on my previous reverse course, and started climbing, while ignoring
>the clouds altogether, deciding to just simply climb straight go right
>through them until I busted out. As I did this, my wife scrambled for
>the charts, and I told her to pull out Chattanooga. I tried to remain
>level-headed, and although I was very on-edge, I was also calm. I
>contacted Chattanooga approach...told them I had been VFR on top and
>descended and realized it was not good, and that I wanted help getting
>set up for an approach to Chattanooga. They were very nice, and said
>something like "climb and maintain 4500', turn Left heading 180 for
>vectors for the ILS-XX".
>Immediately, it was a total relief, and although it got dark as night, I
>became comfortable and felt secure. I briefed myself on the ILS
>approach chart, now that I could calmly just hold heading on the AP and
>altitude by hand. Surprisingly, I was between layers for a while, and
>although only 500' at times over the city, I saw absolutely no lights
>below. I flew the ILS, in rain, to about 300' and broke out, at night
>with the lights blazing in front of me. One of the best experiences in
>my life and it was a great time indeed. My fault for trying to continue
>VFR a little too long. My credit for recognizing that and taking the
>proper way to resolve the situation. NEVER, EVER, EVER, be afraid to
>ask for help.
>
>How could this be different? Well, with onboard Wx, I can not only see
>rain and storm areas, that's a simple one. But, with WSI I also can
>frequently punch "Nearest - WX" along my route and get local winds and
>altimeter and weather conditions including graphical METARS (those
>colored circles at airports coded for wx conditions), on many airports
>along the way. So now I could have easily realized the airports around
>me were IFR. Considering I'd have terrain on board, I wouldn't continue
>towards a small nearby airport, but I certainly would know if my fate
>was in danger.
> From there, with the EFIS I could have had almost immediate access to
>the ATC and Approach facilities, as well as the ILS frequencies, and
>loaded the approach with ease. The Chelton approach loading procedure
>is slick as can be...I can literally go from realizing I'm lost to
>having a fully loaded instrument approach to a nearby airport and locked
>in to the autopilot within 8-10 seconds...and that's not an
>exaggeration. It's very very simple to use. That would have made it
>very easy to punch in the approach, and still take heading vectors as
>required and basically have a hands-off approach. The alternative in
>this case would have also been slick....I could have looked for nearest
>ATC, picked up a pop-up IFR clearance, and in all reality given the
>instrumentation AND the aircraft I'm now flying, I would have probably
>just continued to Atlanta.
>It would be so much simpler to know where the weather was, and the EFIS
>very much turns a night flight into a day flight in some respects. With
>full terrain, including synthetic vision with mountains in front of me,
>I could have comfortably continued over the mountains without as much
>worry. And, the RV-10 would make the altitude easier to obtain to keep
>good clearance, and the speed would have made the ability to get there
>in daylight much nicer. In all reality, the ride was dead smooth, the
>weather was plenty flyable, and the trip was easy to continue
>safely...but given my limitations in the actual senario I was best
>folding my hand early....whereas now I have plenty of kings and aces.
>
>As for the missed approach topic....one other cool thing about the EFIS
>is that as you are past the FAF, you get an ARM and a MISS softkey that
>pops up. Just hit ARM on the way down, and, as soon as you hit MISS, it
>will start flying the missed approach point. You have VSI, V-speed,
>Airspeed, MDA/DH and many more bugs you can use to aid you along the
>way, but once you hit minimums, you can hit one single key, and then
>throttle up and clean up the flaps and the plane will fly itself for the
>published missed approach. Now THAT is some piece of mind when flying
>IFR on a low day....and not only that, but it includes the HITS, so even
>without an autopilot it's a breeze.
>
>I had a good phone conversation last night and heard a story about a
>pilot who's theory was to take every flight, and break just one link in
>the chain. That's to say, accidents happen because of a chain of events
>gone wrong. If you can remove just one link in the chain, you can
>prevent that accident from happening. To me, I feel the equipment has
>the ability to shorten and sever that chain in many respects.
>Some links are strictly up to the pilot. Some are the maintainer.
>Piloting in IFR conditions can make you feel very "vinceable"....so
>every bit of comfort is great.
>
>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>do not archive
>
>
>John Jessen wrote:
> >
> > Bill, thanks for this excellent post. Now we're getting down to brass
>
> > tacks.
> >
> > This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is handled by the
> > glossing replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too
> > complex, too many options, too many situations, so just go fly some
> > examples. Problem is, if you don't know what your looking for or what
>
> > questions to ask, well, then, this is why the learning experience of
> > others is so valuable as a starting point.
> >
> > Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog. I've been on two VFR
> > flights where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current. One was a
> > similar fog scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business
>
> > airspace. The fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick,
> > and I could have diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I
> > was vulnerable. The white out was very illuminating. IMC in an
> > instant. VFR guys calling in from all over asking for help. Went
> > down on the instruments and felt very in control and comfortable
> > keeping the 182 stable and headed in the right direction, but it made
> > me very conscious that I didn't have the right knowledge nor
> > experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but keep her stable.
> > Flight following was great. My flight plan got me to my VOR, then
> > made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got vectored in
>
> > and given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great. Finally got
>
> > to where I could see and the crises was over. But that is a real
> > situation that can be described in terms of what one needs, what one
> > can do, what creates the consequent issues that dictate flight deck
>actions. The mission was a benign cross-country flight to visit with a
>client. No hurry no worry.
> >
> > I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission. Also, I
> > think we can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation
>
> > for take off, take off, en route, approach, landing, etc. The more
>scenarios the better.
> > The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to describe,
> > and it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but
>
> > very enlightening for all others. How does one use the equipment in
> > front of them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC
>presents, and
> > all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?
> >
> > Collins (Flying magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us
> > that "what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight. In
> > short, you should be prepared for almost anything, because at some
> > point in time you'll get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or
> > traffic or the kids in the back seat. That's not to say you need the
> > full monty in your panel, but that you need to understand and practice
>how to use what you have. Fine.
> > This we know.
> >
> > But when you're planning said panel, what are the, and I won't say
> > "nice to haves" but something more like "makes the execution more
> > efficient, easier and safer" because of what? Tim did a good job of
> > describing his one flight that started to get him spatially
> > disoriented and was appreciative of the HITS and computer generated
> > terrain. This is an important point and based on a flying example.
> > Being told to enter a holding pattern is another example. Flying to
>minimums and having to execute a go around is another.
> > There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand why a
>
> > particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.
> >
> > It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one else's.
>
> > What matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the
> > reasons that your set up is good, bad or indifferent. By working
> > through the scenarios presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation
>
> > flight, one should be able to gain an even better appreciation of the
> > panel you have or are going to have.
> >
> > Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even plunked down
> > dollars for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who
> > have a panel, and especially those who have been flying, is huge.
> >
> > My suggestion is that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki
> > (something that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy
> > has done enough for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be
>
> > mission x type of IFR scenario, then have folks describe how their
> > panel choice makes flying such a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a
> > down right PITA, and the reasons why (too difficult to punch in new
> > numbers while be tossed around, just fly the boxes, whatever the
> > reason). The baseline panel would be something like Randy's, which is
>
> > what I would think anyone would say to be a darn good, basic IFR
> > panel. Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI (and thus much
> > more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot with GPSS,
>an MX-20. This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and
>effectively.
> > Tim and Deems have very high end panels. Etc etc.
> >
> > But the key is to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration,
> > then describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.
> >
> > Any takers?
> >
> > John Jessen
> > #328
> >
> > do not archive
>
>
>_________________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail.
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: Tax the internet |
I agree. This is not a place for politics; let's keep it to airplanes.
--------
#40572 Empennage done, starting QB Wings
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114607#114607
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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Actually, Tim gave us the first scenario. It doesn't matter that it's with
the Chelton. The scenario is the key. How the Chelton solved the scenario,
good or not so good, is the goal here.
Now we need to determine how other systems are used in this type of
situation. We need examples, from all types of setups. It is through the
scenarios that we will learn what works and if we feel we need to hock our
first born or not.
So? Just take Tim's as a generic example and think through how your system
would handle it. Or, give us another example and explain the strengths,
weaknesses. We need both. By thinking this through, scenario by scenario,
we all gain through a better understanding of how your current or hoped for
system will perform. I haven't got time today, but may this weekend I'm
going to try Tim's scenario using the AFS 3500 with a 430W and an MX200
(although maybe the latter won't be necessary if they AFS gear has moving
map down the road).
John J
#328
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, Jack
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
--> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
As usual, a great post, Tim.
I wish I could afford the Chelton system. But unless I win the lottery I
will have to see what the next best system is, at about half the price of
the cheton. So far, GRT looks like the one.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Tailcone
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
John J,
I'll run through a quick example of a couple things. One thing about the
Chelton and instrument flying sudden-ties is this. I remember a flight in
the old plane a few years ago, when I was freshly minted with an IFR ticket.
Enroute to Florida, over the mountains near Chattanooga, I was VFR and it
was getting dark from a storm to the west. A layer started building below
me, but it was pretty thin. I realized that if I continued to Atlanta, it
would get darker, from evening and from the storm. I then realized I forgot
my prescription glasses at home and I didn't really care to tackle a night
VFR on top trip over the mountains without 100% clear vision...and I didn't
want to go night IFR over them either....because I had no onboard Wx and
didn't want to run into something unseen. Time to divert. Descended,
towards Chattanooga, and worked down through what was a hole in the now
thickening layer below....still semi comfortable that if all else failed I
could climb back to at least 7500 and do a 180 and be in acceptable
conditions within 20 minutes. The "hole" ended up going far lower to ground
level than I thought, and all the houses and cars I distinctly remember had
lights on. It was
*dark* down there. I flew towards the nearest airport on my handheld, but
realized that I'd be flying either into clouds, or darkness that was enough
that I didn't know where terrain was.
My personal thought to myself was "You know, it's RIGHT now, at THIS point,
where continuing makes me exactly like the magazine articles I read about."
Without a 2nd thought, I did a 180, aimed the plane right back on my
previous reverse course, and started climbing, while ignoring the clouds
altogether, deciding to just simply climb straight go right through them
until I busted out. As I did this, my wife scrambled for the charts, and I
told her to pull out Chattanooga. I tried to remain level-headed, and
although I was very on-edge, I was also calm. I contacted Chattanooga
approach...told them I had been VFR on top and descended and realized it was
not good, and that I wanted help getting set up for an approach to
Chattanooga. They were very nice, and said something like "climb and
maintain 4500', turn Left heading 180 for vectors for the ILS-XX".
Immediately, it was a total relief, and although it got dark as night, I
became comfortable and felt secure. I briefed myself on the ILS approach
chart, now that I could calmly just hold heading on the AP and altitude by
hand. Surprisingly, I was between layers for a while, and although only
500' at times over the city, I saw absolutely no lights below. I flew the
ILS, in rain, to about 300' and broke out, at night with the lights blazing
in front of me. One of the best experiences in my life and it was a great
time indeed. My fault for trying to continue VFR a little too long. My
credit for recognizing that and taking the proper way to resolve the
situation. NEVER, EVER, EVER, be afraid to ask for help.
How could this be different? Well, with onboard Wx, I can not only see rain
and storm areas, that's a simple one. But, with WSI I also can frequently
punch "Nearest - WX" along my route and get local winds and altimeter and
weather conditions including graphical METARS (those colored circles at
airports coded for wx conditions), on many airports along the way. So now I
could have easily realized the airports around me were IFR. Considering I'd
have terrain on board, I wouldn't continue towards a small nearby airport,
but I certainly would know if my fate was in danger.
From there, with the EFIS I could have had almost immediate access to the
ATC and Approach facilities, as well as the ILS frequencies, and loaded the
approach with ease. The Chelton approach loading procedure is slick as can
be...I can literally go from realizing I'm lost to having a fully loaded
instrument approach to a nearby airport and locked in to the autopilot
within 8-10 seconds...and that's not an exaggeration. It's very very simple
to use. That would have made it very easy to punch in the approach, and
still take heading vectors as required and basically have a hands-off
approach. The alternative in this case would have also been slick....I
could have looked for nearest ATC, picked up a pop-up IFR clearance, and in
all reality given the instrumentation AND the aircraft I'm now flying, I
would have probably just continued to Atlanta.
It would be so much simpler to know where the weather was, and the EFIS very
much turns a night flight into a day flight in some respects. With full
terrain, including synthetic vision with mountains in front of me, I could
have comfortably continued over the mountains without as much worry. And,
the RV-10 would make the altitude easier to obtain to keep good clearance,
and the speed would have made the ability to get there in daylight much
nicer. In all reality, the ride was dead smooth, the weather was plenty
flyable, and the trip was easy to continue safely...but given my limitations
in the actual senario I was best folding my hand early....whereas now I have
plenty of kings and aces.
As for the missed approach topic....one other cool thing about the EFIS is
that as you are past the FAF, you get an ARM and a MISS softkey that pops
up. Just hit ARM on the way down, and, as soon as you hit MISS, it will
start flying the missed approach point. You have VSI, V-speed, Airspeed,
MDA/DH and many more bugs you can use to aid you along the way, but once you
hit minimums, you can hit one single key, and then throttle up and clean up
the flaps and the plane will fly itself for the published missed approach.
Now THAT is some piece of mind when flying IFR on a low day....and not only
that, but it includes the HITS, so even without an autopilot it's a breeze.
I had a good phone conversation last night and heard a story about a pilot
who's theory was to take every flight, and break just one link in the chain.
That's to say, accidents happen because of a chain of events gone wrong. If
you can remove just one link in the chain, you can prevent that accident
from happening. To me, I feel the equipment has the ability to shorten and
sever that chain in many respects.
Some links are strictly up to the pilot. Some are the maintainer.
Piloting in IFR conditions can make you feel very "vinceable"....so every
bit of comfort is great.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Jessen wrote:
>
> Bill, thanks for this excellent post. Now we're getting down to brass
> tacks.
>
> This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is handled by the
> glossing replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too
> complex, too many options, too many situations, so just go fly some
> examples. Problem is, if you don't know what your looking for or what
> questions to ask, well, then, this is why the learning experience of
> others is so valuable as a starting point.
>
> Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog. I've been on two VFR
> flights where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current. One was a
> similar fog scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business
> airspace. The fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick,
> and I could have diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I
> was vulnerable. The white out was very illuminating. IMC in an
> instant. VFR guys calling in from all over asking for help. Went
> down on the instruments and felt very in control and comfortable
> keeping the 182 stable and headed in the right direction, but it made
> me very conscious that I didn't have the right knowledge nor
> experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but keep her stable.
> Flight following was great. My flight plan got me to my VOR, then
> made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got vectored in
> and given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great. Finally got
> to where I could see and the crises was over. But that is a real
> situation that can be described in terms of what one needs, what one
> can do, what creates the consequent issues that dictate flight deck
actions. The mission was a benign cross-country flight to visit with a
client. No hurry no worry.
>
> I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission. Also, I
> think we can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation
> for take off, take off, en route, approach, landing, etc. The more
scenarios the better.
> The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to describe,
> and it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but
> very enlightening for all others. How does one use the equipment in
> front of them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC
presents, and
> all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?
>
> Collins (Flying magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us
> that "what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight. In
> short, you should be prepared for almost anything, because at some
> point in time you'll get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or
> traffic or the kids in the back seat. That's not to say you need the
> full monty in your panel, but that you need to understand and practice
how to use what you have. Fine.
> This we know.
>
> But when you're planning said panel, what are the, and I won't say
> "nice to haves" but something more like "makes the execution more
> efficient, easier and safer" because of what? Tim did a good job of
> describing his one flight that started to get him spatially
> disoriented and was appreciative of the HITS and computer generated
> terrain. This is an important point and based on a flying example.
> Being told to enter a holding pattern is another example. Flying to
minimums and having to execute a go around is another.
> There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand why a
> particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.
>
> It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one else's.
> What matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the
> reasons that your set up is good, bad or indifferent. By working
> through the scenarios presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation
> flight, one should be able to gain an even better appreciation of the
> panel you have or are going to have.
>
> Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even plunked down
> dollars for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who
> have a panel, and especially those who have been flying, is huge.
>
> My suggestion is that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki
> (something that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy
> has done enough for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be
> mission x type of IFR scenario, then have folks describe how their
> panel choice makes flying such a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a
> down right PITA, and the reasons why (too difficult to punch in new
> numbers while be tossed around, just fly the boxes, whatever the
> reason). The baseline panel would be something like Randy's, which is
> what I would think anyone would say to be a darn good, basic IFR
> panel. Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI (and thus much
> more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot with GPSS,
an MX-20. This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and effectively.
> Tim and Deems have very high end panels. Etc etc.
>
> But the key is to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration,
> then describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.
>
> Any takers?
>
> John Jessen
> #328
>
> do not archive
_________________________________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | mid seat rail support |
Way back on page 28-16 step 2 I put the F-1057 (L&R) together and, as
the directions said "laid them aside". I am now putting on the landing
gear and wheels, and the F-1057's are still "laid aside". I have
searched and researched the plans but I'll be damn if I can find where
the instructions are for mounting these guys. Seems straight forward
with 8 AN3 bolts but am I supposed to wait until some time later (FWF
kit, first flight, or even later)? Help. Jay Rowe
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: | mid seat rail support |
I haven't found it either. But it needs to be done before completing
page 35-8. That's the page the seat floors are installed over the top of
the brackets.
Vern Smith (#324 fuselage)
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: RV10-List: mid seat rail support
Way back on page 28-16 step 2 I put the F-1057 (L&R) together and, as
the directions said "laid them aside". I am now putting on the landing
gear and wheels, and the F-1057's are still "laid aside". I have
searched and researched the plans but I'll be damn if I can find where
the instructions are for mounting these guys. Seems straight forward
with 8 AN3 bolts but am I supposed to wait until some time later (FWF
kit, first flight, or even later)? Help. Jay Rowe
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
has anyone flown the handheld Cheeta system...FL 190 or something like that?
P
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 24
| 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 |
|
Due to insufficient electrical power to run my air compressor where I
need
it, I have been faced with using a 50 foot =BC inch air line to my work
area
from the compressor. As expected, the air delivery was terrible. So I
tried a little experiment, which has worked out quite well. I happened
to
also have a portable air tank from Sears, the kind one uses to carry out
to
a vehicle and pump up the tires. I put a tee together such that I can
plug
in the 50 foot line from the compressor, fill the air tank, and provide
air
for drilling and spray painting. It works like a charm. The compressor
is
an old Sears 1=BD horse. If anyone reading this is faced with the same
problem, try it. I don=92t think I paid more than $35 for the air tank.
Be
careful not to set the compressor pressure higher than the max for the
air
tank (125 in this case).
Bill (and Jon) Reining
40514
Message 25
| 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 |
|
hey Rob
Yes - that is what I have done. I have the cabin deck, engine mount and
gear on while the upper fuse is still removable. Just be aware that
some of the fwd fuse rib - firewall and fwd fuse skin - cowl hinge
rivets may be hard to set with the engine mount in place.
cheers,
Ron
187 finishing
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wright
Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2007 3:36 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Upper Fwd Fuse
Is it feasible to cleco in the upper fwd fuse, then fit and
install the canopy, and then remove the upper fwd fuse so I can play
with my panel and sub-panel? Later on I'd then slide the fwd fuse back
into place and rivet it once my sub-panel mods are complete.
Rob Wright
#392
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos
new Car Finder tool.
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48518/*http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/;_yl
c
=X3oDMTE3NWsyMDd2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDY2FyLWZpbmRlcg
-
- hot CTA = Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool
Message 26
| 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: | mid seat rail support |
I called Van's recently asking the same question. They couldn't find the bolt
callouts either and said just use the correct length that works. Not sure if
there are any bolts included in the kit.
Aaron
"Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com> wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
I havent found it either. But it needs to be done before completing
page 35-8. Thats the page the seat floors are installed over the top of the brackets.
Vern Smith (#324 fuselage)
Do not archive
---------------------------------
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: RV10-List: mid seat rail support
Way back on page 28-16 step 2 I put the F-1057 (L&R) together and, as the directions
said "laid them aside". I am now putting on the landing gear and wheels,
and the F-1057's are still "laid aside". I have searched and researched
the plans but I'll be damn if I can find where the instructions are for mounting
these guys. Seems straight forward with 8 AN3 bolts but am I supposed to
wait until some time later (FWF kit, first flight, or even later)? Help. Jay
Rowe
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
Message 27
| 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: mid seat rail support |
Thanks all---you have made me feel so much better. Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Gleixner
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: mid seat rail support
I called Van's recently asking the same question. They couldn't find
the bolt callouts either and said just use the correct length that
works. Not sure if there are any bolts included in the kit.
Aaron
"Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com> wrote:
I haven't found it either. But it needs to be done before completing
page 35-8. That's the page the seat floors are installed over the top of
the brackets.
Vern Smith (#324 fuselage)
Do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:08 PM
To: RV10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: mid seat rail support
Way back on page 28-16 step 2 I put the F-1057 (L&R) together and,
as the directions said "laid them aside". I am now putting on the
landing gear and wheels, and the F-1057's are still "laid aside". I
have searched and researched the plans but I'll be damn if I can find
where the instructions are for mounting these guys. Seems straight
forward with 8 AN3 bolts but am I supposed to wait until some time later
(FWF kit, first flight, or even later)? Help. Jay Rowe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
5/23/2007 3:59 PM
Message 28
| 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: mid seat rail support |
Thanks all---you have made me feel so much better. Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Gleixner
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: mid seat rail support
I called Van's recently asking the same question. They couldn't find
the bolt callouts either and said just use the correct length that
works. Not sure if there are any bolts included in the kit.
Aaron
"Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com> wrote:
I haven't found it either. But it needs to be done before completing
page 35-8. That's the page the seat floors are installed over the top of
the brackets.
Vern Smith (#324 fuselage)
Do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:08 PM
To: RV10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: mid seat rail support
Way back on page 28-16 step 2 I put the F-1057 (L&R) together and,
as the directions said "laid them aside". I am now putting on the
landing gear and wheels, and the F-1057's are still "laid aside". I
have searched and researched the plans but I'll be damn if I can find
where the instructions are for mounting these guys. Seems straight
forward with 8 AN3 bolts but am I supposed to wait until some time later
(FWF kit, first flight, or even later)? Help. Jay Rowe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
5/23/2007 3:59 PM
Message 29
| 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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system
but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget".
I am completely comfortable that the GRT with the TT VSVG or Soccorer is as
safe as the Chelton if used properly. The Chelton might give us a few more
"inputs" like Synthetic Vision that would be helpful at the TU point but I
would hope that we all would have made the decision long before to go to the
alternate.
Once you get past the basic IFR plane with a good autopilot, you have all
you require but maybe not all you might need in an extreme situation. No
matter the package you fly, the biggest safety factor is the pilot.
I'm probably not saying this correctly but the "functional" difference is so
small compared to all the other significant risk factors in a low approach
that I bet you would have called it off no matter which system you had. I
would suggest to you that in real life IFR flight, that you will never say,
"if I had a Chelton, I would have done it but since I only have the GRT,
I'll go to the alternate". You will have made the decision way before the
difference come into plan.
Tim, jump in here but for conversation purposes, there is an argument that
that a simple 6 pack with an HIS/ILS and GPS is just as safe right up to the
point where the pilot senses he is starting to lose situational awareness.
If at that point, he is hand flying, there is simply no time to analyze the
situation without distraction, you just go missed to the alternate and
you're as safe as the Chelton boys. NOW, the big difference is that at the
point where the pilot starts to get overwhelmed hand flying, the Chelton(or
almost Chelton) boys are still calmly monitoring the equipment, have more
inputs to determine corrective action, and have better situational
awareness. In the real world that means that they can observe the equipment
fly the approach while monitoring ALL(most) aspects of a deteriorating
approach while a lesser equipped plane will require more flying and less
monitoring and fly a higher risk approach. The more dollars you spend on
equipment, the potential benefit is increased situational awareness and the
ability to delay the go-missed decision. BUT that doesn't make one
inherently safer than the other if the pilot uses good judgment in a timely
manner. We simply have to substitute a slightly more conservative risk
management approach to allow for minor or major equipment differences caused
by budget shortfalls ;-(
HOWEVER, there simply is no argument that more equipment is safer if you are
truly backed into a corner. Let's work real hard not to get in that corner
and try to really understand the equipment we can afford.
Very enjoyable discussion, good points by all.
Bill S
7a and other stuff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, Jack
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
--> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
As usual, a great post, Tim.
I wish I could afford the Chelton system. But unless I win the lottery I
will have to see what the next best system is, at about half the price of
the cheton. So far, GRT looks like the one.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Tailcone
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
John J,
I'll run through a quick example of a couple things. One thing about the
Chelton and instrument flying sudden-ties is this. I remember a flight in
the old plane a few years ago, when I was freshly minted with an IFR ticket.
Enroute to Florida, over the mountains near Chattanooga, I was VFR and it
was getting dark from a storm to the west. A layer started building below
me, but it was pretty thin. I realized that if I continued to Atlanta, it
would get darker, from evening and from the storm. I then realized I forgot
my prescription glasses at home and I didn't really care to tackle a night
VFR on top trip over the mountains without 100% clear vision...and I didn't
want to go night IFR over them either....because I had no onboard Wx and
didn't want to run into something unseen. Time to divert. Descended,
towards Chattanooga, and worked down through what was a hole in the now
thickening layer below....still semi comfortable that if all else failed I
could climb back to at least 7500 and do a 180 and be in acceptable
conditions within 20 minutes. The "hole" ended up going far lower to ground
level than I thought, and all the houses and cars I distinctly remember had
lights on. It was
*dark* down there. I flew towards the nearest airport on my handheld, but
realized that I'd be flying either into clouds, or darkness that was enough
that I didn't know where terrain was.
My personal thought to myself was "You know, it's RIGHT now, at THIS point,
where continuing makes me exactly like the magazine articles I read about."
Without a 2nd thought, I did a 180, aimed the plane right back on my
previous reverse course, and started climbing, while ignoring the clouds
altogether, deciding to just simply climb straight go right through them
until I busted out. As I did this, my wife scrambled for the charts, and I
told her to pull out Chattanooga. I tried to remain level-headed, and
although I was very on-edge, I was also calm. I contacted Chattanooga
approach...told them I had been VFR on top and descended and realized it was
not good, and that I wanted help getting set up for an approach to
Chattanooga. They were very nice, and said something like "climb and
maintain 4500', turn Left heading 180 for vectors for the ILS-XX".
Immediately, it was a total relief, and although it got dark as night, I
became comfortable and felt secure. I briefed myself on the ILS approach
chart, now that I could calmly just hold heading on the AP and altitude by
hand. Surprisingly, I was between layers for a while, and although only
500' at times over the city, I saw absolutely no lights below. I flew the
ILS, in rain, to about 300' and broke out, at night with the lights blazing
in front of me. One of the best experiences in my life and it was a great
time indeed. My fault for trying to continue VFR a little too long. My
credit for recognizing that and taking the proper way to resolve the
situation. NEVER, EVER, EVER, be afraid to ask for help.
How could this be different? Well, with onboard Wx, I can not only see rain
and storm areas, that's a simple one. But, with WSI I also can frequently
punch "Nearest - WX" along my route and get local winds and altimeter and
weather conditions including graphical METARS (those colored circles at
airports coded for wx conditions), on many airports along the way. So now I
could have easily realized the airports around me were IFR. Considering I'd
have terrain on board, I wouldn't continue towards a small nearby airport,
but I certainly would know if my fate was in danger.
From there, with the EFIS I could have had almost immediate access to the
ATC and Approach facilities, as well as the ILS frequencies, and loaded the
approach with ease. The Chelton approach loading procedure is slick as can
be...I can literally go from realizing I'm lost to having a fully loaded
instrument approach to a nearby airport and locked in to the autopilot
within 8-10 seconds...and that's not an exaggeration. It's very very simple
to use. That would have made it very easy to punch in the approach, and
still take heading vectors as required and basically have a hands-off
approach. The alternative in this case would have also been slick....I
could have looked for nearest ATC, picked up a pop-up IFR clearance, and in
all reality given the instrumentation AND the aircraft I'm now flying, I
would have probably just continued to Atlanta.
It would be so much simpler to know where the weather was, and the EFIS very
much turns a night flight into a day flight in some respects. With full
terrain, including synthetic vision with mountains in front of me, I could
have comfortably continued over the mountains without as much worry. And,
the RV-10 would make the altitude easier to obtain to keep good clearance,
and the speed would have made the ability to get there in daylight much
nicer. In all reality, the ride was dead smooth, the weather was plenty
flyable, and the trip was easy to continue safely...but given my limitations
in the actual senario I was best folding my hand early....whereas now I have
plenty of kings and aces.
As for the missed approach topic....one other cool thing about the EFIS is
that as you are past the FAF, you get an ARM and a MISS softkey that pops
up. Just hit ARM on the way down, and, as soon as you hit MISS, it will
start flying the missed approach point. You have VSI, V-speed, Airspeed,
MDA/DH and many more bugs you can use to aid you along the way, but once you
hit minimums, you can hit one single key, and then throttle up and clean up
the flaps and the plane will fly itself for the published missed approach.
Now THAT is some piece of mind when flying IFR on a low day....and not only
that, but it includes the HITS, so even without an autopilot it's a breeze.
I had a good phone conversation last night and heard a story about a pilot
who's theory was to take every flight, and break just one link in the chain.
That's to say, accidents happen because of a chain of events gone wrong. If
you can remove just one link in the chain, you can prevent that accident
from happening. To me, I feel the equipment has the ability to shorten and
sever that chain in many respects.
Some links are strictly up to the pilot. Some are the maintainer.
Piloting in IFR conditions can make you feel very "vinceable"....so every
bit of comfort is great.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Jessen wrote:
>
> Bill, thanks for this excellent post. Now we're getting down to brass
> tacks.
>
> This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is handled by the
> glossing replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too
> complex, too many options, too many situations, so just go fly some
> examples. Problem is, if you don't know what your looking for or what
> questions to ask, well, then, this is why the learning experience of
> others is so valuable as a starting point.
>
> Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog. I've been on two VFR
> flights where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current. One was a
> similar fog scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business
> airspace. The fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick,
> and I could have diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I
> was vulnerable. The white out was very illuminating. IMC in an
> instant. VFR guys calling in from all over asking for help. Went
> down on the instruments and felt very in control and comfortable
> keeping the 182 stable and headed in the right direction, but it made
> me very conscious that I didn't have the right knowledge nor
> experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but keep her stable.
> Flight following was great. My flight plan got me to my VOR, then
> made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got vectored in
> and given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great. Finally got
> to where I could see and the crises was over. But that is a real
> situation that can be described in terms of what one needs, what one
> can do, what creates the consequent issues that dictate flight deck
actions. The mission was a benign cross-country flight to visit with a
client. No hurry no worry.
>
> I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission. Also, I
> think we can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation
> for take off, take off, en route, approach, landing, etc. The more
scenarios the better.
> The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to describe,
> and it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but
> very enlightening for all others. How does one use the equipment in
> front of them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC
presents, and
> all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?
>
> Collins (Flying magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us
> that "what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight. In
> short, you should be prepared for almost anything, because at some
> point in time you'll get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or
> traffic or the kids in the back seat. That's not to say you need the
> full monty in your panel, but that you need to understand and practice
how to use what you have. Fine.
> This we know.
>
> But when you're planning said panel, what are the, and I won't say
> "nice to haves" but something more like "makes the execution more
> efficient, easier and safer" because of what? Tim did a good job of
> describing his one flight that started to get him spatially
> disoriented and was appreciative of the HITS and computer generated
> terrain. This is an important point and based on a flying example.
> Being told to enter a holding pattern is another example. Flying to
minimums and having to execute a go around is another.
> There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand why a
> particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.
>
> It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one else's.
> What matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the
> reasons that your set up is good, bad or indifferent. By working
> through the scenarios presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation
> flight, one should be able to gain an even better appreciation of the
> panel you have or are going to have.
>
> Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even plunked down
> dollars for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who
> have a panel, and especially those who have been flying, is huge.
>
> My suggestion is that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki
> (something that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy
> has done enough for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be
> mission x type of IFR scenario, then have folks describe how their
> panel choice makes flying such a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a
> down right PITA, and the reasons why (too difficult to punch in new
> numbers while be tossed around, just fly the boxes, whatever the
> reason). The baseline panel would be something like Randy's, which is
> what I would think anyone would say to be a darn good, basic IFR
> panel. Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI (and thus much
> more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot with GPSS,
an MX-20. This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and effectively.
> Tim and Deems have very high end panels. Etc etc.
>
> But the key is to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration,
> then describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.
>
> Any takers?
>
> John Jessen
> #328
>
> do not archive
_________________________________________________
Message 30
| 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 Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
In a message dated 5/24/2007 11:06:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net writes:
HOWEVER, there simply is no argument that more equipment is safer if you are
truly backed into a corner.
Bill, I think your point is well taken but having flown in a glass machine,
one really needs to stay perfectient to be comfortable..sitting monitoring all
the wonderful machines and also to know when one has a hic-up takes some skill
building time. I'm really not that impressed with the Cessna G 1000 solution
to back up instruments. They're OK but not great. They are now introducing
the Garmin autopilots but the current King AP's require a turn indicator, and
they have it buried behind the screens so that it absolutely zero help in an
emergency situation. I think a good back up electric DG is not a bad option
with it's own back up power would be a nice item to have along with the screens.
I don't know what's come of a recent accident investgation where an all glass
piper went in but the scuttle butt was that the G 1000's had some problems
and may have shut down, and the pilot lost control and the back up instruments
were either not enough or they were also off line. I would think a good
electric DG with a vertical card compass and maybe a good handheld GPS would be
a
good strong back up to the all glass machines, especially if the hand held had
good internal back up battery power...at least 2+ hours of time. I've got a
feeling the old radio nav system is not going away all that soon.
P
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 31
| 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: | mid seat rail support |
They can really go in any time, but you don't want them in the way when you are
doing other stuff around there. I would put them in when you are ready to put
the seat floor and seat rails in. It is super hard to get the nuts on the bottom.
How many are putting the bolt on from the bottom and nuts on the top?
That way you can mark them w/ torque seal and check them easily.
Do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
352-427-0285
Leather interior kit for the RV-10 -
www.saintaviation.com/interior
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr@adelphia.net>
Sent: 5/24/2007 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: mid seat rail support
Thanks all---you have made me feel so much better. Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Gleixner
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: mid seat rail support
I called Van's recently asking the same question. They couldn't find the bolt
callouts either and said just use the correct length that works. Not sure if
there are any bolts included in the kit.
Aaron
"Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com> wrote:
I haven't found it either. But it needs to be done before completing page 35-8.
That's the page the seat floors are installed over the top of the brackets.
Vern Smith (#324 fuselage)
Do not archive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:08 PM
To: RV10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: mid seat rail support
Way back on page 28-16 step 2 I put the F-1057 (L&R) together and, as the directions
said "laid them aside". I am now putting on the landing gear and wheels,
and the F-1057's are still "laid aside". I have searched and researched
the plans but I'll be damn if I can find where the instructions are for mounting
these guys. Seems straight forward with 8 AN3 bolts but am I supposed to
wait until some time later (FWF kit, first flight, or even later)? Help. Jay
Rowe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/23/2007 3:59 PM
Message 32
| 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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic
A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K
treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight).
Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button
push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter
what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer
if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely
with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it
off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going
$5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
352-427-0285
Leather interior kit for the RV-10 -
www.saintaviation.com/interior
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system
but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget"
Message 33
| 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 am actually in the process of purchasing that system. After reading about and talking with them I am very impressed with it and I recently received a free Samsung Q1 and thought I might as well give it a try. It has all the weather that the 496 has plus more, and you can get all the approach charts, taxi diagrams, and low IFR charts on it. Your plane can overlay on all the charts I just mentioned as well. The also have all the IFR approaches loaded into the system so you can fly the approach on the moving map. They said within the next couple of week they will have forward 3D synthetic vision with HITS. Later this year they will have outputs for digital autopilots. For around $2500 for a total system they seem pretty cool. www.aviationsafety.com
Weather for my plane is something I have really struggled with over the past year.
My options have been a Garmin 396 or 496, WSI for the Chelton, Grand Rapids
XM weather, Anywhere map, True Flight, or just WX WORX.
They all have their positives and negatives.
Garmin 396 or 496 - Nice package, good support, simple to use, nice screen, but
is a Garmin and they are expensive to keep current relative to the others. From
what I hear they shut down guidance when on an approach so you don't use it
as a primary source (not a big deal). I also like the fact that I could take
this from the plane, throw it in the car or my motorcycle and have dual purposes
for it.
WSI for Chelton - By far the most expensive to purchase and monthly subscription
is a little more. The huge advantage is the fact that I don't have to have
another piece of equipment in the plane and I can see my current flight plan on
the screen. But the system is around $5,000 to purchase.
Grand Rapids XM Weather - Looks pretty cool and for $1500 it is hard to beat.
The screen resolution isn't the best but for practical purposes it seems like
it would do the job. Doesn't have all the screen options that the Garmin or others
have.
Anywhere map - This is a do-all system with weather, approach charts and maps.
I have played with this system alot at Oshkosh but I think True Flight has a
few more features.
WX Worx - Great system if you just need weather, lacks approach charts, IFR airways,
maps
True Flight - Has just about everything the other systems plus more. There are
things I don't like about the screen setup, but overall it looks pretty complete.
In talking with the them, I had concerns about the hard drive crashing on the Samsung
like I have heard with the Motion Computing. Apparently, the Motion Computing
suffers from an overheating issue, not a hard drive crashing issue. At
the higher altitudes the CPU doesn't have the air required to keep the chip cool.
They have tested the Samsung to 19,000 and not had any issues. I don't
see flying above that much. I was at 15,500 the other day at gross, and it didn't
look like I had much climb performance left.
This selection is as frustrating as planning the perfect panel. Once I get it
I will let you know how I like it.
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----
From: "GRANSCOTT@aol.com" <GRANSCOTT@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:48:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
has anyone flown the handheld Cheeta system...FL 190 or something like that?
P
See what's free at AOL.com.
Message 34
| 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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic
A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K
treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight).
Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button
push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter
what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer
if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely
with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it
off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going
$5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
352-427-0285
Leather interior kit for the RV-10 -
www.saintaviation.com/interior
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system
but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget"
Message 35
| 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: Tax the internet |
Can we talk about "User fees?"
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:06 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Tax the internet
>
> I agree. This is not a place for politics; let's keep it to airplanes.
>
> --------
> #40572 Empennage done, starting QB Wings
> N711JG reserved
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114607#114607
>
>
>
Message 36
| 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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic
A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K
treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight).
Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button
push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter
what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer
if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely
with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it
off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going
$5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
352-427-0285
Leather interior kit for the RV-10 -
www.saintaviation.com/interior
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system
but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget"
Message 37
| 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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic
A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K
treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight).
Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button
push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter
what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer
if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely
with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it
off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going
$5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
352-427-0285
Leather interior kit for the RV-10 -
www.saintaviation.com/interior
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system
but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget"
Message 38
| 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: | The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic
A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K
treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight).
Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button
push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter
what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer
if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely
with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it
off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going
$5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
352-427-0285
Leather interior kit for the RV-10 -
www.saintaviation.com/interior
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system
but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget"
Message 39
| 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 Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Your perfect panel just got less perfect, as FAA moves to establish
Garmin monopoly:
FAA policy change restricts many IFR GPS receivers
GPS receiver
Those older IFR-certified GPS receivers (and some brand-new ones) that
you've been relying on for years may now be unapproved for flying many
instrument procedures, thanks to some recent FAA policy changes.
"This doesn't make any sense. In most cases, this is not a safety of
flight issue," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA senior director of strategic
planning. "Pilots affected will lose access to approaches and
published routes unnecessarily."
AOPA has brought the matter to the FAA's attention.
The issue came about in March when the FAA updated avionics compliance
tables in Advisory Circular 90-100A and made changes to the
Aeronautical Information Manual. It means that up to 26,000 GPS users
no longer comply with a 1996 FAA policy that allows GPS to be used in
lieu of ADF or DME.
Only three GPS models the Garmin 400-, 500-, and G1000-series are
legal, according to the FAA documents. Other models made by Garmin,
including the new GNS 480 WAAS receiver, as well as receivers
manufactured by Chelton, Honeywell, Northstar, and Trimble are listed
as "noncompliant." See the avionics chart.
Many members have removed ADF and DME navigation equipment from their
aircraft because of the 1996 policy, and they will no longer have
access to conventional and precision approaches where the equipment is
a required element. Complicating matters further, the older GPS boxes
are prohibited from flying RNAV routes and terminal RNAV procedures.
AOPA told the FAA that all IFR-certified systems should still be
approved for use in lieu of ADF and DME and for flying T routes and
certain departure procedures where pilots manually enter the
waypoints. Except for major metropolitan airports, the use of older
boxes should not be restricted.
Message 40
| 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 Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Bill, the Chelton might give you a little more functionality but the best investment
for IFR flying with any of these systems is the autopilot. During my training,
I flew pretty new C-172's but their autopilot was not nearly as good as
the Digiflight autopilots. It is so nice to take off when the ceiling is low,
get a couple of hundred feet off the ground, hit the A/P button, set your climb
rate and start monitoring. When you are going through puffy clouds and only
getting a glimpse of the ground once in a while it is amazing how disorienting
that can be. The autopilot linked to the Grand Rapids is so much better
than anything that C-172 offered which was either a heading or a NAV signal.
The ability to track a flight path really is great. I have been amazed at how
many people use their 396 or 496 for autopilot steering as well. Since it is
so easy to program a flight plan at home, they simply pop it in the plane and
use that for steering. Many accidents could have
been prevented if they would have just hit the autopilot button if the EFIS or
artificial horizon went away.
I have had three flights where I took off with 500 feet or less ceilings with mixed
rain. I hand flew one to see how I could do and I was really having to work
to stay on course and keep the wings level even with the big bright Chelton
right in front of me. The Chelton is great but it is the autopilot that relieves
the stress of IMC flying. The other two flights were a piece of cake even
though again I was completely blind and the rain was really coming down, the
autopilot did an amazing job. If I would have lost that autopilot even the
Chelton would be stressful to fly.
By the way, on one of those flights I was in the most rain I have ever been in.
It was a down pour and I never got one drop of rain in my front vents. Don't
know if I have mentioned that before but I was impressed with those NACA ducts.
Sure cleaned the plane up nice though.
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Schlatterer <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:03:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system
but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget".
I am completely comfortable that the GRT with the TT VSVG or Soccorer is as
safe as the Chelton if used properly. The Chelton might give us a few more
"inputs" like Synthetic Vision that would be helpful at the TU point but I
would hope that we all would have made the decision long before to go to the
alternate.
Once you get past the basic IFR plane with a good autopilot, you have all
you require but maybe not all you might need in an extreme situation. No
matter the package you fly, the biggest safety factor is the pilot.
I'm probably not saying this correctly but the "functional" difference is so
small compared to all the other significant risk factors in a low approach
that I bet you would have called it off no matter which system you had. I
would suggest to you that in real life IFR flight, that you will never say,
"if I had a Chelton, I would have done it but since I only have the GRT,
I'll go to the alternate". You will have made the decision way before the
difference come into plan.
Tim, jump in here but for conversation purposes, there is an argument that
that a simple 6 pack with an HIS/ILS and GPS is just as safe right up to the
point where the pilot senses he is starting to lose situational awareness.
If at that point, he is hand flying, there is simply no time to analyze the
situation without distraction, you just go missed to the alternate and
you're as safe as the Chelton boys. NOW, the big difference is that at the
point where the pilot starts to get overwhelmed hand flying, the Chelton(or
almost Chelton) boys are still calmly monitoring the equipment, have more
inputs to determine corrective action, and have better situational
awareness. In the real world that means that they can observe the equipment
fly the approach while monitoring ALL(most) aspects of a deteriorating
approach while a lesser equipped plane will require more flying and less
monitoring and fly a higher risk approach. The more dollars you spend on
equipment, the potential benefit is increased situational awareness and the
ability to delay the go-missed decision. BUT that doesn't make one
inherently safer than the other if the pilot uses good judgment in a timely
manner. We simply have to substitute a slightly more conservative risk
management approach to allow for minor or major equipment differences caused
by budget shortfalls ;-(
HOWEVER, there simply is no argument that more equipment is safer if you are
truly backed into a corner. Let's work real hard not to get in that corner
and try to really understand the equipment we can afford.
Very enjoyable discussion, good points by all.
Bill S
7a and other stuff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, Jack
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
--> <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
As usual, a great post, Tim.
I wish I could afford the Chelton system. But unless I win the lottery I
will have to see what the next best system is, at about half the price of
the cheton. So far, GRT looks like the one.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Tailcone
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
John J,
I'll run through a quick example of a couple things. One thing about the
Chelton and instrument flying sudden-ties is this. I remember a flight in
the old plane a few years ago, when I was freshly minted with an IFR ticket.
Enroute to Florida, over the mountains near Chattanooga, I was VFR and it
was getting dark from a storm to the west. A layer started building below
me, but it was pretty thin. I realized that if I continued to Atlanta, it
would get darker, from evening and from the storm. I then realized I forgot
my prescription glasses at home and I didn't really care to tackle a night
VFR on top trip over the mountains without 100% clear vision...and I didn't
want to go night IFR over them either....because I had no onboard Wx and
didn't want to run into something unseen. Time to divert. Descended,
towards Chattanooga, and worked down through what was a hole in the now
thickening layer below....still semi comfortable that if all else failed I
could climb back to at least 7500 and do a 180 and be in acceptable
conditions within 20 minutes. The "hole" ended up going far lower to ground
level than I thought, and all the houses and cars I distinctly remember had
lights on. It was
*dark* down there. I flew towards the nearest airport on my handheld, but
realized that I'd be flying either into clouds, or darkness that was enough
that I didn't know where terrain was.
My personal thought to myself was "You know, it's RIGHT now, at THIS point,
where continuing makes me exactly like the magazine articles I read about."
Without a 2nd thought, I did a 180, aimed the plane right back on my
previous reverse course, and started climbing, while ignoring the clouds
altogether, deciding to just simply climb straight go right through them
until I busted out. As I did this, my wife scrambled for the charts, and I
told her to pull out Chattanooga. I tried to remain level-headed, and
although I was very on-edge, I was also calm. I contacted Chattanooga
approach...told them I had been VFR on top and descended and realized it was
not good, and that I wanted help getting set up for an approach to
Chattanooga. They were very nice, and said something like "climb and
maintain 4500', turn Left heading 180 for vectors for the ILS-XX".
Immediately, it was a total relief, and although it got dark as night, I
became comfortable and felt secure. I briefed myself on the ILS approach
chart, now that I could calmly just hold heading on the AP and altitude by
hand. Surprisingly, I was between layers for a while, and although only
500' at times over the city, I saw absolutely no lights below. I flew the
ILS, in rain, to about 300' and broke out, at night with the lights blazing
in front of me. One of the best experiences in my life and it was a great
time indeed. My fault for trying to continue VFR a little too long. My
credit for recognizing that and taking the proper way to resolve the
situation. NEVER, EVER, EVER, be afraid to ask for help.
How could this be different? Well, with onboard Wx, I can not only see rain
and storm areas, that's a simple one. But, with WSI I also can frequently
punch "Nearest - WX" along my route and get local winds and altimeter and
weather conditions including graphical METARS (those colored circles at
airports coded for wx conditions), on many airports along the way. So now I
could have easily realized the airports around me were IFR. Considering I'd
have terrain on board, I wouldn't continue towards a small nearby airport,
but I certainly would know if my fate was in danger.
>From there, with the EFIS I could have had almost immediate access to the
ATC and Approach facilities, as well as the ILS frequencies, and loaded the
approach with ease. The Chelton approach loading procedure is slick as can
be...I can literally go from realizing I'm lost to having a fully loaded
instrument approach to a nearby airport and locked in to the autopilot
within 8-10 seconds...and that's not an exaggeration. It's very very simple
to use. That would have made it very easy to punch in the approach, and
still take heading vectors as required and basically have a hands-off
approach. The alternative in this case would have also been slick....I
could have looked for nearest ATC, picked up a pop-up IFR clearance, and in
all reality given the instrumentation AND the aircraft I'm now flying, I
would have probably just continued to Atlanta.
It would be so much simpler to know where the weather was, and the EFIS very
much turns a night flight into a day flight in some respects. With full
terrain, including synthetic vision with mountains in front of me, I could
have comfortably continued over the mountains without as much worry. And,
the RV-10 would make the altitude easier to obtain to keep good clearance,
and the speed would have made the ability to get there in daylight much
nicer. In all reality, the ride was dead smooth, the weather was plenty
flyable, and the trip was easy to continue safely...but given my limitations
in the actual senario I was best folding my hand early....whereas now I have
plenty of kings and aces.
As for the missed approach topic....one other cool thing about the EFIS is
that as you are past the FAF, you get an ARM and a MISS softkey that pops
up. Just hit ARM on the way down, and, as soon as you hit MISS, it will
start flying the missed approach point. You have VSI, V-speed, Airspeed,
MDA/DH and many more bugs you can use to aid you along the way, but once you
hit minimums, you can hit one single key, and then throttle up and clean up
the flaps and the plane will fly itself for the published missed approach.
Now THAT is some piece of mind when flying IFR on a low day....and not only
that, but it includes the HITS, so even without an autopilot it's a breeze.
I had a good phone conversation last night and heard a story about a pilot
who's theory was to take every flight, and break just one link in the chain.
That's to say, accidents happen because of a chain of events gone wrong. If
you can remove just one link in the chain, you can prevent that accident
from happening. To me, I feel the equipment has the ability to shorten and
sever that chain in many respects.
Some links are strictly up to the pilot. Some are the maintainer.
Piloting in IFR conditions can make you feel very "vinceable"....so every
bit of comfort is great.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Jessen wrote:
>
> Bill, thanks for this excellent post. Now we're getting down to brass
> tacks.
>
> This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is handled by the
> glossing replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too
> complex, too many options, too many situations, so just go fly some
> examples. Problem is, if you don't know what your looking for or what
> questions to ask, well, then, this is why the learning experience of
> others is so valuable as a starting point.
>
> Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog. I've been on two VFR
> flights where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current. One was a
> similar fog scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business
> airspace. The fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick,
> and I could have diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I
> was vulnerable. The white out was very illuminating. IMC in an
> instant. VFR guys calling in from all over asking for help. Went
> down on the instruments and felt very in control and comfortable
> keeping the 182 stable and headed in the right direction, but it made
> me very conscious that I didn't have the right knowledge nor
> experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but keep her stable.
> Flight following was great. My flight plan got me to my VOR, then
> made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got vectored in
> and given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great. Finally got
> to where I could see and the crises was over. But that is a real
> situation that can be described in terms of what one needs, what one
> can do, what creates the consequent issues that dictate flight deck
actions. The mission was a benign cross-country flight to visit with a
client. No hurry no worry.
>
> I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission. Also, I
> think we can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation
> for take off, take off, en route, approach, landing, etc. The more
scenarios the better.
> The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to describe,
> and it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but
> very enlightening for all others. How does one use the equipment in
> front of them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC
presents, and
> all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?
>
> Collins (Flying magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us
> that "what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight. In
> short, you should be prepared for almost anything, because at some
> point in time you'll get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or
> traffic or the kids in the back seat. That's not to say you need the
> full monty in your panel, but that you need to understand and practice
how to use what you have. Fine.
> This we know.
>
> But when you're planning said panel, what are the, and I won't say
> "nice to haves" but something more like "makes the execution more
> efficient, easier and safer" because of what? Tim did a good job of
> describing his one flight that started to get him spatially
> disoriented and was appreciative of the HITS and computer generated
> terrain. This is an important point and based on a flying example.
> Being told to enter a holding pattern is another example. Flying to
minimums and having to execute a go around is another.
> There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand why a
> particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.
>
> It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one else's.
> What matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the
> reasons that your set up is good, bad or indifferent. By working
> through the scenarios presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation
> flight, one should be able to gain an even better appreciation of the
> panel you have or are going to have.
>
> Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even plunked down
> dollars for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who
> have a panel, and especially those who have been flying, is huge.
>
> My suggestion is that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki
> (something that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy
> has done enough for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be
> mission x type of IFR scenario, then have folks describe how their
> panel choice makes flying such a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a
> down right PITA, and the reasons why (too difficult to punch in new
> numbers while be tossed around, just fly the boxes, whatever the
> reason). The baseline panel would be something like Randy's, which is
> what I would think anyone would say to be a darn good, basic IFR
> panel. Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI (and thus much
> more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot with GPSS,
an MX-20. This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and effectively.
> Tim and Deems have very high end panels. Etc etc.
>
> But the key is to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration,
> then describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.
>
> Any takers?
>
> John Jessen
> #328
>
> do not archive
_________________________________________________
Message 41
| 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: | Rear Heat Vent Tube |
Does anyone know if I can cover or partially cover the hole in the right rear baffle
that feeds the rear heat during these summer months or does it need air
going through the heat muff to keep it cool?
I would like to cover at least half of it to increase the pressure and cooling.
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
Message 42
| 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 Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Kelly, when you used the word "Monopoly" you struck a chord with
me there. I just happened to catch that article a couple hours
ago too. To me, it reeks of 2 possibilities...
1) A Microsoft-like action by Garmin to get people to pay for another
upgrade to a new system.
or
2) A stupid inadvertent mistake by the fumbling policy writers at
the FAA. I could just have been a mistake.
Either way, my gut feeling is that it'll either be rectified by
new documents that change some wording or references, or it'll be
rectified by some sort of software update. It made me happy to see
that my AOPA dues were being used for something else useful at
least. They've been really earning that money the past few years.
Clearly though, from a functional standpoint there is really nothing
that has changed. A positive note is that part 91 operators are not
legally bound by regulations to comply.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Your perfect panel just got less perfect, as FAA moves to establish
> Garmin monopoly:
> FAA policy change restricts many IFR GPS receivers
> GPS receiver
>
> Those older IFR-certified GPS receivers (and some brand-new ones) that
> you've been relying on for years may now be unapproved for flying many
> instrument procedures, thanks to some recent FAA policy changes.
>
> "This doesn't make any sense. In most cases, this is not a safety of
> flight issue," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA senior director of strategic
> planning. "Pilots affected will lose access to approaches and
> published routes unnecessarily."
>
> AOPA has brought the matter to the FAA's attention.
>
> The issue came about in March when the FAA updated avionics compliance
> tables in Advisory Circular 90-100A and made changes to the
> Aeronautical Information Manual. It means that up to 26,000 GPS users
> no longer comply with a 1996 FAA policy that allows GPS to be used in
> lieu of ADF or DME.
>
> Only three GPS models the Garmin 400-, 500-, and G1000-series are
> legal, according to the FAA documents. Other models made by Garmin,
> including the new GNS 480 WAAS receiver, as well as receivers
> manufactured by Chelton, Honeywell, Northstar, and Trimble are listed
> as "noncompliant." See the avionics chart.
>
> Many members have removed ADF and DME navigation equipment from their
> aircraft because of the 1996 policy, and they will no longer have
> access to conventional and precision approaches where the equipment is
> a required element. Complicating matters further, the older GPS boxes
> are prohibited from flying RNAV routes and terminal RNAV procedures.
>
> AOPA told the FAA that all IFR-certified systems should still be
> approved for use in lieu of ADF and DME and for flying T routes and
> certain departure procedures where pilots manually enter the
> waypoints. Except for major metropolitan airports, the use of older
> boxes should not be restricted.
>
Message 43
| 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 Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W |
Bill,
I think situational awareness on an approach is just another example of
the standard "don't let yourself get behind the airplane" thing.
I became very comfortable/capable on steam gauges at knowing where
I was in relation to an approach using just a needle or two on the
panel. It wasn't too bad. A GPS with moving map just makes it
easier...but I found a handheld not on the panel (on the yoke) was
fairly tough to use effectively...you need it in the line of sight
better. But you've got a good point here too. If you fly an
approach and can stay ahead of the airplane, you can absolutely
fly it on steam gauges with a 6-pack and be OK.
I do think that you'd be more likely to LOSE that situational awareness
with a 6-pack than most any good EFIS with a MFD, and I think that
once you lost it, it would take you much more time to get it back.
But, the thing people have to keep in mind is that even when you're
in the worst soup, you almost always can just plain STOP and get
your head together. (The exception is surrounding high terrain,
where a terrain equipped box of some sort would be fantastic
at that moment.) If you found yourself all messed up, you simply
fly straight and level on heading and altitude hold on the AP, and
get your act together. Then, use the heading knob on the trutrak
to take you where you want to go at slow turn rates. People just
don't know when to give up some times and take a breather.
As far as analyzing distractions and situational awareness goes
though, like I said, any moving map equipped EFIS will greatly
help with that...and if it can draw your approach on the MFD (or on
a nice screen like the 530W), that just makes it a lot easier.
Without a system failure though, I think that I'd find it quite
a bit tougher to lose that situational awareness now than I would
have with the 6-pack, to the extent that it's very hard to picture
it happening. There's just too much flight path data available.
The most important thing like you said is the PILOT. They just
have to know when they should continue, when they should bail,
and if they bail they have to take the appropriate corrective
action...and the conservative approach is usually the best way to
go.
For me personally, I would hope that there aren't too many missed
approaches in my future, but, if I had some sort of EFIS failure
that left me with my meager backup gauges ;) I would probably
initiate a climb towards a quadrant where there aren't obstructions,
and start by asking ATC for a Vector while I get a plan together.
That's the beauty of the IFR system...there are people there who
are paid to assist you...and you just have to know when you need to
ask. At that point, as long as you have fuel and a running engine,
the odds are in your favor if you can maintain control.
All of this should be true for a pilot regardless of what they
have in their panel.
Tim
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Tim, jump in here but for conversation purposes, there is an argument that
> that a simple 6 pack with an HIS/ILS and GPS is just as safe right up to the
> point where the pilot senses he is starting to lose situational awareness.
> If at that point, he is hand flying, there is simply no time to analyze the
> situation without distraction, you just go missed to the alternate and
> you're as safe as the Chelton boys. NOW, the big difference is that at the
> point where the pilot starts to get overwhelmed hand flying, the Chelton(or
> almost Chelton) boys are still calmly monitoring the equipment, have more
> inputs to determine corrective action, and have better situational
> awareness. In the real world that means that they can observe the equipment
> fly the approach while monitoring ALL(most) aspects of a deteriorating
> approach while a lesser equipped plane will require more flying and less
> monitoring and fly a higher risk approach. The more dollars you spend on
> equipment, the potential benefit is increased situational awareness and the
> ability to delay the go-missed decision. BUT that doesn't make one
> inherently safer than the other if the pilot uses good judgment in a timely
> manner. We simply have to substitute a slightly more conservative risk
> management approach to allow for minor or major equipment differences caused
> by budget shortfalls ;-(
>
> HOWEVER, there simply is no argument that more equipment is safer if you are
> truly backed into a corner. Let's work real hard not to get in that corner
> and try to really understand the equipment we can afford.
>
> Very enjoyable discussion, good points by all.
>
> Bill S
> 7a and other stuff
>
>
do not archive
Message 44
| 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 Perfect Panel - The Perfect airplane |
One of the best discussions we have had in some time.
I think the points made to honestly do the best job possible defining the
mission, have some means of accessing real time weather and, if IFR is to be
part of the mission, an autopilot, are great advice.
I've had a ball flying a 4 for 10 years. Great memories flying all over the
country, much of it in groups of other RVs in large formations. I will miss
the little fighter, aerobatics, and every thing else that makes the smaller
Van's airplanes so much fun. In 10 years there were relatively few
occassions when weather prevented a planned trip.
"Justification" for building a 10 was to provide a more practical traveling
airplane (dog, no reasonable baggage limit, more comfort for the
passenger(s) etc.) In short an airplane that the rest of the family could
enjoy and use. Van has just completed a very simple VFR only RV10 which
could be duplicated for less than the price of most LSAs and would provide a
tremendous value for the cost to build. Even restricted to VFR only it is a
terriffic airplane.
The other part of the "justification" in my mind at least is that I hope to
realize satisfaction and enjoyment flying a very capable airplane in the
real IFR environment in an airplane every bit as capable as those selling
for nearly half a million bucks for a fraction of that cost.
Once the decision to provide for the best possible IFR panel for the budget
is made and all the easy to get information is in hand, the hard choices of
which combination of components to choose have to be made. The choices are
expanding all most monthly, that's a good thing I think.
IMHO the challenges are finding the best combination of components that will
work well together with a minimum of pilot input. Short of seeing the
various combinations work in a real fligt environment (the best option) ask
the dealers how the various IFR scenarios would be accomplished with X Y & Z
combinations. John Jesssen's advice is great.
Just one example that took a awhile to understand was the significant
differences between the DigiFlight and Sorcerer autopilots. One has it's
own brain (Sorcerer) and can fly most any scenario on it's own while the
DigiFlight requires some other component to do the heavy thinking. Finally,
ask how the various sensors 480, 430, 530 Freeflight etc. would talk to the
flight display of choice. One could spend a lot of money on the top of the
line everything but if they don't talk to each other easily one might end up
with a great video game but not a vary practical user friendly IFR panel.
Tim's scenarios sound like all you have to do is issue a voice command:"fly
approach" and the airplane responds. His is a great state of the art system
but, he knows a thing or two about switchology and has read the book. Same
holds true I'm sure for any of the advanced systems, they require lot's of
study and practice to gain the full benefit of the available capability. In
corporate and airline training more days and sim time are spent on the
EFIS/flight management system than any other in the airplane.
The costs envolved in a modern safe IFR EFIS panel are probably the biggest
single expense catagory in the project, but if well planned and executed
should provide and equally valuable sense of acomplishment.
Now, let's see how do I get this new soft ware version out of the email and
into my EFIS?
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! --
|