Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:43 AM - Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (barryhancock)
2. 10:12 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (doug sapp)
3. 10:39 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Roger Kemp MD)
4. 10:48 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
5. 10:56 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Roger Kemp MD)
6. 11:03 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
7. 11:11 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
8. 11:20 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
9. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (doug sapp)
10. 12:29 PM - Gear valves (doug sapp)
11. 12:32 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Roger Kemp MD)
12. 12:52 PM - Prop Seal (Peter K. Van Staagen)
13. 01:32 PM - Re: Prop Seal (Gill Gutierrez)
14. 01:43 PM - Re: Prop Seal (doug sapp)
15. 04:24 PM - Values (Craig Payne)
16. 05:48 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Forrest Johnson)
17. 05:49 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Forrest Johnson)
18. 06:19 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Forrest Johnson)
19. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
20. 06:46 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
21. 06:48 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
22. 06:59 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
23. 07:03 PM - Re: Values (Terry Lewis)
24. 07:14 PM - Re: Prop Seal (A. Dennis Savarese)
25. 07:43 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Roger Kemp MD)
26. 08:52 PM - Re: Prop Seal (Peter K. Van Staagen)
27. 09:22 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Peter K. Van Staagen)
28. 11:13 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Nigel Willson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
but mostly because I am not really all that good at flying..[/quote]
Don't let him fool you....I've seen him across the circle and he's lying.
Barry
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8054#208054
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system. Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may
be the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
>
>
> tjyak50 wrote:
> > We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> > There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
> >
> > So nobody does anything.
>
>
> Build it and they will come.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
>
>
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
It's the 450 hp 50.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of barryhancock
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:43 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
but mostly because I am not really all that good at flying..[/quote]
Don't let him fool you....I've seen him across the circle and he's lying.
Barry
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8054#208054
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
I'd love to hear your logic on why the UPCHARGE is necessary Doug.
Given that the amount that insurance people pay OUT is directly tied to
the rates we are charged to have it in the first place, this practice is
not likely in any way to change. Insurance companies are there to make
a profit. In order to lower insurance rates because of the installation
of gear warning systems, it would have to be shown that a certain
percentage of the accident payouts were due to gear up landings or gear
being raised on the deck. If the majority of the insurance payout is
due to other factors such as the "WING OFF" light coming on, or
approaching the deck at a 90 degree angle, then no one is going to be
interested in giving us a discount.
Again, the only real way insurance people will give any kind of discount
is if it is a proven fact that installing the gear warning systems will
save them MORE MONEY than not having it INCLUDING the discount.
So that said.... right now... with no gear warning system in the
majority of our aircraft, the insurance company is charging us a certain
rate based on aircraft value and accident statistics. Period. Asking
us to pay MORE right now means that they simply make MORE profit. If we
cough up $1500 and install the system, they give us back the UPCHARGE
and are back to making what they were before PLUS the benefit of less
accident rates, which over time... if successful and if people don't
wreck their aircraft for a lot of other reasons SHOULD EVENTUALLY see us
getting better insurance rates.
As it appears to me, an UPCHARGE done in the method you suggest just
appears to me to be a method of using us, the customer to provide
insurance to the insurance company that their profits remain completely
stable with zero risk to them. Of COURSE the insurance company would
like that idea. Who wouldn't?
Just as an aside, I have owned my YAK-50 for just short of 10 years now.
In that period of time, I have paid out just about 50% of the original
purchase price of the aircraft in insurance. Admittedly the first two
years my insurance rates were simply off the chart because I only had
100 hours of tail dragger time and zero time in type. That's a rate
that is about 5 times higher than my home insurance. That said, I'd be
interested in hearing why an upcharge would be a good thing.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of doug sapp
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled
cost and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen
to me". TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are
going to to drag this horse out and beat it some more I would like to
restate my opinion, knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get
a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want
to be proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it
across the board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This
upcharge would be refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear
warn system. Reading TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was
installed we could enjoy a reduction of our annual premiums also. As
unpopular as it may be to suggest yet another increase in our flying
expenses, I honestly think this may be the only way to get everyone's
attention and have a real impact on the problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt
with in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
Someone yesterday said a WOW switch would not work on the YAK? Why? We are
talking about a weight on wheels switch. I disables the up circuit on the
gear handle. Since we have a manual slide lock a simple micro circuit could
be added to the slide lock that when there is weight on the wheels and the
slide lock is open there is gear warning horn or beep beep in the head set.
With enough bucks you could even have a synthetic "Bitching Betty" saying
"check gear, check gear". (or whatever you want to say, like" take your
&*^%$#@ hands of the gear handle!") Yes, when you slide the slide lock open
for TO you would get that warning also. For a few folks I have seen TO, that
may not be such a bad idea either. The radar altimeter could also be
incorporated for a ground proximity warning also on landing warning of gear
up landing when there is no weight on the wheels.
Just a thought.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of doug sapp
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system. Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
Sounds fair to me! :-)
Mark
p.s. I'm going to do it Tom.
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of tjyak50
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 11:40 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Fine.
Install it and I will get you a discount off your Hull insurance
premium.
W.O.W. switch won't work in a Yak.
I got MY gear warning system installed, but mostly because I am not
really all that good at flying..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8018#208018
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: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
No, not really Doc. A rad alt gives very accurate distance to an
indicator in the cockpit. It can indeed be used to tie in to a gear
warning system of course as you mentioned, but it is very expensive. A
ground proximity warning system on the other hand, is much cheaper
(usually) and simply senses that the aircraft is within a certain preset
distance from the ground. Extreme accuracy is not usually necessary.
As long as it triggers somewhere between say 50 to 100 feet from the
deck. It would tie in to the gear warning light system with an AND gate
for summing the gear warning lights. It could also be wired with a tad
bit more circuitry to a solenoid that would replace the landing gear
safety pin. This pin would activate any time the gear was already down
and the aircraft was below the GPWS setting with a delay factor. This
would also mean that you could not RAISE the gear until you were over
150 feet or so from the runway.... which is another good safety factor.
If the gear was UP the solenoid pin would be disabled. This way you can
do away with a Weight On Wheels or... Weight OFF Wheels switch, which as
Tom mentioned is pretty much impossible to do on a 50, or possibly even
a 52. But it solves that problem does it not Tom?
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Roger Kemp MD
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 11:21 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<viperdoc@mindspring.com>
You referring to a WOW switch coupled to a radar altimeter?
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
What is needed is a cheap and simple ground proximity warning system.
I
believe the time for that is coming. We're seeing more and more systems
incorporated in cars that sense proximity. When these are small,
reliable
and cheap, putting them into an aircraft will be a no-brainer.
Mark Bitterlich
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 9:38 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
Doc, in order to have a WOW switch work, something has to MOVE. The
distance it MOVES has to enough to make a SWITCH activate or deactivate.
Think about the 50 .... what moves? The struts when inflated correctly
can be so stiff as to not move at all on landing. Yes, the slide lock
can be replaced with an electronic version (solenoid). Headset noises
are no problem either. A Rad/Alt could also be used instead of GPWS,
but at more expense.
The simple fact though is that if you have a GPWS, you really do not
need a weight on wheels switch. Just some control logic. When the gear
is down and you are below min altititude, the solenoid locks the pin so
the gear can not be raised and audio alerts are disabled. When the
aircraft takes off, and gets above minimum alt. then the gear lock pin
UNLOCKS, the gear can then be raised, and audio alerts are re-activated.
Am I missing something?
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Roger Kemp MD
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Someone yesterday said a WOW switch would not work on the YAK? Why? We
are talking about a weight on wheels switch. I disables the up circuit
on the gear handle. Since we have a manual slide lock a simple micro
circuit could be added to the slide lock that when there is weight on
the wheels and the slide lock is open there is gear warning horn or beep
beep in the head set. With enough bucks you could even have a synthetic
"Bitching Betty" saying "check gear, check gear". (or whatever you want
to say, like" take your &*^%$#@ hands of the gear handle!") Yes, when
you slide the slide lock open for TO you would get that warning also.
For a few folks I have seen TO, that may not be such a bad idea either.
The radar altimeter could also be incorporated for a ground proximity
warning also on landing warning of gear up landing when there is no
weight on the wheels.
Just a thought.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of doug sapp
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled
cost and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen
to me". TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are
going to to drag this horse out and beat it some more I would like to
restate my opinion, knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get
a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want
to be proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it
across the board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This
upcharge would be refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear
warn system. Reading TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was
installed we could enjoy a reduction of our annual premiums also. As
unpopular as it may be to suggest yet another increase in our flying
expenses, I honestly think this may be the only way to get everyone's
attention and have a real impact on the problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt
with in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
Well, there you go Mark, you'll installed an approved system and your going
to get a reduction in your premiums. That's exactly what I was talking
about. But that's only you, many others will not do anything and will
continue to have gear up accidents which will cause the premiums to remain
high. That's my point, unless it's "accross the board" you will not see and
reduction in rates. Tom, want to weigh in here?
OK Mark, we have heard your criticism of the idea, now lets hear YOUR
suggestions as to how you think it's best to solve the problem.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
> Sounds fair to me! :-)
>
> Mark
>
> p.s. I'm going to do it Tom.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of tjyak50
> Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 11:40 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
>
>
>
> Fine.
> Install it and I will get you a discount off your Hull insurance premium.
>
> W.O.W. switch won't work in a Yak.
>
> I got MY gear warning system installed, but mostly because I am not really
> all that good at flying..
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8018#208018
>
>
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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 |
|
Several of you were waiting for both front and rear cockpit gear valves. I
had some Fed Ex'd in from China. If your still in need please let me know
off list ASAP.
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
No, not missing anything and I see your logic as hopefully you see mine. The
squat switch does not have to be on the sleeve of the strut but could be on
the scissor although the best place for it is on the barrel of the strut. At
the tech order strut operating pressure (I forget the numbers), my struts
collapse about 1/4-1/2 in with wt. on them. That may not be enough to be
practical for a WOW switch.
The ground proximity warning sonar is practical and $1295 is reasonable I
guess. Just means I have to leave off another accessory planned for the
winter if I chose to install this. For now the check list still works and my
insurance rates remain the same. Amaratizing the $1300 over the $50 to $100
extra I would get off my $1800 annual premiums means at best it would be 13
years before I could re-coupe the investment in the GPWS. I could bend the
plane doing something else over that time too.
Self insuring, investing the premiums in this Bear market, and simply
waiting out the recovery also means that I could make enough over the next
10 years to replace a couple of aircraft too. The new housing sales pending
starts are already up 30% in this "bad economy". Did not see that on the big
"three" either did you.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Doc, in order to have a WOW switch work, something has to MOVE. The
distance it MOVES has to enough to make a SWITCH activate or deactivate.
Think about the 50 .... what moves? The struts when inflated correctly can
be so stiff as to not move at all on landing. Yes, the slide lock can be
replaced with an electronic version (solenoid). Headset noises are no
problem either. A Rad/Alt could also be used instead of GPWS, but at more
expense.
The simple fact though is that if you have a GPWS, you really do not need a
weight on wheels switch. Just some control logic. When the gear is down
and you are below min altititude, the solenoid locks the pin so the gear can
not be raised and audio alerts are disabled. When the aircraft takes off,
and gets above minimum alt. then the gear lock pin UNLOCKS, the gear can
then be raised, and audio alerts are re-activated.
Am I missing something?
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Roger Kemp MD
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Someone yesterday said a WOW switch would not work on the YAK? Why? We are
talking about a weight on wheels switch. I disables the up circuit on the
gear handle. Since we have a manual slide lock a simple micro circuit could
be added to the slide lock that when there is weight on the wheels and the
slide lock is open there is gear warning horn or beep beep in the head set.
With enough bucks you could even have a synthetic "Bitching Betty" saying
"check gear, check gear". (or whatever you want to say, like" take your
&*^%$#@ hands of the gear handle!") Yes, when you slide the slide lock open
for TO you would get that warning also. For a few folks I have seen TO, that
may not be such a bad idea either. The radar altimeter could also be
incorporated for a ground proximity warning also on landing warning of gear
up landing when there is no weight on the wheels.
Just a thought.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of doug sapp
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system. Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
My Yak52 is leaking engine oil from the prop hub. I have the two new seals.
Anything to watch out for when replacing the seals? Any guidance?
Pete
__|__
__|__ ----=(*)=----
__|__ ----=(*)=----
__|__ ----=(*)=----
----=(*)=----
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 |
|
Have the oil supply tube polished and the inside where the large seal fits
honed.
Gill
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter K. Van
Staagen
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:49 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Prop Seal
My Yak52 is leaking engine oil from the prop hub. I have the two new seals.
Anything to watch out for when replacing the seals? Any guidance?
Pete
__|__
__|__ ----=(*)=----
__|__ ----=(*)=----
__|__ ----=(*)=----
----=(*)=----
9:44 AM
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 |
|
Check the surface of the oil transfer tube as well as the inner surface of
the dome, both should be very smooth without any defects. If after you
replace the seals you still have the problem you are most likley missing the
alu seal ring which is (should be) under the oil transfer tube. This seal
ring, and the dome seals are the same in both the V530 and the CJ prop.
Hope this helps.
Always Yakin,
doug
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Peter K. Van Staagen
<petervs@knology.net>wrote:
> My Yak52 is leaking engine oil from the prop hub. I have the two new
> seals. Anything to watch out for when replacing the seals? Any guidance?
>
>
> Pete
>
> __|__
>
> __|__ ----=(***)=----
>
> __|__ ----=(***)=----
> __|__ ----=(***)=----
> ----=(***)=----
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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 |
|
I just checked the value of my retirement portfolio; big mistake, and it was weighted
towards the euro more than USD. So should we expect falling prices on Yaks,
CJ's and M-14P engines? Inquiring minds want to know :>)
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
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: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
What happened to good logic and check list? Todays younger pilots want
something else to do their thinking for them. The more technology you put
into an airplane the more chances you have for some sort of failure. You
want an airplane with all the bells and whistles go buy a new What Ever for
a hell of a lo.t more money.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
I'd love to hear your logic on why the UPCHARGE is necessary Doug. Given
that the amount that insurance people pay OUT is directly tied to the rates
we are charged to have it in the first place, this practice is not likely in
any way to change. Insurance companies are there to make a profit. In
order to lower insurance rates because of the installation of gear warning
systems, it would have to be shown that a certain percentage of the accident
payouts were due to gear up landings or gear being raised on the deck. If
the majority of the insurance payout is due to other factors such as the
"WING OFF" light coming on, or approaching the deck at a 90 degree angle,
then no one is going to be interested in giving us a discount.
Again, the only real way insurance people will give any kind of discount is
if it is a proven fact that installing the gear warning systems will save
them MORE MONEY than not having it INCLUDING the discount.
So that said.... right now... with no gear warning system in the majority of
our aircraft, the insurance company is charging us a certain rate based on
aircraft value and accident statistics. Period. Asking us to pay MORE
right now means that they simply make MORE profit. If we cough up $1500 and
install the system, they give us back the UPCHARGE and are back to making
what they were before PLUS the benefit of less accident rates, which over
time... if successful and if people don't wreck their aircraft for a lot of
other reasons SHOULD EVENTUALLY see us getting better insurance rates.
As it appears to me, an UPCHARGE done in the method you suggest just appears
to me to be a method of using us, the customer to provide insurance to the
insurance company that their profits remain completely stable with zero risk
to them. Of COURSE the insurance company would like that idea. Who
wouldn't?
Just as an aside, I have owned my YAK-50 for just short of 10 years now. In
that period of time, I have paid out just about 50% of the original purchase
price of the aircraft in insurance. Admittedly the first two years my
insurance rates were simply off the chart because I only had 100 hours of
tail dragger time and zero time in type. That's a rate that is about 5
times higher than my home insurance. That said, I'd be interested in
hearing why an upcharge would be a good thing.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of doug sapp
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system. Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
There is no PROBLEM , it is all about pilot attitude .
----- Original Message -----
From: doug sapp
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Well, there you go Mark, you'll installed an approved system and your
going to get a reduction in your premiums. That's exactly what I was
talking about. But that's only you, many others will not do anything
and will continue to have gear up accidents which will cause the
premiums to remain high. That's my point, unless it's "accross the
board" you will not see and reduction in rates. Tom, want to weigh in
here?
OK Mark, we have heard your criticism of the idea, now lets hear YOUR
suggestions as to how you think it's best to solve the problem.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
Sounds fair to me! :-)
Mark
p.s. I'm going to do it Tom.
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of tjyak50
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 11:40 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Fine.
Install it and I will get you a discount off your Hull insurance
premium.
W.O.W. switch won't work in a Yak.
I got MY gear warning system installed, but mostly because I am not
really all that good at flying..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8018#208018
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
What has happened to good logic and check list? The problem with pilots
today is they want something else to do their thinking for them. The first
time the tech. fails who does the pilot blame. The manufacturer or the
installar. What happened to the KISS theory.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
I'd love to hear your logic on why the UPCHARGE is necessary Doug. Given
that the amount that insurance people pay OUT is directly tied to the rates
we are charged to have it in the first place, this practice is not likely in
any way to change. Insurance companies are there to make a profit. In
order to lower insurance rates because of the installation of gear warning
systems, it would have to be shown that a certain percentage of the accident
payouts were due to gear up landings or gear being raised on the deck. If
the majority of the insurance payout is due to other factors such as the
"WING OFF" light coming on, or approaching the deck at a 90 degree angle,
then no one is going to be interested in giving us a discount.
Again, the only real way insurance people will give any kind of discount is
if it is a proven fact that installing the gear warning systems will save
them MORE MONEY than not having it INCLUDING the discount.
So that said.... right now... with no gear warning system in the majority of
our aircraft, the insurance company is charging us a certain rate based on
aircraft value and accident statistics. Period. Asking us to pay MORE
right now means that they simply make MORE profit. If we cough up $1500 and
install the system, they give us back the UPCHARGE and are back to making
what they were before PLUS the benefit of less accident rates, which over
time... if successful and if people don't wreck their aircraft for a lot of
other reasons SHOULD EVENTUALLY see us getting better insurance rates.
As it appears to me, an UPCHARGE done in the method you suggest just appears
to me to be a method of using us, the customer to provide insurance to the
insurance company that their profits remain completely stable with zero risk
to them. Of COURSE the insurance company would like that idea. Who
wouldn't?
Just as an aside, I have owned my YAK-50 for just short of 10 years now. In
that period of time, I have paid out just about 50% of the original purchase
price of the aircraft in insurance. Admittedly the first two years my
insurance rates were simply off the chart because I only had 100 hours of
tail dragger time and zero time in type. That's a rate that is about 5
times higher than my home insurance. That said, I'd be interested in
hearing why an upcharge would be a good thing.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of doug sapp
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system. Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
It went out of fashion after about a kazillion dudes landed with their
gear up.
Ok, so I am being a wise ass. The point is, of COURSE there is nothing
wrong with following a check list. However, it has been proven time
after time after time that things can happen that cause even the best of
pilots to not follow a given habit pattern, and that includes check
lists. Nothing wrong with a check list. Everyone should use them.
However, come the time when the tower calls you on short final asking:
N50YK is this a low approach or a touch and go, because ... your gear is
up.... that's when you start thinking: "You know, it might not be a bad
idea to have something to back up the check list in case I ever make a
mistake.
People that are perfect do not need a back up.
I have yet to meet a perfect pilot, although a lot of fighter pilots
claim that they are.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<flushjohnson@charter.net>
What has happened to good logic and check list? The problem with pilots
today is they want something else to do their thinking for them. The
first
time the tech. fails who does the pilot blame. The manufacturer or the
installar. What happened to the KISS theory.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
I'd love to hear your logic on why the UPCHARGE is necessary Doug.
Given
that the amount that insurance people pay OUT is directly tied to the
rates
we are charged to have it in the first place, this practice is not
likely in
any way to change. Insurance companies are there to make a profit. In
order to lower insurance rates because of the installation of gear
warning
systems, it would have to be shown that a certain percentage of the
accident
payouts were due to gear up landings or gear being raised on the deck.
If
the majority of the insurance payout is due to other factors such as the
"WING OFF" light coming on, or approaching the deck at a 90 degree
angle,
then no one is going to be interested in giving us a discount.
Again, the only real way insurance people will give any kind of discount
is
if it is a proven fact that installing the gear warning systems will
save
them MORE MONEY than not having it INCLUDING the discount.
So that said.... right now... with no gear warning system in the
majority of
our aircraft, the insurance company is charging us a certain rate based
on
aircraft value and accident statistics. Period. Asking us to pay MORE
right now means that they simply make MORE profit. If we cough up $1500
and
install the system, they give us back the UPCHARGE and are back to
making
what they were before PLUS the benefit of less accident rates, which
over
time... if successful and if people don't wreck their aircraft for a lot
of
other reasons SHOULD EVENTUALLY see us getting better insurance rates.
As it appears to me, an UPCHARGE done in the method you suggest just
appears
to me to be a method of using us, the customer to provide insurance to
the
insurance company that their profits remain completely stable with zero
risk
to them. Of COURSE the insurance company would like that idea. Who
wouldn't?
Just as an aside, I have owned my YAK-50 for just short of 10 years now.
In
that period of time, I have paid out just about 50% of the original
purchase
price of the aircraft in insurance. Admittedly the first two years my
insurance rates were simply off the chart because I only had 100 hours
of
tail dragger time and zero time in type. That's a rate that is about 5
times higher than my home insurance. That said, I'd be interested in
hearing why an upcharge would be a good thing.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of doug sapp
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled
cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to
me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to
drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want
to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across
the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system.
Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could
enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to
suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may
be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt
with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
It may indeed be an issue with pilot attitude Forrest.
But then why does every commercial heavy out there, have a system that
reminds the aircrew on landing that their gear is not down? Does every
ATP pilot out there have an attitude problem, or might it be that having
a backup is never a bad idea?
Doug.... you're right. If you want to try to force people to do
something, then an UPCHARGE is a good idea. However a ton of people,
including myself, do not like to be FORCED. Someone tries to force me
into something like that, and I go looking for another insurance company
to deal with. Sorry, that's the way I am. To each their own. This was
not meant as a personal attack on you. Explain why you think it is a
good idea. I simply can not see your point, mainly because you never
made it ok?
If you want to try to make someone make the decision on their own, offer
them a rate reduction. I am going to put this thing in. It is long
over-due. I have had two incidents in my life where I ALMOST landed
gear up. I didn't. Good for me. However it taught me that I am not
perfect. Others might think they are... I do not. I'll put it in and
see what Tom gives me for a reduction. I'll publish that info and the
design that I use to install it. Others might decide to do the same.
If not, then oh well.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
There is no PROBLEM , it is all about pilot attitude .
----- Original Message -----
From: doug sapp <mailto:dougsappllc@gmail.com>
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Well, there you go Mark, you'll installed an approved system and your
going to get a reduction in your premiums. That's exactly what I was
talking about. But that's only you, many others will not do anything
and will continue to have gear up accidents which will cause the
premiums to remain high. That's my point, unless it's "accross the
board" you will not see and reduction in rates. Tom, want to weigh in
here?
OK Mark, we have heard your criticism of the idea, now lets hear YOUR
suggestions as to how you think it's best to solve the problem.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
Point, MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
Sounds fair to me! :-)
Mark
p.s. I'm going to do it Tom.
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of tjyak50
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 11:40 PM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Fine.
Install it and I will get you a discount off your Hull insurance
premium.
W.O.W. switch won't work in a Yak.
I got MY gear warning system installed, but mostly because I am not
really all that good at flying..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8018#208018
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
So Forrest, how do you feel about auto-pilots? :-)
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<flushjohnson@charter.net>
What happened to good logic and check list? Todays younger pilots want
something else to do their thinking for them. The more technology you
put
into an airplane the more chances you have for some sort of failure. You
want an airplane with all the bells and whistles go buy a new What Ever
for
a hell of a lo.t more money.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
I'd love to hear your logic on why the UPCHARGE is necessary Doug.
Given
that the amount that insurance people pay OUT is directly tied to the
rates
we are charged to have it in the first place, this practice is not
likely in
any way to change. Insurance companies are there to make a profit. In
order to lower insurance rates because of the installation of gear
warning
systems, it would have to be shown that a certain percentage of the
accident
payouts were due to gear up landings or gear being raised on the deck.
If
the majority of the insurance payout is due to other factors such as the
"WING OFF" light coming on, or approaching the deck at a 90 degree
angle,
then no one is going to be interested in giving us a discount.
Again, the only real way insurance people will give any kind of discount
is
if it is a proven fact that installing the gear warning systems will
save
them MORE MONEY than not having it INCLUDING the discount.
So that said.... right now... with no gear warning system in the
majority of
our aircraft, the insurance company is charging us a certain rate based
on
aircraft value and accident statistics. Period. Asking us to pay MORE
right now means that they simply make MORE profit. If we cough up $1500
and
install the system, they give us back the UPCHARGE and are back to
making
what they were before PLUS the benefit of less accident rates, which
over
time... if successful and if people don't wreck their aircraft for a lot
of
other reasons SHOULD EVENTUALLY see us getting better insurance rates.
As it appears to me, an UPCHARGE done in the method you suggest just
appears
to me to be a method of using us, the customer to provide insurance to
the
insurance company that their profits remain completely stable with zero
risk
to them. Of COURSE the insurance company would like that idea. Who
wouldn't?
Just as an aside, I have owned my YAK-50 for just short of 10 years now.
In
that period of time, I have paid out just about 50% of the original
purchase
price of the aircraft in insurance. Admittedly the first two years my
insurance rates were simply off the chart because I only had 100 hours
of
tail dragger time and zero time in type. That's a rate that is about 5
times higher than my home insurance. That said, I'd be interested in
hearing why an upcharge would be a good thing.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of doug sapp
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled
cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to
me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to
drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want
to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across
the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system.
Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could
enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to
suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may
be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt
with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
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: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
Doc. Let me know how you make out. I agree that over a grand is a lot
of money. Too freaking much money to be honest. You can build some
fancy stuff for a grand. I need to rethink this. Possibly ultrasonic
or laser might be more effective and cheaper. And here I was all
gung-ho for a little while.
Don't talk to me about the market.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Roger Kemp MD
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<viperdoc@mindspring.com>
No, not missing anything and I see your logic as hopefully you see mine.
The
squat switch does not have to be on the sleeve of the strut but could be
on
the scissor although the best place for it is on the barrel of the
strut. At
the tech order strut operating pressure (I forget the numbers), my
struts
collapse about 1/4-1/2 in with wt. on them. That may not be enough to be
practical for a WOW switch.
The ground proximity warning sonar is practical and $1295 is reasonable
I
guess. Just means I have to leave off another accessory planned for the
winter if I chose to install this. For now the check list still works
and my
insurance rates remain the same. Amaratizing the $1300 over the $50 to
$100
extra I would get off my $1800 annual premiums means at best it would be
13
years before I could re-coupe the investment in the GPWS. I could bend
the
plane doing something else over that time too.
Self insuring, investing the premiums in this Bear market, and simply
waiting out the recovery also means that I could make enough over the
next
10 years to replace a couple of aircraft too. The new housing sales
pending
starts are already up 30% in this "bad economy". Did not see that on the
big
"three" either did you.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Doc, in order to have a WOW switch work, something has to MOVE. The
distance it MOVES has to enough to make a SWITCH activate or deactivate.
Think about the 50 .... what moves? The struts when inflated correctly
can
be so stiff as to not move at all on landing. Yes, the slide lock can
be
replaced with an electronic version (solenoid). Headset noises are no
problem either. A Rad/Alt could also be used instead of GPWS, but at
more
expense.
The simple fact though is that if you have a GPWS, you really do not
need a
weight on wheels switch. Just some control logic. When the gear is
down
and you are below min altititude, the solenoid locks the pin so the gear
can
not be raised and audio alerts are disabled. When the aircraft takes
off,
and gets above minimum alt. then the gear lock pin UNLOCKS, the gear can
then be raised, and audio alerts are re-activated.
Am I missing something?
Mark
________________________________