 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:23 am Post subject: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
 |
|
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
[quote]From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org (Bruce(at)glasair.org)>
OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
wantanother
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
|
|
Nice one george... iagree vacuum systems do suck (but not all the time)....
For me I went with an Dynon EFIS (with a couple of steam guage backups) for primary flight and a truetrack Pictorial Pilot as the backup when everything goes mental.
the EFIS is battery backed up and my reduced power mode (SD-8 alternator) wll run a fuel pump, radio (to scream "HELP" on) and the transponder.
As you say if the prop falls off your dead anyway in IFR.
Frank
Zenair Zodiac 400 hours soon to be sold
RV7a paining.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:19 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have)
Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's
mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The backup
ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the
standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro
at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices.
Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The
EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of
a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that
REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree
with you, an independant standby is a good idea.
Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up
(either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply,
e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR.
Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to
disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport
where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter
single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any
where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture
ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the
the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off.
Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway.
George ATP/CFII
| Quote: | From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org (Bruce(at)glasair.org)>
OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't
wantanother
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
|
|
OK, yea those standby 2.5 ADI's are nice but I'd have to sell my Lexus to buy one.
What I don't understand is the willingness of some to go out and fly hard IFR with only a BMI/Dynon/whatever and a plumb bob as a backup. You might think that vacuum sucks but a properly maintained vacuum system is very reliable and it works when everything else goes dark.
Though I've never flown part 121 aircraft, I've paid my dues flying lots of other part 135 junk including a 2 year stint as a freight dog flying checks in D18's at night in Kansas. If it could fail, I've had it fail. It's all taught me several important lessons. Never, NEVER trust your life to one piece of equipment. Always leave yourself a way out. And there is no shame in canceling a flight.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
[quote]
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brinker(at)cox-internet.c
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
|
|
Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be talking out my wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental builders including myself are installing an angle of attack mine the AFS can operate off of a 9v battery, so it will not be affected by loss of the planes bus power. The AOA takes the place of the ASI and VSI so two steam gauges gone out of precouis panel space, not to mention that my backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi, altitude, and of course heading so I don't get lost. And I think most pilots these days carry something similar. I also think most put their auto pilot as I will on the e-bus which should keep us out of a nose dive long enough to regroup. Insofar as a 2 1/4" T&B check Trutraks, around $450,which is the only round gauge I plan on, or spend a little more and get an electric ADI from them. A few years ago these items we're unheard of or at least too expensive for most light aircraft. We now have redundancy in a flight bag along with some neat comparatively inexpensive items in dash. I'm not sure what hard IFR is, I'm not yet rated but am working on it, but I for one will cancel any flight I don't feel comfortable with and will hopefully not be flying into any wing breaking weather with the help of xm and an old outdated wx8.
Randy
opinions ARE like noses and I hope mine is'nt sticking out so far as to get knocked off
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rtitsworth
Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 76
Location: Detroit, Mi
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
|
|
One small pet peeve of mine – the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A simple point – but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the differences can be disastrous – especially in an emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don’t forget. It shows ground speed not IAS.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:25 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have)
Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be talking out my wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental builders including myself are installing an angle of attack mine the AFS can operate off of a 9v battery, so it will not be affected by loss of the planes bus power. The AOA takes the place of the ASI and VSI so two steam gauges gone out of precouis panel space, not to mention that my backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi, altitude, and of course heading …
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:28 am Post subject: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
|
|
The Garmin 196 also shows track not heading, and GPS altitude, not barometric altitude.
Track and GPS altitude are better than nothing if you've had a major failure (in fact track is more useful than heading if you are trying to navigate), but we shouldn't confuse them with heading and barometric altitude. I.e. you shouldn't try to check your compass accuracy by comparing its heading against GPS track, and you shouldn't try to compare the barometric altitude from your altimeter against GPS altitude. The difference between GPS altitude and barometric altitude could be several hundred feet.
Kevin Horton
On 14 Jun 2006, at 24:04, richard titsworth wrote:
| Quote: |
One small pet peeve of mine – the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A simple point – but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the differences can be disastrous – especially in an emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don’t forget. It shows ground speed not IAS.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of BrinkerSent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:25 PMTo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)Subject: Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have)
Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be talking out my wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental builders including myself are installing an angle of attack mine the AFS can operate off of a 9v battery, so it will not be affected by loss of the planes bus power. The AOA takes the place of the ASI and VSI so two steam gauges gone out of precouis panel space, not to mention that my backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi, altitude, and of course heading …
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brinker(at)cox-internet.c
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
|
|
I repeated 10 times and I will not forget that LOL. Accually I knew that but was'nt thinking at the time. My CFI drilled the importance of airspeed into my head so hard that I got into the habit of approaching final in my Cherokee 140 at 100mph. No problem bleeding off airspeed on short final. And the extra 20mph is just a little insurance against a stall.
Randy
opinions ARE like noses everybody has one I just hope I have'nt stuck mine out so far as to get it knocked off.
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
