>Bob, I have your Rev 7 of the Aeroelectric Connection. I agree with most
>of it's content and it's a handy reference for electrical data. That
>does not mean that my experience does not count or its wrong to have a
>different opinion.
Never said so . . never intended to imply it either. Paul,
please understand that MOST of the people out here building
airplanes are pretty bewildered by it all . . . I suspect that's
a major contribution to the number of airplanes that are started
but never finished.
>The real issue is not to dictate ones opinion (or try to support
>it with ones background) but present your position and let the readers
>decide what is best for them. . . .
<snip>
>I have seen both sides of the discussion and think there is room for
>both. Further I have found most people willing and able to decide for
>themselves which way they want to go.
I guess that's the variable that I don't know how to quantify.
When it comes to "deciding for one's self" who is the most persuasive?
The techno-wienie who speaks in some undecipherable language or the
guy who sez, "I've been there and by golly, re-setting that breaker
sure saved my buns!" Did you ever see the movie "Never Cry Wolf"?
It's a fun piece but there's a scene in there wherein our hero
has to "hold 'er steady" while the pilot climbs out the window to
bang on a frozen fuel line with a wrench. I can laugh at the scene
for its humor but the serious side is scenes like that drive
public perception of aviation. Trading wing-and-a-prayer stories
over a suds is fun too . . . but we're building airplanes here
and lots of people are listening . . . while we're laughing over some
guy's pucker-factor, someone else's wife is wondering if she
really wants her husband to build his own "death trap."
That's why I like people to learn data-speak. Just for grins,
let us suppose there were an FAA rule tomorrow that sez all
breakers shall be out of reach and left it at that. Do you suppose
we could learn to live under that rule and design the airplane
so it was not necessary to reach 'em. Sure we could. Well . . . if we
can do it to accomodate the unwelcomed regulation, why not strive
for that kind of reliability on our own?
>The difference in reliability is insignificant in the real world and
>builder comfort is more important. I am much more worried about the auto
>engine conversion with only one battery than if he uses fuses or CB and
>where they are located.
Discomfort comes from lack of knowlege and skills. Most of our
bretheren out there come from the padded cockpit environment where
they were taught everything necessary to fly this here airplane,
including the preflight check of breakers. I remember sitting there
in the left seat waiting for my flight instructor to continue with
some lessons on inflight systems diagnosis after he told me how
useful it was to be able to push and pull on those things. But that
was it . . perhaps two sentences.
>As the FAR's (23.1357 (d)) do require crew replaceable/resettable
>fuses/CB for "critical equipment" It seems to me the only one to make
>the decision as what's critical is the builder/pilot based on his own
>comfort factor and the type of flying being done.
When I proposed the idea of remote fuses to my friends here at
the FSDO, their eyebrows went up too . . . until I followed up
with the statement that the system would be designed such that
NO systems were critical to flight. Most of the folk on the lists
are not designers . . . they ask questions and appreciate lucid
answers. Most lack the skills to deduce criticality and are
unable to make considered decisions as to what is or is not
"critical." One contributor to this conversation made a statement
to the effect that, "everything is critical . . . or it wouldn't
have been installed in the airplane!"
That's your and my responsability. As experienced pilots and
knowledgable users of the hardware, we need to put our
experience out there in the Plan A/Plan B format suitable for
POH publication. That's where striving for system designs favorable
to out-of-reach fuses is helpful . . . the instructions get real
simple and the pilots get real confident.
>Further what about all the existing factory and experimental acft that
>were wired with CB? Should we worry these people by suggesting their
>acft is less reliable?
Worry them, no . . . I fly lots of those same airplanes. As the
#2 item on my systems reliability list, I as a pilot couldn't care
less if ANY of those breakers are open or closed at any given
time in the way I use the airplane. My fondest wish would be to
wave a magic wand and make all pilots as confident of thier
ability to cope as I am . . . and yes, compared to what we are
building, those spam cans ARE less reliable . . . that's why
I refuse to depend on certain aspects of their equipment lists.
>Both fuses and CB's fail and when they do the failure rate is
>unimportant to the pilot. The ability to replace in flight is a personal
>one and largely depends on the type of flying being done. What applies
>IFR over an overcast in mountains is quite different from VFR in the
>Midwest.
But Paul, I'm not sure you understand the point. It's not a matter
of breakers/fuses or the ability to fiddle with them in flight.
If I'm IFR in the crud and a 10-cent resistor cracks, or a coax
comes unhooked, or a knob suddenly fails to rotate the mechanism
behind the panel, what comfort is there in being able to see that
row of circuit protection? All of those goodies that depend on the
power making it through the fuses can fail in so many ways.
The frustrating thing for me is not the argument over hardware styles
rather the importance we put on them. I.e. why spend $100 for a mil-spec
switch to control a landing light when you KNOW the light bulb is going
to fail? Extend that fact into every other system in the airplane
and it makes this discussion on hardware look like a playground
argument. That's why I fly with the assumption, mind set and
backup equipment that ASSUMES that none of that stuff is going to
be working when I land, and I DO intend to land on my own terms.
My flight instructor hadn't the foggiest notion of that concept.
It took me a long time to acquire it on my own but then the FAA
would have a fit if we proposed this line be added to the approved
flight sylabus, "Instruct student on use of aircraft in J-3 mode"
How many new Bonanza owners would appreciate that kind of instruction?
That's why we call some of those airplanes (doctor, lawyer, etc.)
killers. Those folk paid a LOT of money for the things, the idea
that they should KNOW how to get along without that panel full of
goodies is UNTHINKABLE . . . so the training never happens.
Can you see why I get wrapped around the axle of the "dark and stormy
night" anecdotes? They have no educational value and serve only
to make pilots more apprehensive because of what they DON'T know.
There are reasons now to believe that John Denver was working
a transponder problem with center or approach just before the accident.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the man died with his head down, trying
to get a band-aided, WW-II derelict working for the convenience of ATC
and didn't see a bird coming?
The answer seems quite clear to me . . . the fewer goodies to fiddle
with the better. Deal with situations in a predetermined, simple,
Plan A/Plan B procedure. I'd be very pleased to have you join me
in helping to achieve this kind of cockpit environment. If we can
reduce costs, weight and installation time too, that would be super.
Interestingly enough, getting rid of excess baggage by the use of
considered design tends to have those by-products. I'd love to look
the administrator in the eye at OSH some year and seriously suggest,
"certified aviation has fallen behind in some important safety issues
and that some tutorials from the vast knowlege base that is
(or should be) EAA are available for any interested FAA personnel."
Kindest regards,
Bob . . .
|