Rowland, I don't dispute the electrical safety. It is just
the distraction of having to dig around to make a
diagnosis and alter any circuitry rather than having it
plain obvious, right under your nose. I am strongly of the
opinion that anything that increases the
workload/distraction factor in an emergency is a
thoroughly bad thing and leads to a lot of stall/spin
deaths.
Regards, David
Rowland Carson <rowlandcarson@gmail.com> wrote:
><rowlandcarson@gmail.com>
>
> On 7 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Brian Davies wrote:
>
>> You make a very good point. The only electrical
>>incident I have experienced on my aircraft was a
>>generator overvolt trip just after coasting out over the
>>Channel. After a careful check and a reset of the
>>circuit breaker I was able to proceed without any drama.
>> The alternative, with a fuse not readily accessible,
>>would have been a turn back to the airfield/refiling
>>flight plan, revised GAR arrival time etc. etc.
>>
>> The safety aspects are even more important..
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
>>Of David Joyce
>> Sent: 07 April 2014 10:16
>> To: europa-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Parcel Shelf tray door access
>>for fuses, CBS
>>
>> Tony & Rowland, I have a slightly different
>>philosophical approach to this question. A fuse may well
>>go as part of some in air failure just possibly
>>accompanied by fire or smoke. Time spent working out what
>>is happening threatens your safety. As with an engine
>>failure serious distraction and stress can lead to speed
>>decay and a stall/spin accident. So I prefer my fusing
>>system to be out where it is immediately obvious what has
>>blown and for this reason I recommend switchable circuit
>>breakers, all labelled and readily visible. They have the
>>added benefit of readily allowing switching off of
>>circuits to deal with emergencies such as regulator
>>failure. Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
>
> David, Brian - thanks for your comments. I've tried to
>do simple Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (FMEA) on both
>types of circuit protection remembering that I'll be
>trying to fly the aeroplane at the same time. My planned
>"mission profile" is such that a failure of any single
>electrical item should not compromise flight safety, and
>in this I agree with Bob Nucknolls, who has a lot more
>experience than me in aircraft electrics. (With 32 years'
>professional experience in electronic research I feel I
>also know a bit about the "electrics" aspect if not the
>"aircraft" aspect.) See the following postings:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fuseorcb.html
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fusvsbkr.html
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fusvbkr2.html
>
> You'll see there are strong arguments (& feelings!) on
>both sides. I can only say in the light of my own
>knowledge that I took time over my choice and feel
>comfortable with it.
>
> in friendship
>
> Rowland
>
> | Rowland Carson ... that's Rowland with a 'w'
>...
> | <rowlandcarson@gmail.com>
> http://www.rowlandcarson.org.uk
> | Skype, Twitter: rowland_carson Facebook: Rowland
>Carson
> | pictures: http://picasaweb.google.com/rowlandcarson
>
>
>
>Un/Subscription,
>Forums!
>Admin.
>
>
>
|