Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

david(at)mcgirt.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:11 pm Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Based on real world experience, what would you say is the BEST ( not cheapest ) EFIS for a Yak / CJ

 

 

 I have been using a Dynon D10A for sometime, and like it, but I am curious of the over all consensus, and would really like to have a DG that is worth a damn, so I am thinking about moving up or something..  But it has to fit in the panel – ie – in an existing hole...

 

 

 Looking at:

 

 Dynon 10A

 Blue Mountain Lite G4

 Aspen Avionics Pilot PFD

 

 

 

 

 On 11/2/07 10:26 AM, "Drew" <lacloudchaser(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

 

  	  Quote: 	
		   

 What? I thought I would get my yak list summation and it would be full formation training posts - not flight suits again!

  

 So here it is folks; What really was the idea behind all this and why...

  

 Btw, a yak post someone sent yesterday gives a clue to it all

  

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 "">Do I have to wear a parachute when flying at RPA events?

 

 RPA Policy: Only if you are conducting formation training with a backseat

 instructor (or occupant), in this case you must have a parachute for

 both seats with current repack as directed by Federal Aviation

 Regulations concerning aerobatics. 

 

 That is exactly what the FARS specify.  I want to make clear that this

 is a change.  Before now, if you were receiving instruction of any type,

 .. Say I was flying wingman with another aircraft, RPA rules were that

 I MUST be wearing a parachute, regardless if I was by myself in a two

 seat aircraft, or by myself in a ONE seat aircraft.  So this then is new

 official policy then correct?  GREAT!  ""

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  

 Well, new as of 2002/3, read on...

  

 When we started in 2001/2, the org (then called YPA) had a long list of [implied] mandatory gear for flying formation, nomex flight suits & gloves, boots, helmet, parachutes, ability of the backseat to transmit and crew intercom (front and back seat communication), all working instruments in both cockpits. Ugg, I could just see being on the phone with a dead pilots wife, screaming at me why "your policy was for parachutes and you didn't stop my husband from flying without a parachute" and then filing a lawsuit against the org and the poor event organizer.  Then asking the organizer of the event, how did this guy strap in without a parachute!?!, Didn't the lead or someone police them strapping in (see the insane logic here?)

  

 I heard all the arguments and found, in my opinion, that the org was taking too much responsibility for the individual safety of the pilot as "policy". We were taking on the concept of "policing" so much gear, while having a policy that implied we, the org, were going to somehow insure your personal and individual safety!!?!  So after the first year of "RPA", the policy was changed, after taking it to the board of directors for debate, to this:

  

 All safety equipment optional, but recommended, except:

 - Parachutes would follow the then current FAA FAR 91 regulations concerning aerobatics and dual seat aircraft. This was due to the practice of flying extended trail that met aerobatic flight parameters.

 - Shoes that enclosed the foot (more for you stubbing your toe at the crud game )

 - Aircraft must have cockpit to cockpit communication capability and backseat must have transmit/recieve capability 

  

 The following year, the backseat instrumentation policy, another one that caused issues for members (it's not uncommon that if you had a light or instrument go out in the front cockpit, until you could get a replacement, you would swap it for its identical instrument in the back, sincet he aircraft was "PIC from the front" , it may thus be legal to fly in such a condition), was changed to "line up" with the FAA Regs, the idea being, if your aircraft POH, or other procedural guide (emergency checklist), or regulatory guidance required an instrument in the backseat, then it needed to be there or appropriately removed/marked inoperative IAW FAA guidelines (btw, when I was pitching this change to the board of directors, Mike Filucci provided me the FAA wording on "marking inoperative instruments" which I then included in the written guidance and you can still find the FAA policy there I believe). 

  

 However, and this was, in my opinion, critical to the policy change: in all cases, the policy highly recommended you keep your aircraft in excellent working order including all instruments, and left the RPA backseat instructor as the final say on whether he or she would fly in your aircraft - they are the "boots on the ground" and the ones hangin their butts out, if they say no cause your backseat generator light is out, RPA policy supported them 100%, on the other hand, if they were willing to fly in the back pit with an inoperative rear CHT and ask you to call it out when you should be checking it anyways (hint: teaching good formation habits), the policy supported that decision as well..., and we provided some guidance on what instruments should definetly be working in that backseat to facilitate instruction and safety, such as altitude, airspeed, oil temp, etc.

  

 .all this was on the website and communicated through ecoms over the years. I just put this policy information on the new "wingmans course page" which is the master formation link on the home page, so its easy to find (same place as the manual). The new folks will update it as needed.

  

 Get it? In all cases your individual safety became more your responsibility and decision, and less the orgs,but the policy shifted to meeting whatever laws/regulations we fell under as a group while promoting good judgment and safe operating practices and equipment.  I still believe this is the best approach for the org...as I will say in this post, you can write admin(at)flyredstar.org <mailto:admin(at)flyredstar.org> (admin(at)flyredstar.org)  to get to Darrell and the org to voice your opinion directly! 

  

 Why flight suits were retained in the RPA, but nomex gloves were not?.... 

  

 While most indivudual safety gear was moved to "highly recommended". the wear of a flight suit was retained because in all honesty, I felt (and the then BoD approved the decision) that that one piece of equipment served multiple purposes and was in the best interest of the organization as a whole, and thus would serve the membership / aircraft owners individually (although you may not see the value). Oh, this is going to spin a few people up. Wearing of nomex as some of you have recounted, can save skin in a mishap - With that concept aside, the flight suit itself (generally green, but humans love free will and some showed up as desert warriors and a few blacks and blues along the way, and yes, some were none nomex knock offs) also was one small part (among many) that helped alter the perception of "those pilots flying that chinese and russian imported crap" by those who observed this growing organization, which helps everyone from aircraft/parts sales to owners and airshow formation flyers.  I once went in to the Long Beach FSDO to hack it out with the FAA Officer in 2001 who was rewriting all regional ops limits and making them unfairly restrictive, including mine!  (he later kicked off my mechanics L-29s from my airport), he said, "I saw you guys a few years ago on the ramp, leaking oil - I don't want those aircraft dropping their parts over populated areas of this city (greater LA)".  I heard this kind of perception from other members around the country. Btw, RPA member Ron Lee, now treasurer, finally won the day with this FSDO by working with EAA legal.  In the warbird community we also in 2002 were just emerging from the small kid onthe block/ugly step child. So from the website (virtual face of the org) to new patches, new logo, regionalized events, flying a four foot RPA flag 30 ft over oshkosh and SnF (high on top of Dave McGirts RV) to a uniform that expressed professionalism as well as provided some safety to our members, the over all goal was to increase the qualitative perception of chinese and eastern european/russian imported equipment and the north american pilots who flew them.  I also strongly felt, and many agreed, that pilots in flight suits who assembled for the brief had their game face on and thus "head in the game" - the very perception of the commonly clad aviator promoted the teamwork that is vital to this organization and its prinicipal activities. Civil formation all too commonly had/has this air of "lets just go out and wing it", the T-34 manual, quoted for so long as the mother manual of civil formation, propagated this concept in a way, as it purposely provided scant detail, leaving the majority of formation knowledge to word of mouth and the luck of finding a knowledgable and experienced formation instructor. We still want you to have that opportunity, but the new manual puts the knowledge in your hands first and foremost, before you fly with that instructor (novel concept: read it before you fly and come prepared).  

  

 So now, if your reading this, if the flight suit issue kept you from participating in your regional organizational formation clinics/fly-ins over the years, please email the organization at admin(at)fflyredstar.org <mailto:admin(at)fflyredstar.org> (admin(at)fflyredstar.org)  , no need to go in to a long argument, the organization knows all sides, simply state: "the mandatory wear of a flight suit keeps me from flying in RPA event - Iam/am not a member"

  

 The old YPA org policy and later RPA policy was published in the formation manual itself (and online), the new manual is geared for your everday flying, so it no longer is an org policy statement, here it is from the new manual -notice the word "recommended",

  

 1.5.1.1 Safety Equipment:

 

 The list below is the recommended equipment for conducting

 

 formation flight. Although these items are mentioned

 

 for your safety, those marked with * are required items to

 

 receive in-flight instruction.

 

 Nomex/fi re retardant fl ight suit

 

 Protective footwear

 

 Protective gloves

 

 Current parachute

 

 Helmet

 

 Intercom system for two seat aircraft*

 

 Instructor able to transmit outside the aircraft*

 

  

 

 Here is the current "BoD Approved" policy statment from the "FAST HQ" page online at flyredstar:

 

  

 

 "A Flight Suit will be worn by the pilots flying in a training/display formation sortie at RPA events/clinics. Flight Leads will enforce this policy with their Wingmen"

 

  

 

 While other online statments push "nomex flight suits" the wording specifically did not. Another intersting note: At ARS in 2006 I asked a group of members/attendees if they objected or would like the policy changed, it was an open forum, they bitched about other issues raised, but for the flight suit policy, it was very clear; they wanted it retained and believed it was the right thing for the org.

  

 Hope this helps, again, to reach Darrell and the Org, write directly to admin(at)flyredstar.org <mailto:admin(at)flyredstar.org> (admin(at)flyredstar.org)  

  

 Drew

  

 

 

 ail Forum -

 ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

 ; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

 matronics.com

 

 

 	


         [quote][b]

shinden33

Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 39

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

David,

 

I have a Blue Mountain EFIS Lite G4 in my -52.  I don't have experience with any other system but I love the BM.  I bought it specifically for IFR (yes IFR in an Yak-52 - stop laughing).  The EHSI works very well and the built in VFR GPS with terrain is very useful.  This is not to mention the ADI which can be coupled with the GPS to give you course information.  I will say that I had a few problems getting it dialed in (bad gyro and calibration errors) for which I had to send the unit back to the factory.  They were always very helpful and fixed every problem with no issues.   The EFIS Lite/  Lite+ and Sport all fit in a standard 3 1/8" instrument hole.   I slightly modify an AN type reducer to mount the BM EFIS in the hole for the Russian attitude indicator with no panel modifications.   The BM also has a lot of nifty gadgets and algorithms, feel free to drop me a line off post and I can give you more details.

 

Best Regards

Scott

N8252

jonboede(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

I have been using a Collins PN-101 HSI in my airplane (linked to my Garmin 

300)... have been beating the P(at)(at) out of it with acro and whatnot for over 

1,000 hours now and it's still flawless.



But it's a slaved gyro, not EFIS.  But then, I'm old-fashioned.  

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: David McGirt <david(at)mcgirt.net>

Reply-To: yak-list(at)matronics.com

To: <yak-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:09:47 -0400



Based on real world experience, what would you say is the BEST ( not

cheapest ) EFIS for a Yak / CJ

I have been using a Dynon D10A for sometime, and like it, but I am curious

of the over all consensus, and would really like to have a DG that is worth

a damn, so I am thinking about moving up or something..  But it has to fit

in the panel  ie  in an existing hole...

Looking at:



Dynon 10A

Blue Mountain Lite G4

Aspen Avionics Pilot PFD





On 11/2/07 10:26 AM, "Drew" <lacloudchaser(at)yahoo.com> wrote:



 >

 > What? I thought I would get my yak list summation and it would be full

 > formation training posts - not flight suits again!

 >

 > So here it is folks; What really was the idea behind all this and why...

 >

 > Btw, a yak post someone sent yesterday gives a clue to it all

 >

 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 > "">Do I have to wear a parachute when flying at RPA events?

 >

 > RPA Policy: Only if you are conducting formation training with a 

backseat

 > instructor (or occupant), in this case you must have a parachute for

 > both seats with current repack as directed by Federal Aviation

 > Regulations concerning aerobatics.

 >

 > That is exactly what the FARS specify.  I want to make clear that this

 > is a change.  Before now, if you were receiving instruction of any type,

 > ... Say I was flying wingman with another aircraft, RPA rules were that

 > I MUST be wearing a parachute, regardless if I was by myself in a two

 > seat aircraft, or by myself in a ONE seat aircraft.  So this then is new

 > official policy then correct?  GREAT!  ""

 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 >

 > Well, new as of 2002/3, read on...

 >

 > When we started in 2001/2, the org (then called YPA) had a long list of

 > [implied] mandatory gear for flying formation, nomex flight suits & 

gloves,

 > boots, helmet, parachutes, ability of the backseat to transmit and crew

 > intercom (front and back seat communication), all working instruments in 

both

 > cockpits. Ugg, I could just see being on the phone with a dead pilots 

wife,

 > screaming at me why "your policy was for parachutes and you didn't stop 

my

 > husband from flying without a parachute" and then filing a lawsuit 

against the

 > org and the poor event organizer.  Then asking the organizer of the 

event, how

 > did this guy strap in without a parachute!?!, Didn't the lead or someone

 > police them strapping in (see the insane logic here?)

 >

 > I heard all the arguments and found, in my opinion, that the org was 

taking

 > too much responsibility for the individual safety of the pilot as 

"policy". We

 > were taking on the concept of "policing" so much gear, while having a 

policy

 > that implied we, the org, were going to somehow insure your personal and

 > individual safety!!?!  So after the first year of "RPA", the policy was

 > changed, after taking it to the board of directors for debate, to this:

 >

 > All safety equipment optional, but recommended, except:

 > - Parachutes would follow the then current FAA FAR 91 regulations 

concerning

 > aerobatics and dual seat aircraft. This was due to the practice of 

flying

 > extended trail that met aerobatic flight parameters.

 > - Shoes that enclosed the foot (more for you stubbing your toe at the 

crud

 > game )

 > - Aircraft must have cockpit to cockpit communication capability and 

backseat

 > must have transmit/recieve capability

 >

 > The following year, the backseat instrumentation policy, another one 

that

 > caused issues for members (it's not uncommon that if you had a light or

 > instrument go out in the front cockpit, until you could get a 

replacement, you

 > would swap it for its identical instrument in the back, sincet he 

aircraft was

 > "PIC from the front" , it may thus be legal to fly in such a condition), 

was

 > changed to "line up" with the FAA Regs, the idea being, if your aircraft 

POH,

 > or other procedural guide (emergency checklist), or regulatory guidance

 > required an instrument in the backseat, then it needed to be there or

 > appropriately removed/marked inoperative IAW FAA guidelines (btw, when I 

was

 > pitching this change to the board of directors, Mike Filucci provided me 

the

 > FAA wording on "marking inoperative instruments" which I then included 

in the

 > written guidance and you can still find the FAA policy there I believe).

 >

 > However, and this was, in my opinion, critical to the policy change: in 

all

 > cases, the policy highly recommended you keep your aircraft in excellent

 > working order including all instruments, and left the RPA backseat 

instructor

 > as the final say on whether he or she would fly in your aircraft - they 

are

 > the "boots on the ground" and the ones hangin their butts out, if they 

say no

 > cause your backseat generator light is out, RPA policy supported them 

100%, on

 > the other hand, if they were willing to fly in the back pit with an

 > inoperative rear CHT and ask you to call it out when you should be 

checking it

 > anyways (hint: teaching good formation habits), the policy supported 

that

 > decision as well..., and we provided some guidance on what instruments 

should

 > definetly be working in that backseat to facilitate instruction and 

safety,

 > such as altitude, airspeed, oil temp, etc.

 >

 > ..all this was on the website and communicated through ecoms over the 

years. I

 > just put this policy information on the new "wingmans course page" which 

is

 > the master formation link on the home page, so its easy to find (same 

place as

 > the manual). The new folks will update it as needed.

 >

 > Get it? In all cases your individual safety became more your 

responsibility

 > and decision, and less the orgs,but the policy shifted to meeting 

whatever

 > laws/regulations we fell under as a group while promoting good judgment 

and

 > safe operating practices and equipment.  I still believe this is the 

best

 > approach for the org...as I will say in this post, you can write

 > admin(at)flyredstar.org <mailto:admin(at)flyredstar.org>  to get to Darrell 

and the

 > org to voice your opinion directly!

 >

 > Why flight suits were retained in the RPA, but nomex gloves were 

not?....

 >

 > While most indivudual safety gear was moved to "highly recommended". the 

wear

 > of a flight suit was retained because in all honesty, I felt (and the 

then BoD

 > approved the decision) that that one piece of equipment served multiple

 > purposes and was in the best interest of the organization as a whole, 

and thus

 > would serve the membership / aircraft owners individually (although you 

may

 > not see the value). Oh, this is going to spin a few people up. Wearing 

of

 > nomex as some of you have recounted, can save skin in a mishap - With 

that

 > concept aside, the flight suit itself (generally green, but humans love 

free

 > will and some showed up as desert warriors and a few blacks and blues 

along

 > the way, and yes, some were none nomex knock offs) also was one small 

part

 > (among many) that helped alter the perception of "those pilots flying 

that

 > chinese and russian imported crap" by those who observed this growing

 > organization, which helps everyone from aircraft/parts sales to owners 

and

 > airshow formation flyers.  I once went in to the Long Beach FSDO to hack 

it

 > out with the FAA Officer in 2001 who was rewriting all regional ops 

limits and

 > making them unfairly restrictive, including mine!  (he later kicked off 

my

 > mechanics L-29s from my airport), he said, "I saw you guys a few years 

ago on

 > the ramp, leaking oil - I don't want those aircraft dropping their parts 

over

 > populated areas of this city (greater LA)".  I heard this kind of 

perception

 > from other members around the country. Btw, RPA member Ron Lee, now 

treasurer,

 > finally won the day with this FSDO by working with EAA legal.  In the 

warbird

 > community we also in 2002 were just emerging from the small kid onthe

 > block/ugly step child. So from the website (virtual face of the org) to 

new

 > patches, new logo, regionalized events, flying a four foot RPA flag 30 

ft over

 > oshkosh and SnF (high on top of Dave McGirts RV) to a uniform that 

expressed

 > professionalism as well as provided some safety to our members, the over 

all

 > goal was to increase the qualitative perception of chinese and eastern

 > european/russian imported equipment and the north american pilots who 

flew

 > them.  I also strongly felt, and many agreed, that pilots in flight 

suits who

 > assembled for the brief had their game face on and thus "head in the 

game" -

 > the very perception of the commonly clad aviator promoted the teamwork 

that is

 > vital to this organization and its prinicipal activities. Civil 

formation all

 > too commonly had/has this air of "lets just go out and wing it", the 

T-34

 > manual, quoted for so long as the mother manual of civil formation, 

propagated

 > this concept in a way, as it purposely provided scant detail, leaving 

the

 > majority of formation knowledge to word of mouth and the luck of finding 

a

 > knowledgable and experienced formation instructor. We still want you to 

have

 > that opportunity, but the new manual puts the knowledge in your hands 

first

 > and foremost, before you fly with that instructor (novel concept: read 

it

 > before you fly and come prepared).

 >

 > So now, if your reading this, if the flight suit issue kept you from

 > participating in your regional organizational formation clinics/fly-ins 

over

 > the years, please email the organization at admin(at)fflyredstar.org

 > <mailto:admin(at)fflyredstar.org>  , no need to go in to a long argument, 

the

 > organization knows all sides, simply state: "the mandatory wear of a 

flight

 > suit keeps me from flying in RPA event - Iam/am not a member"

 >

 > The old YPA org policy and later RPA policy was published in the 

formation

 > manual itself (and online), the new manual is geared for your everday 

flying,

 > so it no longer is an org policy statement, here it is from the new 

manual

 > -notice the word "recommended",

 >

 > 1.5.1.1 Safety Equipment:

 >

 > The list below is the recommended equipment for conducting

 >

 > formation flight. Although these items are mentioned

 >

 > for your safety, those marked with * are required items to

 >

 > receive in-flight instruction.

 >

 > Nomex/fi re retardant fl ight suit

 >

 > Protective footwear

 >

 > Protective gloves

 >

 > Current parachute

 >

 > Helmet

 >

 > Intercom system for two seat aircraft*

 >

 > Instructor able to transmit outside the aircraft*

 >

 >

 >

 > Here is the current "BoD Approved" policy statment from the "FAST HQ" 

page

 > online at flyredstar:

 >

 >

 >

 > "A Flight Suit will be worn by the pilots flying in a training/display

 > formation sortie at RPA events/clinics. Flight Leads will enforce this 

policy

 > with their Wingmen"

 >

 >

 >

 > While other online statments push "nomex flight suits" the wording

 > specifically did not. Another intersting note: At ARS in 2006 I asked a 

group

 > of members/attendees if they objected or would like the policy changed, 

it was

 > an open forum, they bitched about other issues raised, but for the 

flight suit

 > policy, it was very clear; they wanted it retained and believed it was 

the

 > right thing for the org.

 >

 > Hope this helps, again, to reach Darrell and the Org, write directly to

 > admin(at)flyredstar.org <mailto:admin(at)flyredstar.org>

 >

 > Drew

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Mounting the remote mounted magnetometer did not solve the DG issue?  

Talk to Stu Mosby, he has the Blue Mountain in his 52.  

Doc  

       

From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt

 Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:10 PM

 To: yak-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ  

  

  

   

Based on real world experience, what would you say is the BEST ( not cheapest ) EFIS for a Yak / CJ

 

 

 I have been using a Dynon D10A for sometime, and like it, but I am curious of the over all consensus, and would really like to have a DG that is worth a damn, so I am thinking about moving up or something..  But it has to fit in the panel – ie – in an existing hole...

 

 

 Looking at:

 

 Dynon 10A

 Blue Mountain Lite G4

 Aspen Avionics Pilot PFD

 

 

 

 

 On 11/2/07 10:26 AM, "Drew" <lacloudchaser(at)yahoo.com> wrote:  



 What? I thought I would get my yak list summation and it would be full formation training posts - not flight suits again!

  

 So here it is folks; What really was the idea behind all this and why...

  

 Btw, a yak post someone sent yesterday gives a clue to it all

  

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 "">Do I have to wear a parachute when flying at RPA events?

 

 RPA Policy: Only if you are conducting formation training with a backseat

 instructor (or occupant), in this case you must have a parachute for

 both seats with current repack as directed by Federal Aviation

 Regulations concerning aerobatics. 

 

 That is exactly what the FARS specify.  I want to make clear that this

 is a change.  Before now, if you were receiving instruction of any type,

 .. Say I was flying wingman with another aircraft, RPA rules were that

 I MUST be wearing a parachute, regardless if I was by myself in a two

 seat aircraft, or by myself in a ONE seat aircraft.  So this then is new

 official policy then correct?  GREAT!  ""

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  

 Well, new as of 2002/3, read on...

  

 When we started in 2001/2, the org (then called YPA) had a long list of [implied] mandatory gear for flying formation, nomex flight suits & gloves, boots, helmet, parachutes, ability of the backseat to transmit and crew intercom (front and back seat communication), all working instruments in both cockpits. Ugg, I could just see being on the phone with a dead pilots wife, screaming at me why "your policy was for parachutes and you didn't stop my husband from flying without a parachute" and then filing a lawsuit against the org and the poor event organizer.  Then asking the organizer of the event, how did this guy strap in without a parachute!?!, Didn't the lead or someone police them strapping in (see the insane logic here?)

  

 I heard all the arguments and found, in my opinion, that the org was taking too much responsibility for the individual safety of the pilot as "policy". We were taking on the concept of "policing" so much gear, while having a policy that implied we, the org, were going to somehow insure your personal and individual safety!!?!  So after the first year of "RPA", the policy was changed, after taking it to the board of directors for debate, to this:

  

 All safety equipment optional, but recommended, except:

 - Parachutes would follow the then current FAA FAR 91 regulations concerning aerobatics and dual seat aircraft. This was due to the practice of flying extended trail that met aerobatic flight parameters.

 - Shoes that enclosed the foot (more for you stubbing your toe at the crud game )

 - Aircraft must have cockpit to cockpit communication capability and backseat must have transmit/recieve capability 

  

 The following year, the backseat instrumentation policy, another one that caused issues for members (it's not uncommon that if you had a light or instrument go out in the front cockpit, until you could get a replacement, you would swap it for its identical instrument in the back, sincet he aircraft was "PIC from the front" , it may thus be legal to fly in such a condition), was changed to "line up" with the FAA Regs, the idea being, if your aircraft POH, or other procedural guide (emergency checklist), or regulatory guidance required an instrument in the backseat, then it needed to be there or appropriately removed/marked inoperative IAW FAA guidelines (btw, when I was pitching this change to the board of directors, Mike Filucci provided me the FAA wording on "marking inoperative instruments" which I then included in the written guidance and you can still find the FAA policy there I believe). 

  

 However, and this was, in my opinion, critical to the policy change: in all cases, the policy highly recommended you keep your aircraft in excellent working order including all instruments, and left the RPA backseat instructor as the final say on whether he or she would fly in your aircraft - they are the "boots on the ground" and the ones hangin their butts out, if they say no cause your backseat generator light is out, RPA policy supported them 100%, on the other hand, if they were willing to fly in the back pit with an inoperative rear CHT and ask you to call it out when you should be checking it anyways (hint: teaching good formation habits), the policy supported that decision as well..., and we provided some guidance on what instruments should definetly be working in that backseat to facilitate instruction and safety, such as altitude, airspeed, oil temp, etc.

  

 .all this was on the website and communicated through ecoms over the years. I just put this policy information on the new "wingmans course page" which is the master formation link on the home page, so its easy to find (same place as the manual). The new folks will update it as needed.

  

 Get it? In all cases your individual safety became more your responsibility and decision, and less the orgs,but the policy shifted to meeting whatever laws/regulations we fell under as a group while promoting good judgment and safe operating practices and equipment.  I still believe this is the best approach for the org...as I will say in this post, you can write admin(at)flyredstar.org <mailto:admin(at)flyredstar.org> (admin(at)flyredstar.org)  to get to Darrell and the org to voice your opinion directly! 

  

 Why flight suits were retained in the RPA, but nomex gloves were not?.... 

  

 While most indivudual safety gear was moved to "highly recommended". the wear of a flight suit was retained because in all honesty, I felt (and the then BoD approved the decision) that that one piece of equipment served multiple purposes and was in the best interest of the organization as a whole, and thus would serve the membership / aircraft owners individually (although you may not see the value). Oh, this is going to spin a few people up. Wearing of nomex as some of you have recounted, can save skin in a mishap - With that concept aside, the flight suit itself (generally green, but humans love free will and some showed up as desert warriors and a few blacks and blues along the way, and yes, some were none nomex knock offs) also was one small part (among many) that helped alter the perception of "those pilots flying that chinese and russian imported crap" by those who observed this growing organization, which helps everyone from aircraft/parts sales to owners and airshow formation flyers.  I once went in to the Long Beach FSDO to hack it out with the FAA Officer in 2001 who was rewriting all regional ops limits and making them unfairly restrictive, including mine!  (he later kicked off my mechanics L-29s from my airport), he said, "I saw you guys a few years ago on the ramp, leaking oil - I don't want those aircraft dropping their parts over populated areas of this city (greater LA)".  I heard this kind of perception from other members around the country. Btw, RPA member Ron Lee, now treasurer, finally won the day with this FSDO by working with EAA legal.  In the warbird community we also in 2002 were just emerging from the small kid onthe block/ugly step child. So from the website (virtual face of the org) to new patches, new logo, regionalized events, flying a four foot RPA flag 30 ft over oshkosh and SnF (high on top of Dave McGirts RV) to a uniform that expressed professionalism as well as provided some safety to our members, the over all goal was to increase the qualitative perception of chinese and eastern european/russian imported equipment and the north american pilots who flew them.  I also strongly felt, and many agreed, that pilots in flight suits who assembled for the brief had their game face on and thus "head in the game" - the very perception of the commonly clad aviator promoted the teamwork that is vital to this organization and its prinicipal activities. Civil formation all too commonly had/has this air of "lets just go out and wing it", the T-34 manual, quoted for so long as the mother manual of civil formation, propagated this concept in a way, as it purposely provided scant detail, leaving the majority of formation knowledge to word of mouth and the luck of finding a knowledgable and experienced formation instructor. We still want you to have that opportunity, but the new manual puts the knowledge in your hands first and foremost, before you fly with that instructor (novel concept: read it before you fly and come prepared).  

  

 So now, if your reading this, if the flight suit issue kept you from participating in your regional organizational formation clinics/fly-ins over the years, please email the organization at admin(at)fflyredstar.org <mailto:admin(at)fflyredstar.org> (admin(at)fflyredstar.org)  , no need to go in to a long argument, the organization knows all sides, simply state: "the mandatory wear of a flight suit keeps me from flying in RPA event - Iam/am not a member"

  

 The old YPA org policy and later RPA policy was published in the formation manual itself (and online), the new manual is geared for your everday flying, so it no longer is an org policy statement, here it is from the new manual -notice the word "recommended",

  

 1.5.1.1 Safety Equipment:

 

 The list below is the recommended equipment for conducting

 

 formation flight. Although these items are mentioned

 

 for your safety, those marked with * are required items to

 

 receive in-flight instruction.

 

 Nomex/fi re retardant fl ight suit

 

 Protective footwear

 

 Protective gloves

 

 Current parachute

 

 Helmet

 

 Intercom system for two seat aircraft*

 

 Instructor able to transmit outside the aircraft*

 

  

 

 Here is the current "BoD Approved" policy statment from the "FAST HQ" page online at flyredstar:

 

  

 

 "A Flight Suit will be worn by the pilots flying in a training/display formation sortie at RPA events/clinics. Flight Leads will enforce this policy with their Wingmen"

 

  

 

 While other online statments push "nomex flight suits" the wording specifically did not. Another intersting note: At ARS in 2006 I asked a group of members/attendees if they objected or would like the policy changed, it was an open forum, they bitched about other issues raised, but for the flight suit policy, it was very clear; they wanted it retained and believed it was the right thing for the org.

  

 Hope this helps, again, to reach Darrell and the Org, write directly to admin(at)flyredstar.org <mailto:admin(at)flyredstar.org> (admin(at)flyredstar.org)  

  

 Drew

  

 

 

 ail Forum -

 ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

 ; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

 matronics.com

 

   

    	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4

        [quote][b]

jorgen.nielsen(at)mweb.co
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Hi Scott



Can you post any pics?



Jorgen



--

captaindonhopkin(at)aol.c
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

David,

 

 I installed a Blue Mountain EFIS in my Yak 52 to help me keep up my IFR skills.  I ordered the G4 Lite unit but after it arrived I felt is was a little too small as a primary unit.  So in for penny in for a pound, I sent it back and ordered the larger G4 Lite Plus unit.  Very happy with the decision.  One warning though, I did have to modify my panel to make it fit.  It fits in the hole but the larger width encroaches on other instruments. Looks great and does everything I wanted it to do.

 

 Don

 

   Captain Don Hopkin

 954-336-7402 Cell

 954-667-6833 Yacht

   Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! 

  [quote][b]

david(at)mcgirt.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:52 am Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Thanks for the info, can you send some pics to me, I will post them for everyone if you like as well



--

shinden33

Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 39

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Here are a couple of pictures.  You'll notice the magnetometer mounting bracket also has a VOR antenna mounted to the bottom of it.  The set up makes for a very crowded tail but has worked well thus far.  Excuse the shameless plug but I offer a couple of the parts as kits on my website.  Feel free to give it a look at 

www.thedefiantcompany.com.



Scott 

N8252

P1010034.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

47.84 KB

Viewed:

495 Time(s)

P1010030.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

46.47 KB

Viewed:

484 Time(s)

Image001.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

34.1 KB

Viewed:

488 Time(s)

ChangDriver

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 266

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

I personally like the BMA EFIS/Sport.  It would likely requires a new panel to be built but it will give you a ton of capability.  You'd have to see if it will fit in a 52.  BMA does have the EFIS Two as well.  Both of these units give you nice IFR capability, moving map, and you can add engine monitoring.



Craig

shinden33

Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 39

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

I was looking at the EFIS Sport and based in the website information it 

looked to me like if you removed the RMI and the ADI the EFIS would fit in 

the hole for the RMI.  I never had a chance to test that theory though.



S

---

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:15 am Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Pull the ADI out and it fits perfect. Will have to make a back plate to bolt

it to your panel though. Postive side is you lose the inverter!

Doc



--

kregg(at)balancemyprop.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

I have plans on installing two Advanced Flight Systems units in my 52.

These units are much more value for the money.  Currently I have been

installing Dynon units.  After installing and Advanced Flight Systems unit

in another aircraft, I was so impressed with the features and how this

system performs, I am putting two in my own aircraft.

If you are wondering I am both a Dynon and Advanced Flight Systems Dealer,

however based on room functionality I wanted the Advanced Flight System.

http://www.advanced-flight-systems.com/



Kregg



--

david(at)mcgirt.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Do you have pics of one in a Yak? I would be interested in how this fit?



On 11/8/07 2:35 PM, "Kregg Victory" <kregg(at)balancemyprop.com> wrote:



[quote] 

 

 I have plans on installing two Advanced Flight Systems units in my 52.

 These units are much more value for the money.  Currently I have been

 installing Dynon units.  After installing and Advanced Flight Systems unit

 in another aircraft, I was so impressed with the features and how this

 system performs, I am putting two in my own aircraft.

 If you are wondering I am both a Dynon and Advanced Flight Systems Dealer,

 however based on room functionality I wanted the Advanced Flight System.

 http://www.advanced-flight-systems.com/

 

 Kregg

 

 --

kregg(at)balancemyprop.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

I don't have pics yet, but it will be in the enter top section with a garmin

496 mounted bleow.

K



--

LawnDart

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 64

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Hello Scott,

I have been looking at your pics with interest as I have been thinking about the BM Lite in a 52.  A couple semi-related questions...  Are those annunciator lights stock (the ones outside the G-meter/annunciator/compass pack)?  Also, how did you manage to get an XPND between the intercom panel and the primer???

VR,

LawnDart

shinden33

Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 39

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

LawnDart,



The annunciator lights are stock as far as I know.  My 52 was produced in

1982 (hence the tail number N8252) so it is an earlier model.  I've seen a

picture of one other early model with this configuration so I'm guessing it

was changed in later production lots.  I have never been able to confirm

that.  Anyone else know about this?



The xponder was installed prior to my purchase of the airplane.  As I

understand it my primer is reversed for a '52 and was taken from a '50.

Cylinder prime is to the left and fuel system is right. I think it is also

located higher on the panel than a stock '52.  Again Having never flown

another '52 or a '50 I don't know what's normal for either one.  This is

another question for the group.  But I do know that the change was made

specifically to accommodate the xponder.



Scott



--

LawnDart

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 64

Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:51 am Post subject: Re: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Thanks Scott.



I have seen the older annunciators panels with the lights similar to the gear indicators however never seen one like yours - interesting.

Also your G-meter goes to 10+, different than the ones I have flown as well.



VR,

LawnDart

cliff(at)gesoco.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: Best EFIS in a Yak/CJ

Ok...I'll finally throw my hat into this ring.

We've installed *lots* of avionics into Yaks...from the massive 15 month 

reconstruction of a 52TW to a simple swap out.

There are pluses and minuses to each and every system.  In the end, if 

you're going to be replacing flight instruments, anything solid state is 

better than mechanical gyros for acro aircraft.



Normally price is the driving factor.  Currently, the best package for 

the price is the Dynon D10-A.  It's a direct swap out for a 3-1/8" 

instrument.  In a trike Yak however, it's a but long to install high up 

in the panel as the wiring can get tangled with the nose gear 

indicator.  Additionally the D10A only has full LOC/GS connectivity with 

a Garmin SL-30 (unless you purchase a separate box).  Dynon markets 

their product as a bare bones system that you need to build up.  the 

D10A does not come with a magnetometer or OAT probe.



The Good side is that they are *rock* solid and do not have any 

vibration/harmonic issues, their updates are *free*.



The next most popular system is the Blue Mountain EFIS Lite.  Also a 

direct swap-out, this unit is a self contained GPS with "synthetic 

vision".  The depth allows it to fit in the top spot without any 

interference.  It's a more expensive box which requires an annual 

subscription to Jeppensen and major software updates (as last I checked) 

are not free.

I have been told the Blue Mountain system uses the GPS satellites in 

their Attitude solution, so loss of GPS signal can lead to loss of 

reliable Attitude indication.

Installation is also a snap and they have provisions for full 

connectivity to most GPS/NAV/COM to act as an HSI with LOC/GS.  It also 

acts as an autopilot head and will drive their servos.



The other two systems we have installed are the Grand Rapids EFIS system 

and the PCFlight Systems EFIS.

Both of these had separate ADHRS boxes which required separate 

installation points (Usually in a hard level plane surface).

The PC Flight Systems unit suffered vibration issues at certain engine 

settings.

The Grand Rapids system functioned very well but was more expensive.



1982/83 saw a change in the annunciator panel of the Yak-52 (as well as 

many other changes).



A transponder will fit where the old radio head was installed, but 

typically, this blocks access to anything through the kick panel on the 

side.



I gotta get back to work....



Cheers,

Cliff



Shinden33 wrote:

[quote] 



 LawnDart,



 The annunciator lights are stock as far as I know.  My 52 was produced in

 1982 (hence the tail number N8252) so it is an earlier model.  I've seen a

 picture of one other early model with this configuration so I'm guessing it

 was changed in later production lots.  I have never been able to confirm

 that.  Anyone else know about this?



 The xponder was installed prior to my purchase of the airplane.  As I

 understand it my primer is reversed for a '52 and was taken from a '50.

 Cylinder prime is to the left and fuel system is right. I think it is also

 located higher on the panel than a stock '52.  Again Having never flown

 another '52 or a '50 I don't know what's normal for either one.  This is

 another question for the group.  But I do know that the change was made

 specifically to accommodate the xponder.



 Scott



 --

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

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