Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

IFR
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

stein(at)steinair.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:58 pm Post subject: IFR

I'm pretty sure you'll find many suppliers of Non-Certified components won't

specifically "recommend" their units for IFR flight - Lawyers have made sure

of that! However, they may in marketing literature or other sales pitches

lead you to make an assumption of your own without necessarily telling one

way or another that their components are or are not specifically recommended

for IFR or VFR flight.  In fact, many of them have small print stuffed into

their manuals making statements about their equipment as it relates to

91.205.  See this statement: " XXXXXX makes no claim as to the suitability

of its products in connection with FAR 91.205" found in the install manuals

of your favorite EFIS for IFR flight.



My experience is that "easiest to install and calibrate" is something that

is wholly subjective and depends almost entirely on the experience of the

person doing said installation.  For example, I'm pretty sure TimO could

install and calibrate a Chelton system faster than just about anyone could

do for any other EFIS of any type - so from his perspective that may be the

easiest to install and calibrate.  For others it may be the Grand Rapids

systems, or the AFS or the Garmin or MGL.  I'm not taking sides nor

intending any flames, just pointing out that statements like you made below

are really subjective and based on your own exposure.....but it's not

necessarily a hard fact.  I don't really have a dog in the fight one way or

another but as usual I just like to keep the facts as straight and level as

possible.



My 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,

Stein 

--

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2882

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:20 pm Post subject: IFR

Fine, keep your facts straight and level, but don't do that

with your airplane...it would be a waste not to enjoy

your RV-6.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

Stein Bruch wrote:

[quote] 

 

 I'm pretty sure you'll find many suppliers of Non-Certified components won't

 specifically "recommend" their units for IFR flight - Lawyers have made sure

 of that! However, they may in marketing literature or other sales pitches

 lead you to make an assumption of your own without necessarily telling one

 way or another that their components are or are not specifically recommended

 for IFR or VFR flight.  In fact, many of them have small print stuffed into

 their manuals making statements about their equipment as it relates to

 91.205.  See this statement: " XXXXXX makes no claim as to the suitability

 of its products in connection with FAR 91.205" found in the install manuals

 of your favorite EFIS for IFR flight.

 

 My experience is that "easiest to install and calibrate" is something that

 is wholly subjective and depends almost entirely on the experience of the

 person doing said installation.  For example, I'm pretty sure TimO could

 install and calibrate a Chelton system faster than just about anyone could

 do for any other EFIS of any type - so from his perspective that may be the

 easiest to install and calibrate.  For others it may be the Grand Rapids

 systems, or the AFS or the Garmin or MGL.  I'm not taking sides nor

 intending any flames, just pointing out that statements like you made below

 are really subjective and based on your own exposure.....but it's not

 necessarily a hard fact.  I don't really have a dog in the fight one way or

 another but as usual I just like to keep the facts as straight and level as

 possible.

 

 My 2 cents as usual!

 Cheers,

 Stein 

 

 

 --

ricksked(at)embarqmail.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:10 pm Post subject: IFR

I knew at some point the flame throwers would be fired!!!  Lol...hey Stein., shouldn't you be hangin out here?  rv-6-list(at)matronics.com..

JUST KIDDING!!!!!!

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T



--

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject: IFR

210HM 



--

stein(at)steinair.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:08 pm Post subject: IFR

Ha!  I do have dreams of having my own RV-10, so I still have to watch all

of ya'll and make sure I don't miss anything. Maybe Tim will trade me his

-10 for my -6 one of these days when his wife gets her license because I

know she like to be upside down in my RV-6!  I think her comment was "her

husband wasn't nearly as good at it as I was"...or something like that!



Cheers,

Stein



Do Not Archive my worthless drivel!



--

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: IFR

re: What ifr accident?



go to



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20080422X00528&ntsbno=NYC08FA157&akey=1



or go to NTSB.gov, aviation, search on RV-10

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:35 pm Post subject: IFR

This is "one RV10 pilot and one instrument pilot don't make one RV10

instrument pilot". 





From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner

Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:24 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: IFR






re: What ifr accident?



go to



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 080422X00528&ntsbno=NYC08FA157&a

key=1



or go to NTSB.gov, aviation, search on RV-10



--------

Bob Turner

RV-10 QB





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 76084#276084

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:45 pm Post subject: IFR

Well, it is very feasible and proven for the military to jam GPS for a

wide area. I've had that every time flying near Edwards AFB and a few

times in NM. So it really does not matter how many redundant GPS's you

have, if one can't get satellites the others probably can't either.

Staying current on VOR approaches? Please...that is easier than

staying proficient on ILSs. Some of us used to be younger and bolder.

I started flying IFR after getting the ticket in a plane with one

Navcom with ILS, and one ADF with manual tuning(non-digital)(Bendix

T-12C for old timers). I flew both colored airways based on NDBs and

Victor airways routinely, and no, I didn't have a transponder and my

only backup was a trusty KX-99 handheld nav-com, which mostly served

as a Nav 2 for crossing radials.  So all altitude changes had to be

reported, and each reporting point on the chart had to be called in as

Center had very poor primary radar, so handled me as non-radar. Only

approach control would bother to radar identify me.Oh, and that plane

had AN gyros(yes, backwards DG just like compass). I didn't get a GPS

until 15 years later.

Point being that you best be able to fly the traditional airways with

something other than GPS and better have something for back up

attitude and altitude display, whether a second independent EFIS or

steam gauges.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Bill Mauledriver Watson

<MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

  I mean, yes, your electrical system can fail and yes

 	  Quote: 	
		   your primary nav radio can fail, but practically speaking, will GPS fail?



 Hard hat on: yes everything can fail.  But my '10 will have 3 independent

 GPS receivers on 3 different electrical systems and batteries.  That's not

 counting my 396.  And while a VOR station in a critical location can fail,

 the GPS network is sort of a cellular network.  A couple of Sats go down,

 will I notice?  Can the entities running that network purposely fail it?

  Can they afford to?  A lot of things can happen but I've never had a GPS

 failure or glitch in 20+ years or so.  I did get strange inaccuracies near

 the Aberdeen proving grounds on 2 occassions in 1999 - so I'm stretching the

 truth a bit.



 A major challenge in staying current  is staying proficient with VOR

 navigation (forget the ADF which should be a hole in most of our panels).

  Can you really do that VOR approach without the GPS?  Can you do it with

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

ricksked(at)embarqmail.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: IFR

On my cross country flights although they have been GPS direct to specified way points due to restricted airspace and some hot MOA's both nav radios have been tuned to VORs enroute for DME  and cross check info...I hardly ever fly alone and the old guys I fly with never look at or trust the MX-20, they keep a chart in hand and only really understand the CDI...(Kidding) but they are great backup navigation!!



Rick Sked

N246RS

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T



--

gengrumpy(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:45 pm Post subject: IFR

For the list, I have copied the probable cause of that RV 10 fatal accident below.



I had not read any of this one since the early reports, and at the time heard reports that the weather was much worse than it actually was.

The earlier link was to the full report, but did not have probable cause.

It is very good reading for all of us, and here is the probable cause for those who don't want to go to the website.  There are numerous lessons here for us.

grumpy

NTSB Identification: NYC08FA157

 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation

Accident occurred Monday, April 07, 2008 in Seale, AL

Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/5/2009

Aircraft: CARTWRIGHT H JR/COTTRELL M RV-10, registration: N210HM

Injuries: 2 Fatal.

The instrument-rated private pilot requested a very high frequency omnidirectional radio range (VOR) approach into an airport. Thereafter he began a descent from cruise flight into instrument meteorological conditions. The controller cleared the airplane for the approach about 20 miles north of the airport. The airplane then began a descending right turn and the pilot requested, and was provided, vectors to another airport. While en-route to that airport, he amended his request and asked for vectors to a third airport, stating that he required an airport with an instrument landing system (ILS) approach. The controller subsequently provided vectors, followed by an ILS approach clearance. Shortly after receiving the clearance, the airplane flew past the ILS localizer path, and the controller cancelled the approach clearance. The pilot then requested an airport with cloud bases 2,000 feet or better, and the controller advised him to check the weather at a nearby airport. The airplane then began a rapid descending right turn, followed by a steep climbing right turn. The airplane then began another rapid descent and was destroyed when it collided with wooded terrain. Throughout the approach portions of the flight, the airplane deviated multiple times from assigned altitudes and headings. The airplane was equipped with a liquid crystal display avionics suite, in a configuration commonly referred to as a "glass cockpit." No logbook entries were noted indicating that the instrument-rated pilot had flight experience in the accident airplane, and the majority of his flight experience in IMC took place in his own airplane, which was equipped with conventional flight instruments. The pilot-rated passenger/builder held a private pilot certificate and did not possess an instrument rating. No evidence of any preimpact mechanical anomalies was discovered. Weather reports for airports in the vicinity of the accident varied between 8 and 10 miles visibility, with cloud bases between 1,200 and 2,000 feet mean sea level (msl) and cloud tops at 4,500 feet msl. The airplane's turning ground track and the cloud conditions were conducive to the onset of pilot spatial disorientation. The airplane's multiple, rapid ascents and descents are consistent with the pilot's loss of control of the airplane because of spatial disorientation. 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The pilot-in-command's in-flight loss of control due to spatial disorientation. Contributing to the accident were the weather conditions and the pilot-in-command's lack of flight experience in the accident airplane.

  [quote][b]

rv10(at)colohan.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: IFR

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com (MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hard hat on: yes everything can fail.  But my '10 will have 3 independent GPS receivers on 3 different electrical systems and batteries.  That's not counting my 396.  And while a VOR station in a critical location can fail, the GPS network is sort of a cellular network.  A couple of Sats go down, will I notice?  Can the entities running that network purposely fail it?  Can they afford to?  A lot of things can happen but I've never had a GPS failure or glitch in 20+ years or so.  I did get strange inaccuracies near the Aberdeen proving grounds on 2 occassions in 1999 - so I'm stretching the truth a bit.

 	




To give a counterexample:  I've been flying IFR for less than 2 years.  I am a relative newbie.  I have had two GPS failures:

1.  My GPS went into "RAIM failure" mode while on a practice approach into PAO.  Non-event.  I took off the hood and continued VFR.

 



2.  On an actual instrument approach (still in the clouds) after the FAF going into Truckee (in the mountains) riding in a friend's plane, I had the GPS screen blank out and announce "GPS SIGNAL LOST".  That had us seriously scrambling to find a way to estimate the position of the MAP, since there was a mountain straight ahead of us...  (The GPS recovered about 5 frantic seconds later.)

 



Would a second GPS unit continued to work in either of these situations?  I don't know.  But it does convince me that having a different type of navigation on board is very worthwhile.



 

Chris



  [quote][b]

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:45 pm Post subject: IFR

Chris Colohan wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Bill Mauledriver Watson 

 <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com <mailto:MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>> wrote:



     Hard hat on: yes everything can fail.  But my '10 will have 3

     independent GPS receivers on 3 different electrical systems and

     batteries.  That's not counting my 396.  And while a VOR station

     in a critical location can fail, the GPS network is sort of a

     cellular network.  A couple of Sats go down, will I notice?  Can

     the entities running that network purposely fail it?  Can they

     afford to?  A lot of things can happen but I've never had a GPS

     failure or glitch in 20+ years or so.  I did get strange

     inaccuracies near the Aberdeen proving grounds on 2 occassions in

     1999 - so I'm stretching the truth a bit.

 To give a counterexample:  I've been flying IFR for less than 2 years. 

  I am a relative newbie.  I have had two GPS failures:



 1.  My GPS went into "RAIM failure" mode while on a practice approach 

 into PAO.  Non-event.  I took off the hood and continued VFR.



 2.  On an actual instrument approach (still in the clouds) after the 

 FAF going into Truckee (in the mountains) riding in a friend's plane, 

 I had the GPS screen blank out and announce "GPS SIGNAL LOST".  That 

 had us seriously scrambling to find a way to estimate the position of 

 the MAP, since there was a mountain straight ahead of us...  (The GPS 

 recovered about 5 frantic seconds later.)



 Would a second GPS unit continued to work in either of these 

 situations?  I don't know.  But it does convince me that having a 

 different type of navigation on board is very worthwhile.

Good examples.  Some additional thoughts:
	




Regarding 1, I think a RAIM failure means that the unit will not load or 

execute a GPS approach.  I belieive you still have GPS nav capability 

essentially equivalent to VOR Nav but no approach capability.  More unit 

specific procedure stuff and TSO details to train on.  But a RAIM 

failure definitely means you need an alternate means of doing the 

approach as required by the FARs



Regarding 2, I just attended an FAA maintenance training/safety session 

focused on avionics installations.  The guy who led it talked a lot 

about GPS attenna installations with lots of examples.  He put the fear 

of GPS antenna installation induced failures in my heart.    He had my 

number when he mentioned how plastic airplane people want all their 

antenna hidden and how sometimes 'hidden' doesn't work so well for 

various reasons.  And expressed some disdain for the Archer antenna 

installations that work "well enough in most directions".  He focused on 

using the manufacturers installation instructions.  All good stuff.



Bill

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:47 am Post subject: IFR

I would take that a step farther and say that it is very feasible and proven for non-military persons with enough know how and an Internet connection to build a device that can jam localized GPS signals.  There is a reason the AOPA and others are real twitchy about the decomm of the VOR system without a good backup for GPS.  That also doesn't take into account the funding issues around the current GPS constellation and the expected reduction in capability due to failing satellites without new ones being launched.



Michael



--

coop85(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:56 am Post subject: IFR

Interesting comments on the “margin of error”, I think I have a different perspective.  The purpose of higher minimums is to create just that, a safety margin.  As you get closer to the runway the path you are following gets narrower (more challenging) which is not an issue on autopilot but then there are the discussions mentioned in other messages about distractions and autopilots kicking off.  Also, the lower you break out the less time you have to fix any alignment issues and any delayed crosschecks will have greater consequences.  All manageable with proficiency and currency.  Until recently, for some airplanes the USAF had a graduated scale of minimums based on experience.  Pilots started out at 1000-2, then 500-11/2 and then 300-1.  We actually couldn’t use published minimums less than that (ie normal ILS mins) except under dire circumstances.  I got a lot of grief over that while flying with the Navy which allows their pilots to fly to published mins very quickly.  It was overly conservative (the usual AF way) but did keep for a safer environment for pilots that did not have a lot of proficiency.  On the other end of the spectrum my first experience in the airline world landing at near 0-0 on a CAT III approach was definitely eye watering!  

   

Going missed early does not require more maneuvering or involve more risk, you just fly the missed approach procedure a little sooner.  By setting a min above published you give yourself more options at breakout, however you also invite the dilemma of “well, I’m really legal if I go a little lower, and I don’t really want to go to the alternate…..” so any personal mins need to be decided on and committed to before you start an approach.  I like the previous discussion item of having certain mins for flight planning but then fly to published if required.  It all comes down to your currency, proficiency and ability and when in doubt go somewhere else.  

   

Got a little long winded there, but there’s my personal pitch for what it’s worth but based on a pretty diverse background.    

   

Marcus  

   

Do not archive  

     

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis

 Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:00 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: IFR  

  

     

There are fights worth fighting, but I wouldn't consider ANY war a "good war" won or lost.  

    

   

    

Please explain how 500/1 "give you some margin of error" when you are in the clouds?  Going missed at some arbitrary minimum requires more maneuvering (and thus more risk) than just aligning the needles and continuing to PUBLISHED minimums.  

    

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:05 PM, lbgjb10 <lbgjb(at)gnt.net (lbgjb(at)gnt.net)> wrote:  

--> RV10-List message posted by: "lbgjb10" <lbgjb(at)gnt.net (lbgjb(at)gnt.net)>

 

 Jesse--I remember when I got my rating in the early 60's--my dad, old WWII (the last good, winning one, unless you count Granada) pilot, said, put the ticket on the glare shield and hope God see's it, as I was boarding my Tripacer with a whistle stop tuning radio!!!!  Try an approach to mins. (VFR with instructor) and have him fail your instruments except your basic backup, add a little turbulence and it can really change your minimums.  500/1 mile gives you some margin of error.  Your problem will be staying really current with winter and icing, and with summer boomers in FL not very conducive to 'fun' IFR.  Best and most fun IFR I had was living on the west coast with marine layer, smooth clouds with decent ceilings--made you feel like a real hot shot.  Just be careful our there.  Larry

 

 --------

 Larry and Gayle N104LG

  

 -- 

 William

 N40237 - http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/  

   	  Quote: 	
		    www.aeroelectric.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  	
8

        [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

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