Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Artificial Horizon Uncertified

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

Artificial Horizon Uncertified
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

RobHickman(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

In a message dated 1/21/2006 6:38:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,  

Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:






I  really don't understand this rush to go out and bet your life on  untested,

uncertified instrumentation.  



Bruce

www.glasair.org



Yet you will go out and bet your life on an untested, uncertified plastic  

airplane?

 

 

Sorry, I could not resist....

 

Rob Hickman

Do Not Archive

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:14 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

OK, I'll go there......



We build our airplanes, be they plastic or aluminum, from proven

designs/kits using accepted methods of construction and, most of us,

certified engines. The only thing left to test, after your FAA inspection

(which is to insure no parts are going to fall off), is the airworthiness of

the beast. That can be determined in the standard 25/40 hour test period. If

you built a known kit your chances of success are good, if it's your own

design you did on the back of a napkin, don't fly over my house.



The same cannot be said for the latest crop of electronic game screens.

They're untested, uncertified, and just plane dangerous for all except

strictly VFR airplanes.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

 



--

fstringham

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 87

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

steam gages / vacuum pumps / and slide rules according to this old chemsitry 

teacher should be all you need..................bull...............computer 

technology on the ground or in the air is here to stay. One person poison is 

anothers delicious cake.  So like all opinions lets here them and then by 

are one experience evaluate the opiinions factuality. Glass panels have now 

and will in the future become the standard just as the hand held calculator 

forced me to side line my beloved slide rule. Oh and by the way good friends 

don't let their friend fly plastic airplanes!!!!!!!!!!!



Frank (at) SGU and SLC RV7A under construction....fuse/fininsh/all glass panel



DON"T ARCHIVE

[quote]From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>

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

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

Subject: RE: Re: Artificial Horizon Uncertified Date: Sat, 21 Jan 

2006 12:16:20 -0500






OK, I'll go there......



We build our airplanes, be they plastic or aluminum, from proven

designs/kits using accepted methods of construction and, most of us,

certified engines. The only thing left to test, after your FAA inspection

(which is to insure no parts are going to fall off), is the airworthiness 

of

the beast. That can be determined in the standard 25/40 hour test period. 

If

you built a known kit your chances of success are good, if it's your own

design you did on the back of a napkin, don't fly over my house.



The same cannot be said for the latest crop of electronic game screens.

They're untested, uncertified, and just plane dangerous for all except

strictly VFR airplanes.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

--

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Now, Now, I haven't thrown any stones at your 'beer can' airplanes. We all

make our choices and have our reasons. You can load up your RV with all the

computer gizmo's you want, fly off into the nearest cloud bank, merrily on

your way to your next ILS approach. Just don't think all that stuff makes

you safer (it doesn't), or less prone to an accident (it doesn't). When that

hypnotic HITS (Highway in the sky) symbology leads you to a premature

arrival 1 mile short of the runway because you were flying computed data

rather than raw data, just say, "Oh well, I guess the programer didn't catch

that one!", that's if you can.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

 



--

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Bruce,

I installed a rearview mirror on my Velocity....so I can keep an eye on

those RVs!!!



Chuck

Do Not Archive






Now, Now, I haven't thrown any stones at your 'beer can' airplanes. 




<fstringham(at)hotmail.com>

Oh and by the way good friends don't let their friend fly plastic

airplanes!!!!!!!!!!!

Doug Gray

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 112
Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

But throw a stone at a plastic aeroplane and and you get low impact damage and possible 

delamination.  Need then resort to an extensive coin test (now we're talking sophisticated testing) 

to ensure the integrity of the structure.



Then there is the Glass Transition temperature at about 2x the cure temperature. So if the structure 

is assembled in the garage and cures at 25C - the GTT is about 50C. New Years day 2006 at my home 

(in shade) was 44.5C pretty close to that GTT.



Then there is the potential to have the materials go off or become contaminated before use 

(hygroscopic -> moisture contamination).



A software bug with an EFIS will not cause the aircraft to fall from the sky unless you are in solid 

IFR at the time.  Like always you should have a backup TC or other if you are entering IFR (legally 

or not).



The probability of being in IFR and having a horizon failure is slight especially if the intention 

is for it to be a VFR aircraft and the IFR penetration was inadvertent. Interestingly such failures 

are documented for vac systems with alarming frequency.



A major risk for electrical electronic and mechanical systems is failure due to the environment - 

high vibration, thermal and pressure cycling.  This is an acknowledged risk, but we have to accept it.



Software bugs is another significant problem.  The Dynon 'leans' was a classic example but was 

rapidly rectified as soon as the problem became apparent.



What about the GPS's we fly?  Do they all have RAIM display? Do they have the certification, and 

then there is the GPS satellite system?



We all do our personal risk assessments (well I hope we do) when we launch a flight or decide to 

build an aircraft ourselves. We may not think of them formally like a system engineer may do, but we 

do assess according to what we can reasonably know.



I have made my own assessment, that is why I am building a metal aeroplane, installing a Lycoming 

with a GRT EIS, with an unproven EFIS/GPS/AP for **strictly** VFR use only.



Sorry for the log rambling post - and the slight against plastic aircraft but this is after all the 

rv-list.



Doug Gray

RV-6 instrument selection and decision making.



Bruce Gray wrote:

[quote] 

 

 Now, Now, I haven't thrown any stones at your 'beer can' airplanes. We all

 make our choices and have our reasons. You can load up your RV with all the

 computer gizmo's you want, fly off into the nearest cloud bank, merrily on

 your way to your next ILS approach. Just don't think all that stuff makes

 you safer (it doesn't), or less prone to an accident (it doesn't). When that

 hypnotic HITS (Highway in the sky) symbology leads you to a premature

 arrival 1 mile short of the runway because you were flying computed data

 rather than raw data, just say, "Oh well, I guess the programer didn't catch

 that one!", that's if you can.

 

 Bruce

 www.glasair.org

  

 

 --

Mark Sletten

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 43
Location: St. Jacob, IL (Near St. Louis, MO)

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:30 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Touche!



Mark



DO NOT ARCHIVE

In a message dated 1/21/2006 6:38:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,

      Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:



      



      I  really don't understand this rush to go out and bet your life on

untested,

      uncertified instrumentation.



      Bruce

      www.glasair.org



      Yet you will go out and bet your life on an untested, uncertified

plastic

      airplane?

      Sorry, I could not resist....



      Rob Hickman

_________________
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:49 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Would you like to race? Or perhaps try an outside loop? How about a vertical

cuban eight? Or fly your next trip at 240 KTAS.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

 



--

ebundy(at)speedyquick.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

At the risk of wasting bandwidth or encouraging you further, I have to

wonder exactly what you are trying to accomplish.



Personally, I think Glasair's are fine airplanes.  However your comments are

a little silly.  Sure, I'll race you, but we get to factor in the difference

in fuel bills and MPG once we get there.  Outside loops?  Ugh, no thanks.

But lets head over to some of the incredible mountain airstrips in my neck

of the woods.  One of my favorites is 1500' long, sort of rough, and has

water on both ends.  Also, if there are 1200 Glasairs flying as the factory

claims (is there still a factory?  They've "restructured" so many times I'm

not sure) why is it that I rarely catch a glimpse of one?  I guess they're

so fast it just makes them seem elusive.  By contrast, with "only" 3.5x as

many RV's flying I see them at virtually every airport I visit.



Anyway, my point is that all airplanes have their uses and supporters, pros

and cons, and everyone makes their choice based on personal preference.  Do

you really think that you are going to convert anyone on the RV LIST?  Or

are you just trolling?  Or perhaps they kicked you off the Glasair list.



Anyway, if you're ever out in the Boise area, I'd love to go for a ride, and

I'd be happy to reciprocate.  Then I'll buy you a beer, and we can have a

good-natured discussion of our findings.



Ed Bundy

 	  Quote: 	
		   Would you like to race? Or perhaps try an outside loop? How about

 a vertical

 cuban eight? Or fly your next trip at 240 KTAS.



 Bruce


	


--

shempdowling2(at)earthlin
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:49 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Hey, plastic planes are great.  I just wouldnt buy a used one.  These things 

are amateur built with no way of proving the glass work was done correctly. 

So you have 6 figures into them with no way of proving its worth.



I just need an inspection mirror and, if necessary, a rivet gauge.  Oh yeah, 

and I can do that in 40 years as well 



If I had the money to throw away, I would build a plastic plane, like a 

Lancair IVP.  I dont.



do not archive



Shemp/Jeff Dowling

RV-6A, N915JD

235 hours

Chicago/Louisville

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

I have no axe to grind, I think RV's are great airplanes, someone else just

started tweaking my fiber glass nose though.



What I was trying to accomplish, was this. I was trying to dampen some of

the enthusiasm for all this low cost glass by pointing out the risks

involved. You, or anyone else, can fly whatever panel you like. Just

understand the ramifications and limitations of your decisions.



That's all. Now, with a collective sigh of relief heard from all, I'm done

with this topic.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

 



--

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:53 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Bruce,

Yes, the RV v. plastic planes stuff was good natured, tongue in cheek

stuff that a couple interpreted as being more serious than it really was

(or at least I thought it was tongue in cheek!!!).  



While I like my Velocity a lot, the RVs have some very fun

characteristics about them (that obviously make them very popular) that

I envy.  It's all about mission profile.  For me the Velocity is

perfect, for the next person, the RV is the only thing that works.  I

know this with certainty; if I wanted to go into a 1500' mountain strip,

I ain't going there in a Velocity...though I may overfly the strip at

good speed and in considerable comfort, even after a several hour flight

getting there.



Chuck Jensen

Do Not Archive

 




I have no axe to grind, I think RV's are great airplanes, someone else

just

started tweaking my fiber glass nose though.



What I was trying to accomplish, was this. I was trying to dampen some

of

the enthusiasm for all this low cost glass by pointing out the risks

involved. You, or anyone else, can fly whatever panel you like. Just

understand the ramifications and limitations of your decisions.



That's all. Now, with a collective sigh of relief heard from all, I'm

done

with this topic.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

PFolbrecht(at)starkinvest
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:23 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Well said!



do not archive

--

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:19 am Post subject: Re: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

The author of the origional thread has a very limited, narrow view of things.   Just because something is "certified" does not make it better or safer.   That kind of backwards thinking just hindres progress.



And yes, having a moving map IS safer, as it increases situational awareness.  There are many many dead people that have flown into terrain that would have lived had they had a moving map display.  Failures of people are much more common than failures of moving map displays.  For safety, I would take the best moving map display with terrain displayed over "certified" round dials and vacuum pumps any day.



Vacuum pumps are famous for failing, their antique design is very limited and they fail more much more often than pizo-electric gyros.  Only a complete moron with the inability to adapt to anything new would say something is safer just because it is "certified".



Michael A. Bigelow

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Mr. Bigelow,



I can assure you that my view of things are just as wide as yours. My

profession requires me often to think "outside the box". You may disagree

with some of my statements or ideas, but don't even try to denigrate my

intelligence. 



The new electronics coming on the market are great, I have 2 moving maps on

my panel (G530/430), well 3 actually if you count the EHSI. I never said

that certified was better, I said that certified implied that the product

had gone through a known level of testing and would deliver its specified

function. How long it would function (MTBF) was not addressed. Certification

implies that it will do what its supposed to do, no more.



In my narrow world view of things, I'll take the promise of certification

over the words of a basement engineer any day. Yea, yea, I know,

electro-wizzies last 10,000 hours MTBF. There's a elegant engineering

principal that states, "The more complex solution is not as reliable as a

simple, low parts count solution". Or to put it another way, reliability is

inversely proportional to the parts count.



One other thing, a properly maintained vacuum system is just as reliable as

your electro-whizzy. Wet oil pumps last 2-3,000 hours. And those vacuum

gyros just keep spinning when everything else goes dark.



My Glasair III has vacuum and electric gyros, 2 compass systems, 2

alternators, 2 vacuum systems and one battery. I fly a lot of hard IFR.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

 



--

michele.delsol(at)microsi
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:24 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Good thing this thread was not started in France - As a builder of a tin can

airplane (RV8), I frequently engage in friendly arguments with wood/cloth

airplanes such as Ministrel, Emeraude (from which the CAP 10 was derived)

and plenty of others. There never is a winner but we have lots of fun

battling things out.



Michele

RV8 - Fuselage

PS would never build a plastic airplane or a match-stick/rags one.



--

n395v

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 450

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:10 am Post subject: Re: Artificial Horizon Uncertified "Electro Whizzies&qu

 	  Quote: 	
		  I'll take the promise of certification 

over the words of a basement engineer any day. Yea, yea, I know, 

electro-wizzies...... 	




Below is a short BIO of Greg Richter of Blue Mountain one of those "basemant engineers"  



“Richter is a graduate of Georgia Tech holding a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering and is a Grumman Aerospace scholar and a member of the IEEE. Richter has been involved in software, systems engineering, RF, analog and digital electronic design for over 20 years. “   



I have 2 BMA EFIS, 2 external comnavs, 1 alternator 2 batteries and a flight Cheetah 210 with solid state harddrive in my F1. I fly a lot of IFR when there is no chance of icing and no TSTMs.



As I have 2 separate electro whizzie systems I do so with confidence and, in my mind, the same degree of safety I would have with a certified system or 3.



The word certified to me instills no confidence the certification standards put out by the FAA are just as likely to have been developed by a lifelong anministrative engineer as by a techno geek.



If you have been around long enough you have encountered "Certified "Flight Instructors, "Certified" mechanics, "Certified" Doctor's, etc,etc...................



Some of whom are idiots.



The key to safety is to have backup and to understand the limitations of the systems you are using. These electro whizzies have been around long enough to have a track record that "implies" they are safe and reliable.



Now I must go and install some rear view mirrors on my Rocket so I can enjoy the look of awe on the face of Velocity drivers as I whizzzzzz by them.  

My next plane is going to be a plastic Radial Rocket with Bluemountain whizzies. I reallly  the Glasairs but can't fit in one.

_________________
Milt

steve(at)newtech.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:32 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

Hi Bruce,

I am building an RV-7A and really appreciate you coming over to our RV 

building list to try and save our lives.  Are you doing this for all of 

the aircraft type specific mail lists?  One can only hope so.  There are 

so many lives to save and so little time to do it you must be a very 

busy man.  So that you don't have to spend so much time participating in 

the hundreds of type specific mail lists, even though I am sure they all 

welcome your participation as much as we do, may I suggest you leave our 

group and hang out at the ExperimentalAvionics(at)yahoogroups.com mail 

list.  That way you can have an audience of people interested in 

discussing experimental avionics.



I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your 

carefully thought out posts warning us of the perils of using 

experimental avionics and look forward to your participation in the 

ExperimentalAvionics(at)yahoogroups.com mail list.



DO NOT ARCHIVE



Steve Eberhart

U.S. Air Force trained Instrument System Technician,

Software Engineer, RV-7A builder



Bruce Gray wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



Mr. Bigelow,



I can assure you that my view of things are just as wide as yours. My

profession requires me often to think "outside the box". You may disagree

with some of my statements or ideas, but don't even try to denigrate my

intelligence. 



The new electronics coming on the market are great, I have 2 moving maps on

my panel (G530/430), well 3 actually if you count the EHSI. I never said

that certified was better, I said that certified implied that the product

had gone through a known level of testing and would deliver its specified

function. How long it would function (MTBF) was not addressed. Certification

implies that it will do what its supposed to do, no more.



In my narrow world view of things, I'll take the promise of certification

over the words of a basement engineer any day. Yea, yea, I know,

electro-wizzies last 10,000 hours MTBF. There's a elegant engineering

principal that states, "The more complex solution is not as reliable as a

simple, low parts count solution". Or to put it another way, reliability is

inversely proportional to the parts count.



One other thing, a properly maintained vacuum system is just as reliable as

your electro-whizzy. Wet oil pumps last 2-3,000 hours. And those vacuum

gyros just keep spinning when everything else goes dark.



My Glasair III has vacuum and electric gyros, 2 compass systems, 2

alternators, 2 vacuum systems and one battery. I fly a lot of hard IFR.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:26 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

I can see the reasons that the RV list has a reputation for driving out

those brave souls who don't blindly follow the group mindset. Good luck, you

guys. I hope all have a sound backup plan. If not, there's always the 'cat

and duck' method of IFR flying.



For those not familure with the 'cat and duck' method, here's a description,

THE CAT & DUCK METHOD OF IFR FLYING: 



Today's flight age is an era highlighted with increasing emphasis 

on safety. Instrumentation in the cockpit and in the traffic 

control tower has reached new peaks of electronic perfection to 

assist the pilot during take-offs , flight , and landings. For 

whimsical contrast to these and other marvels of scientific 

flight engineering , it is perhaps opportune to remind pilots of 

the basic rules concerning the so-called Cat-and-Duck Method of 

Flight , just in case something goes wrong with any of these new- 

fangled flying instruments you find in today's aircraft. 

Place a live cat on the cockpit floor. Because a cat always 

remains upright , he or she can be used in lieu of a needle and 

ball. Merely watch to see which way the cat leans to determine 

if a wing is low and , if so , which one. 

The duck is used for the instrument approach and landing. 

Because any sensible duck will refuse to fly under instrument 

conditions, it is only necessary to hurl your duck out of the 

plane and follow her to the ground. 



There are some limitations to the Cat-and-Duck Method, but 

by rigidly adhering to the following check list , a degree of 

success will be achieved. 



1. Get a wide-awake cat. Most cats do not want to stand up 

at all, at any time. It may be necessary to get a large fierce 

dog in the cockpit to keep the cat at attention. 



2. Make sure your cat is clean. Dirty cats will spend all 

their time washing. Trying to follow a cat licking itself 

usually results in a tight snap roll, followed by an inverted (or 

flat) spin. You can see this is very unsanitary. 



3. Old cats are best. Young cats have nine lives, but an 

old used-up cat with only one life left has just as much to lose 

an you do and will therefore be more dependable. 



4. Beware of cowardly ducks. If the duck discovers that 

you are using the cat to stay upright - or straight and level- 

she will refuse to leave without the cat. Ducks are no better on 

instruments than you are. 



5. Be sure the duck has good eyesight. Nearsighted ducks 

sometimes will go flogging off into the nearest hill. Very 

short-sighted ducks will not realize they have been thrown out 

and will descend to the ground in a sitting position. This 

maneuver is quite difficult to follow in an airplane. 



6. Use land-loving ducks. It is very discouraging to break 

out and find yourself on final approach for some farm pound in 

Iowa. Also, the farmers there suffer from temporary insanity 

when chasing crows off their corn fields and will shoot anything 

that flies. 



7. Choose your duck carefully. It is easy to confuse ducks 

with geese because many water birds look alike. While they are 

very competent instrument flyers , geese seldom want to go in the 

same direction you do. If your duck heads off for the Okefenokee 

Swamp, you may be sure you have been given the goose. 



From: http://www.anvari.org/shortjoke/Aviation/1404.html



Keep your sense of humor, guys.



Bruce

www.glasair.org

 



--

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:40 am Post subject: Artificial Horizon Uncertified

 	  Quote: 	
		  



I can see the reasons that the RV list has a reputation for driving out

those brave souls who don't blindly follow the group mindset. Good luck, you

guys. I hope all have a sound backup plan.


	


I don't know that people leave this list because of disagreements.  Personally

I take grief for flying high whereas other RV pilots fly closer to the 

ground. A

recent close encounter with a Cessna at 9500' (low in my book) just reinforces

my belief that it is safer higher.



I do have a question about the Dynon system.  Some say that it is acceptable

for use in IFR flight.  Is there anything in writing that confirms that 

assertion?



I also am of the impression that the issue of certified or not is not that 

important.

Look at the NTSB accident reports and see the boneheaded, Darwin-tempting

things that pilots do that kill themselves and others.  If you want to reduce

accidents, figure out how to keep pilots from making STUPID decisions that

result in fatalities.



Ron Lee

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

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