Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

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

Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

james(at)etravel.org
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:40 am Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

Gents,



In reading the AC, it's clear that an ammeter is a useful diagnostic

tool onboard the aeroplane, and yet at the same time, Bob's often

espousing the virtues of not trying to diagnose faults in flight.



So far, I've taken his latter view on board -- make a nice simple

electric scheme, and then if things go awry, switch to e-bus.  I then

know I have n hours of time to run a few essential items -- more than

enough to get on the ground, and most probably get to my home

airfield.  The scheme, incidentally, is Z11.



Consequently, I haven't installed an ammeter or voltmeter.  After all,

the LV warning's going to flash away pretty soon, should the

alternator pack up.



Is this approach a good one?  It makes sense to me, a

daytime-VFR-for-the-foreseeable-future pilot, not to be trying to

fathom electrical problems in-flight.  Am I missing something though?

Any thoughts you might have on the subject would be greatly

appreciated.



Thanks in anticipation,



James

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:55 am Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

In reading the AC, it's clear that an ammeter is a useful diagnostic

tool on board the aeroplane, and yet at the same time, Bob's often

espousing the virtues of not trying to diagnose faults in flight.



So far, I've taken his latter view on board -- make a nice simple

electric scheme, and then if things go awry, switch to e-bus.  I then

know I have n hours of time to run a few essential items -- more than

enough to get on the ground, and most probably get to my home

airfield.  The scheme, incidentally, is Z11.



Consequently, I haven't installed an ammeter or voltmeter.  After all,

the LV warning's going to flash away pretty soon, should the

alternator pack up.



Is this approach a good one?  It makes sense to me, a

daytime-VFR-for-the-foreseeable-future pilot, not to be trying to

fathom electrical problems in-flight.  Am I missing something though?

Any thoughts you might have on the subject would be greatly

appreciated.



     Sure. But only because you've taken the time

     to study, understand, and craft a process by

     which you're going to build, operate and maintain

     your airplane. Instruments are for telling you

     things you do not know or have not planned for.



     Limiting your in-flight accessibility to real-time

     amps and volts is a perfectly rational design goal

     when the system is failure tolerant and backed up

     with a battery of known endurance. Confidence is

     a great mitigator of uncertainty.

     Bob . . .

earl_schroeder(at)juno.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:08 am Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

[quote]--------

Speedy11(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:33 am Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

James,

 Design your electrical system to make you comfortable.  If you are  happy with Z-11, then use it.

 Realize that you can monitor amps and volts and still rely on your plan  B.

 Personally, (17k hours in mil, airline, GA (owned 9-built 1), 98% of time  in VMC) I prefer having information in my cockpit.  I cannot make decisions  without information.  Any plan B, whether electric-related or not, cannot  make decisions for me.  As PIC, I have to make decisions - and I need  information to make decisions.

 In my RV-8A, I display and monitor amps at two locations and voltage on the  main and standby busses.  I guess I'm a control freak, but when it comes to  being PIC, that could be a good thing.

 Bob N has bucket loads of electrical knowledge and my hat is off to him for  sharing with and educating ignorant people like myself.  But, when it  comes to operating an airplane, I differ with his opinion.  I prefer to  have more, not less, information in my cockpit.

 What one does with that information is another story - and that is where  Bob's concept comes into play.  He indicates that pilots should not use  information about their electrical system to make assessments or decisions while  airborne.  Bob advocates having an electrical plan B that removes the  PIC from the airborne decision process.  As you clearly  explained, the intent is to make electrical problems idiot-proof.    Nothing wrong with that as it can make aviation safer and simpler.

 But, the pilot in me wants information.  For me, more information  is better.

 You can build Z-11 and still display electrical information in the  cockpit.  The displayed electrical information may do nothing more  than confirm what the flashing LV/OV light is telling you.

 Build it how you like it.

 Regards,

 Stan Sutterfield

 www.rv-8a.net

 do not archive

   	  Quote: 	
		  Is this    approach a good one?  It makes sense to me,    a

daytime-VFR-for-the-foreseeable-future pilot, not to be trying    to

fathom electrical problems in-flight.  Am I missing something    though?

Any thoughts you might have on the subject would be    greatly

appreciated. 	


  [quote][b]

james(at)etravel.org
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:38 pm Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

Bob,



Thanks for the advice.  To be honest, now the plane is getting close

to flying, I'm having a lot of second thoughts about everything...



James



On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III

<nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>



 In reading the AC, it's clear that an ammeter is a useful diagnostic

 tool on board the aeroplane, and yet at the same time, Bob's often

 espousing the virtues of not trying to diagnose faults in flight.



 So far, I've taken his latter view on board -- make a nice simple

 electric scheme, and then if things go awry, switch to e-bus. Â I then

 know I have n hours of time to run a few essential items -- more than

 enough to get on the ground, and most probably get to my home

 airfield. Â The scheme, incidentally, is Z11.



 Consequently, I haven't installed an ammeter or voltmeter. Â After all,

 the LV warning's going to flash away pretty soon, should the

 alternator pack up.



 Is this approach a good one? Â It makes sense to me, a

 daytime-VFR-for-the-foreseeable-future pilot, not to be trying to

 fathom electrical problems in-flight. Â Am I missing something though?

 Any thoughts you might have on the subject would be greatly

 appreciated.



 Â  Â Sure. But only because you've taken the time

 Â  Â to study, understand, and craft a process by

 Â  Â which you're going to build, operate and maintain

 Â  Â your airplane. Instruments are for telling you

 Â  Â things you do not know or have not planned for.



 Â  Â Limiting your in-flight accessibility to real-time

 Â  Â amps and volts is a perfectly rational design goal

 Â  Â when the system is failure tolerant and backed up

 Â  Â with a battery of known endurance. Confidence is

 Â  Â a great mitigator of uncertainty.

 Â  Â Bob . . .

james(at)etravel.org
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:45 pm Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

Earl,



That's a good point.  I seem to spend half my flying time with flaps

down, or fuel pump on!  As it happens, I've taken steps on this front

and have some warning lights for the things I usually forget.  I also

have a countdown timer to remind me to do stuff every n minutes too...

just as a precaution!



James



On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:02 PM, earl_schroeder(at)juno.com

<earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> wrote:

[quote] 



>--------

james(at)etravel.org
Guest

Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:52 pm Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

Stan,



Thanks for your considered advice.  It's interesting stuff, and I

definitely take your point about it.  I suppose that for the moment

I'm going to be flying fairly short flights, in fair weather, so the

lack of information, and resorting to plan B, won't be too much of a

problem.  I completely understand your requirements for more

information though, and perhaps I'll start to think that way as time

goes by and I become more experienced.



James



On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:26 PM,  <Speedy11(at)aol.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 James,

 Design your electrical system to make you comfortable.Â  If you are happy

 with Z-11, then use it.

 Realize that you can monitor amps and volts and still rely on your plan B.

 Personally, (17k hours in mil, airline, GA (owned 9-built 1), 98% of time in

 VMC) I prefer having information in my cockpit.Â  I cannot make decisions

 without information.Â  Any plan B, whether electric-related or not, cannot

 make decisions for me.Â  As PIC, I have to make decisions - and I need

 information to make decisions.

 In my RV-8A, I display and monitor amps at two locations and voltage on the

 main and standby busses.Â  I guess I'm a control freak, but when it comes to

 being PIC, that could be a good thing.

 Bob N has bucket loads of electrical knowledge and my hat is off to him for

 sharing withÂ and educating ignorant people like myself.Â  But, when it comes

 to operating an airplane, I differ with his opinion.Â  I prefer to have more,

 not less, information in my cockpit.

 What one does with that information is another story - and that is where

 Bob's concept comes into play.Â  He indicates that pilots should not use

 information about their electrical system to make assessments or decisions

 while airborne.Â  Bob advocates having an electricalÂ plan B that removes the

 PIC from the airborne decision process.Â  As you clearly explained, the

 intent is to make electrical problems idiot-proof.Â Â  Nothing wrong with that

 as it can make aviation safer and simpler.

 But, the pilot in me wants information.Â  For me, more information isÂ better.

 You can build Z-11 and still display electrical information in the cockpit.

 The displayed electrical informationÂ may do nothing more thanÂ confirm what

 the flashing LV/OV light is telling you.

 Build it how you like it.

 Regards,

 Stan Sutterfield

 www.rv-8a.net

 do not archive



 Is this approach a good one?Â  It makes sense to me, a

 daytime-VFR-for-the-foreseeable-future pilot, not to be trying to

 fathom electrical problems in-flight.Â  Am I missing something though?

 Any thoughts you might have on the subject would be greatly

 appreciated.

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:48 am Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

Good Morning Stan,

  

 Here I am a couple of days late getting to my mail, but I would like to  comment. Just one low time pilot to another low time pilot. <G>

  

 I like having the data for my personal perusal. My reasoning is about the  same as yours. Thanks for the posting.

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

 Do Not Archive

  

  In a message dated 6/4/2010 12:34:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  Speedy11(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		      

   James,

   Design your electrical system to make you comfortable.  If you are    happy with Z-11, then use it.

   Realize that you can monitor amps and volts and still rely on your plan    B.

   Personally, (17k hours in mil, airline, GA (owned 9-built 1), 98% of time    in VMC) I prefer having information in my cockpit.  I cannot make    decisions without information.  Any plan B, whether electric-related or    not, cannot make decisions for me.  As PIC, I have to make decisions -    and I need information to make decisions.

   In my RV-8A, I display and monitor amps at two locations and voltage on    the main and standby busses.  I guess I'm a control freak, but when it    comes to being PIC, that could be a good thing.

   Bob N has bucket loads of electrical knowledge and my hat is off to him    for sharing with and educating ignorant people like myself.  But,    when it comes to operating an airplane, I differ with his opinion.  I    prefer to have more, not less, information in my cockpit.

   What one does with that information is another story - and that is where    Bob's concept comes into play.  He indicates that pilots should not use    information about their electrical system to make assessments or decisions    while airborne.  Bob advocates having an electrical plan B that    removes the PIC from the airborne decision process.  As    you clearly explained, the intent is to make electrical problems    idiot-proof.   Nothing wrong with that as it can make aviation safer    and simpler.

   But, the pilot in me wants information.  For me, more information    is better.

   You can build Z-11 and still display electrical information in the    cockpit.  The displayed electrical information may do nothing more    than confirm what the flashing LV/OV light is telling you.

   Build it how you like it.

   Regards,

   Stan Sutterfield

   www.rv-8a.net

   do not archive

       	  Quote: 	
		  Is      this approach a good one?  It makes sense to me,      a

daytime-VFR-for-the-foreseeable-future pilot, not to be trying      to

fathom electrical problems in-flight.  Am I missing something      though?

Any thoughts you might have on the subject would be      greatly

appreciated. 	


 	  Quote: 	
		  



====================================

List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

====================================

ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

====================================

tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

====================================



	
	


  [quote][b]

james(at)etravel.org
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:13 am Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

Stan,



I don't think for a second that the system should be idiot-proof.

I've been designing software for a long time, and as soon as you try

and make it idiot-proof, all sorts of idiots start breaking the

system!



However, it makes perfect sense to me to have a known fallback

position.  That's all.  If things go pop in the cockpit, there's a

known mode for the system to operate in that has some redundancy, has

known limitations, but at the end of the day is just a battery and a

few devices, and that really appeals to me, a low hours pilot.



One thing that does come across in your messages, and in Bob's, is

that thinking about things in advance is obviously the best thing.

Perhaps I need to take more of a Bob-centric approach to other systems

in the plane, e.g. what happens if I lose my xyz instrument?  Or some

other system.



James



On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 AM,  <Speedy11(at)aol.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Bob,

 I'll attempt to explain myself inÂ the fewest words.

 I meant no offense to you.Â  Your concepts are excellent and your

 contribution to aviation and aviation safety is renowned.Â  We all owe you -

 some of us in treasury and others for our lives.

 1. I say, yes, DEPEND on electrical information while airborne.Â  I do DEPEND

 on cockpit information whileÂ airborne - whether it is electrical

 information, or something else, such as airspeed indication.Â  I analyze

 presented information (electrical or otherwise) to determine if the system

 is properly functioning.Â  If my airspeed indicationÂ appears to beÂ erroneous,

 I have several backup plans.Â  If my electrical indications are non-normal, I

 have several backup plans.Â  The backup plans are not crisis management in

 the cockpit nor are they devised "on the fly."

 2. I concur that investigation, deduction, design and planning are best done

 on the ground.Â  Crisis management should not be done in the cockpit.

 Management of a crisis is preplanned - detailed thought in advance is

 vital.Â  Having a detailed plan of action for all of the situations you can

 expect allows you to adjust when an unplanned situation presents itself.

 That has happened to me several times - once when a never-happened-before

 malfunction occurred and forced me to eject.Â  Ground preparation is critical

 to success in a non-normal situation and cockpit information is critical to

 assessing the situation and making the correct decision.

 3. I can guarantee you that my desire for cockpit information is not due to

 "a lack of confidence in understanding the system."Â  I, and I suspect all

 pilots, study our aircraft systems in detail and have a plan of attack in

 the event of systems failures.Â  Implementation of your electrical concepts,

 say Z-11,Â should not preclude having electrical information in the cockpit.

 Furthermore, that information can help the pilotÂ analyze the malfunction -

 whichÂ will lead to a better decision.

 4. I'll bet a dollar that if the membership of this list were polled, the

 consensus perception would be as James described - that is, your

 electricalÂ plan B is intended to make airborne decisions simpler - or put

 another way,Â more "idiot-proof."Â  So,Â if I haveÂ misinterpreted your

 offerings, others likely have, too.Â  You profess that fuses and/or circuit

 breakers should not be reachable by the pilot.Â  You profess that pilots do

 not need electrical data in the cockpit for fear they may try to analyze

 that data instead of defaulting to plan B.Â  Your concepts are well thought

 out, but the result (or perception) is that the pilot is removed from the

 decision process in the event of an electrical non-normal.Â  Thus, the

 airplane is made more "idiot-proof."

 I have the highest regard forÂ the depth of your electrical knowledge.Â  My

 decades of flying knowledge have proven to me that having information in the

 cockpit is important.

 As you have stated, analysisÂ is best doneÂ on the ground - I call that

 preparation.Â  But, application must be done in the air.Â  Information in the

 cockpit is important in any non-normal situation - even electrical.

 Regards,

 Stan Sutterfield



 He indicates that pilots should

 not use information about their electrical system to make assessments

 or decisions while airborne.



 Â  Â  No. Not DEPEND on information while airborne . . .



 Bob advocates having an electrical plan B that removes the PIC from

 the airborne decision process.



 Â  Â  No. The effective Plan-B MUST be crafted and understood by

 Â  Â  that same PIC.Â  The PIC is very much in the loop. The task

 Â  Â  is to do all the investigation, deduction, design and

 Â  Â  planning ON THE GROUND. The cockpit is a lousy classroom

 Â  Â  for crisis management.



 Â  Â  By the way, these are not ideas unique to me. They have

 Â  Â  been handed down by generations of thoughtful

 Â  Â  students/teachers of the art and science of elegant

 Â  Â  systems design. What I've offered is not mere opinion

 Â  Â  but fact demonstrated by our ancestors.



 As you clearly explained, the intent is to make electrical problems

 idiot-proof.Â Â  Nothing wrong with that as it can make aviation safer

 and simpler.



 Â  Â  I think you have mis-interpreted my offerings.

 Â  Â  "Idiot proof" was never a design goal.



 Â  Â  When one crafts a complex system wherein the

 Â  Â  smallest of failures represents a major operational

 Â  Â  problem (like a speck of rust clogging your carburetor

 Â  Â  jet) the prudent designer strives for failure tolerance.



 Â  Â  I have produced an analysis of the accident that

 Â  Â  totaled an expensive airplane, injured some folks

 Â  Â  and now plagues the lives of individuals who would

 Â  Â  MUCH rather be flying, water skiing, or reading

 Â  Â  a good book. All this expense, inconvenience,

 Â  Â  pain and taxation of $time$ came about because

 Â  Â  some individuals didn't know what they didn't know.

 Â  Â  They stacked extra goodies together with some

 Â  Â  notion of adding "safety" while in fact, crafting

 Â  Â  a system guaranteed to fail. Poor application of

 Â  Â  a $3 worth of components set the stage for $millions$

 Â  Â  of misery. This pilot had perhaps 30 seconds to do all

 Â  Â  the multi-tasking that was demanded of him before

 Â  Â  the inevitable came to pass.



 Â  Â  Adequate and accurate information about system operation

 Â  Â  and behavior in both normal and failure modes is necessary

 Â  Â  for REDUCING probability of failure, REDUCING the effects

 Â  Â  of any given failure and crafting a PLAN-B for comfortable

 Â  Â  management of said failure.



 But, the pilot in me wants information.Â  For me, more information is better



 Â  Â  Absolutely . . . but a desire for lots of lights and

 Â  Â  dials in the cockpit and plans to sift offered

 Â  Â  data in flight suggests a lack of confidence

 Â  Â  in understanding the system.

walter.fellows(at)GMAIL.C
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:08 am Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

I would be interested in the accident report for the situation Bob describes, $3 or so of parts causing loss of life and so many $$ of damage.



On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:46 AM,  <BobsV35B(at)aol.com (BobsV35B(at)aol.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		       Good Morning Stan,

  

 Here I am a couple of days late getting to my mail, but I would like to  comment. Just one low time pilot to another low time pilot. <G>

  

 I like having the data for my personal perusal. My reasoning is about the  same as yours. Thanks for the posting.

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

 Do Not Archive

  

  In a message dated 6/4/2010 12:34:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  Speedy11(at)aol.com (Speedy11(at)aol.com) writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		      

   James,

   Design your electrical system to make you comfortable.  If you are    happy with Z-11, then use it.

   Realize that you can monitor amps and volts and still rely on your plan    B.

   Personally, (17k hours in mil, airline, GA (owned 9-built 1), 98% of time    in VMC) I prefer having information in my cockpit.  I cannot make    decisions without information.  Any plan B, whether electric-related or    not, cannot make decisions for me.  As PIC, I have to make decisions -    and I need information to make decisions.

   In my RV-8A, I display and monitor amps at two locations and voltage on    the main and standby busses.  I guess I'm a control freak, but when it    comes to being PIC, that could be a good thing.

   Bob N has bucket loads of electrical knowledge and my hat is off to him    for sharing with and educating ignorant people like myself.  But,    when it comes to operating an airplane, I differ with his opinion.  I    prefer to have more, not less, information in my cockpit.

   What one does with that information is another story - and that is where    Bob's concept comes into play.  He indicates that pilots should not use    information about their electrical system to make assessments or decisions    while airborne.  Bob advocates having an electrical plan B that    removes the PIC from the airborne decision process.  As    you clearly explained, the intent is to make electrical problems    idiot-proof.   Nothing wrong with that as it can make aviation safer    and simpler.

   But, the pilot in me wants information.  For me, more information    is better.

   You can build Z-11 and still display electrical information in the    cockpit.  The displayed electrical information may do nothing more    than confirm what the flashing LV/OV light is telling you.

   Build it how you like it.

   Regards,

   Stan Sutterfield

   www.rv-8a.net

   do not archive

       	  Quote: 	
		  Is      this approach a good one?  It makes sense to me,      a

daytime-VFR-for-the-foreseeable-future pilot, not to be trying      to

fathom electrical problems in-flight.  Am I missing something      though?

Any thoughts you might have on the subject would be      greatly

appreciated. 	


 	  Quote: 	
		  



List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
	


   	  Quote: 	
		  



ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




	


#avg_ls_inline_popup {  position:absolute;  z-index:9999;  padding: 0px 0px;  margin-left: 0px;  margin-top: 0px;  width: 240px;  overflow: hidden;  word-wrap: break-word;  color: black;  font-size: 10px;  text-align: left;  line-height: 13px;}  [quote][b]

BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:05 pm Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,

  

 I tend to be on Stan's side in this discussion though I find nothing wrong  with your viewpoint.

  

 For one thing. I do not possess enough knowledge to really make an  intelligent decision on the subject.

  

 However, after many decades guarding an autopilot while millions of  miles were flown, I do realize that I have often experienced operational  modes that were not covered by any of the well thought out and well engineered  systems I was charged with operating.  There are always situations of  unintended consequences where we just don't have an applicable plan B.  

  

 I guess that is why we older folks tend to want a little bit of analytical  capability. There have been a number of cases where I spent an hour or two  talking to engineers who designed the system before a decision was made as to  how best to handle the situation.

  

 As Always, It All Depends! <G>

  

 Happy Skies,

  

 Old Bob

  

 Do Not Archive

  

  In a message dated 6/8/2010 12:52:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  At 11:42 PM 6/7/2010, you wrote:

Bob,



I'll attempt to explain    myself in the fewest words.



I meant no offense to you.  Your    concepts are excellent and your contribution to aviation and aviation safety    is renowned.  We all owe you - some of us in treasury and others for our    lives.



  No offense taken. 1800 other folks have an    opportunity

  to read this exchange and I'm only attempting    to

  maximize the benefits for taking the time to do

  it . .    .



1. I say, yes, DEPEND on electrical information while airborne.     I do DEPEND on cockpit information while airborne - whether it is electrical    information, or something else, such as airspeed indication.  I analyze    presented information (electrical or otherwise) to determine if the system is    properly functioning.  If my airspeed indication appears to be erroneous,    I have several backup plans.  If my electrical indications are    non-normal, I have several backup plans.  The backup plans are not crisis    management in the cockpit nor are they devised "on the fly."



  But    you're speaking of data important to

  the OPERATION of the airplane    where missing or

  bad data increases risk. One does have a

     dependence on the quality of such data.



2. I concur that investigation,    deduction, design and planning are best done on the ground.  Crisis    management should not be done in the cockpit.  Management of a crisis is    pre-planned - detailed thought in advance is vital.  Having a detailed    plan of action for all of the situations you can expect allows you to adjust    when an unplanned situation presents itself. That has happened to me several    times - once when a never-happened-before malfunction occurred and forced me    to eject.  Ground preparation is critical to success in a non-normal    situation and cockpit information is critical to assessing the situation and    making the correct decision.



   Here is where we may have a    disconnect. I'm suggesting

   that there is NO situation where    the artfully crafted

   and maintained electrical system offers    ANY risk

   for an 'unplanned' situation.



3. I can    guarantee you that my desire for cockpit information is not due to "a lack of    confidence in understanding the system."  I, and I suspect all pilots,    study our aircraft systems in detail and have a plan of attack in the event of    systems failures.  Implementation of your electrical concepts, say Z-11,    should not preclude having electrical information in the cockpit.     Furthermore, that information can help the pilot analyze the malfunction -    which will lead to a better decision.



   Which goes to my    question as to what single failure

   in Z-13/8 where informing    the pilot of any voltage

   or current ANYWHERE in the system    would aid in-flight

   analysis of the situation and encourage an    action

   DIFFERENT than a prearranged Plan-B?



4. I'll bet    a dollar that if the membership of this list were polled, the consensus    perception would be as James described - that is, your electrical plan B is    intended to make airborne decisions simpler - or put another way, more    "idiot-proof."  So, if I have misinterpreted your offerings, others    likely have, too.  You profess that fuses and/or circuit breakers should    not be reachable by the pilot.  You profess that pilots do not need    electrical data in the cockpit for fear they may try to analyze that data    instead of defaulting to plan B.  Your concepts are well thought out, but    the result (or perception) is that the pilot is removed from the decision    process in the event of an electrical non-normal.  Thus, the airplane is    made more "idiot-proof."



   I prefer to call it free of    distraction and

   attendant risks for being distracted.    I.e.,

   no problems that are not comfortably    handled

   by Plan-B. Simplicity is part and parcel    of

   that goal.



I have the highest regard for the depth    of your electrical knowledge.  My decades of flying knowledge have proven    to me that having information in the cockpit is important. As you have stated,    analysis is best done on the ground - I call that preparation.  But,    application must be done in the air.  Information in the cockpit is    important in any non-normal situation - even electrical.



      Reliable OPERATIONAL information is not a component

   of this    discussion. DIAGNOSTIC information cannot

   be utilized in    flight without causing the observer

   to be something other than    a pilot. Do you not agree

   that the elegant design offers a    high probability for

   comfortable termination of flight without    taxing

   the pilot with a decision making study based    on

   diagnostic data?



   If this IS a noble and    just cause, then what potential

   failures does an architecture    like Z-13/8 have that

   would render any Plan-B ineffective and    force the

   pilot into a diagnostic mode? If any such    failure

   is identified, what voltage or current data points    would

   you add to the panel displays to isolate the    failure?

   What words would you add to emergency procedures in    the

   POH to assist in gathering, evaluating, and making    a

   useful decision based on available data?



      To my way of thinking, the emergency procedures page

   for the    elegant electrical system is perhaps one

   simple paragraph that    requires NO analysis of data.

   This has always been a design    goal of the Z-figures

   and the thrust of recipes for success    offered in

   Chapter 17.



   As soon as we add    data to the panel displays, there's

   an implication of    value.  If that data has value

   for reducing risk, then    there is a presumption

   that the pilot already knows how to use    the

   data. Alternatively you write more paragraphs into    the

   emergency procedures section.



   This    isn't about anyone's personal preferences to

   put LOTS of    numbers on the panel. It's about

   the simple-idea that the    numbers MEAN something.

   If that meaning has anything to do    with OPERATION

   of the airplane, then it's part of the    transition

   training into the aircraft. If it's part of    the

   DIAGNOSTICS, then how do we confirm that the    pilot

   knows the significance of the numbers AND    will

   make good decisions therefrom?



   I've    had dozens of conversations with builders

   over the counter at    OSH where we considered his/

   her decision to spend $killo$ on    really nice

   glass that puts LOTS of numbers on the    panel.

   My questions of that builder were always the    same.

   What numbers? What do they mean in terms    of

   operation or diagnostics? How do you plan    to

   use those numbers in flight? Are you going    to

   write and practice procedures for making

      the correct decisions and taking the correct

   actions?     Most didn't have answers. This suggests

   that the value of    lots-of-numbers was not

   known. This makes it almost a    certainty that

   during non-normal operations,    availability

   of lots of numbers will add to risk.    



   Of course, those are the extreme    examples.

   The question that started this thread    was

   an inquiry into what electrical system    voltages

   and/or currents are of greatest value to a    pilot.

   My question of ANYONE on the List remains:    "Where

   do we find value in knowing the numbers for    more

   voltages and currents and how would they

      be used?"



   

  Bob . . .  	  Quote: 	
		  



====================================

List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

====================================

ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

====================================

tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

====================================



	
	


  [quote][b]

jpx(at)qenesis.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:48 am Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

I started my design with two voltmeters and two ammeters on my panel  

because I thought this would be useful information in flight if I had  

an electrical problem.



However, how would I teach my wife to use this information in the  

event of a problem while she was flying ?



Also, the meters took up precious space on the panel.



After further thinking I realized that my concern was for battery  

drain after losing an alternator.  The meters would allow me to  

selectively turn off equipment to match the ability of the SD-8  

alternator.



However, with an essential bus, the plan B load is previously  

established, so watching the meters in flight is not necessary.



Low voltage leds will tell me in flight if plan B is successfully  

maintaining the battery charge.  The meters are gone from the design.



I intend to add a connector to the bottom of the panel to make  

convenient troubleshooting measurements on the ground without having  

to open the cowl.



Jeff Page

Dream Aircraft Tundra #10

trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:40 am Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

On an opposite note, I can tell a small episode which happened to me:  

   

I have 2 panel voltmeters (one for each battery), and 3 amp indicators, being 2 Hall Effect sensors connected to the EIS/EFIS which work as batt. charge indicators and one 50mV shunt connected to a panel mounted digital ammeter, which works as an alternator loadmeter.  

   

I noticed that my electric c/s prop controller was not working, having lit a blinking yellow led that I didn’t remember what it meant.  

I immediately checked my voltmeters, which were indicating normal voltage, and then I checked the batt. charge ammeters, which were negative, indicating that batteries were not being charged. Then I checked the alternator loadmeter, which had a round 0 on it, and immediately realized that the alternator was not producing any juice.  

   

After a few seconds, I found the ALT Field switch was Off, turned it On, and everything got back to normal.  

   

Carlos  

   

   

[quote] --

Bob McC

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 258
Location: Toronto, ON

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:52 pm Post subject: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics

Carlos;  

   

Not trying to be argumentative Carlos, but, how could your voltmeters be “normal” if the alternator was offline?? “Normal should be 14+ volts and with the alternator offline and any significant load you would see closer to 12 volts (until the battery became discharged and then it would fall lower). Also you imply that your c/s prop controller problem was as a result of the alternator not working but the voltage was “normal”. Why would the prop controller be affected by “normal” voltage?  

   

A simple low voltage warning light will immediately warn you of alternator offline conditions such as you experienced and alert you to check the “field” switch just as your ammeters did. That single light will tell you that your electrical loads are being carried by the battery or batteries and that your alternator isn’t keeping up, exactly the same information as provided by your multiple gauges but by a much simpler installation.   

   

Now having said all that, I also like gauges, but for simplicity, a low voltage warning gives just as much operational information. (Check field switch, revert to reduced consumption plan “B” if that wasn’t the issue, fly to destination, check out and solve problem before next flight.)  

   

Are you sure that “blinking yellow LED” wasn’t a low voltage warning?? J J  (You did say you weren’t sure what it meant)  

   

Bob McC  

           

  

From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo

 Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:35 AM

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics  

  

   

On an opposite note, I can tell a small episode which happened to me:  

   

I have 2 panel voltmeters (one for each battery), and 3 amp indicators, being 2 Hall Effect sensors connected to the EIS/EFIS which work as batt. charge indicators and one 50mV shunt connected to a panel mounted digital ammeter, which works as an alternator loadmeter.  

   

I noticed that my electric c/s prop controller was not working, having lit a blinking yellow led that I didn’t remember what it meant.  

I immediately checked my voltmeters, which were indicating normal voltage, and then I checked the batt. charge ammeters, which were negative, indicating that batteries were not being charged. Then I checked the alternator loadmeter, which had a round 0 on it, and immediately realized that the alternator was not producing any juice.  

   

After a few seconds, I found the ALT Field switch was Off, turned it On, and everything got back to normal.  

   

Carlos  

   

   

[quote] --

_________________
Bob McC
Falco #908
(just starting)

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-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