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

Electric failure
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

morgjj

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:42 am Post subject: Electric failure

Hi all,

  

 I am curious if I am  just naive in my thinking and design goals, or if this is a truly a dooms day  approach to the whole glass panel idea.  I was reading the FAA Aviation  News for June and there is an extensive article about training for glass and the  approaches/needs/goals.  As I read this part, I was trying to decide if it  was a realistic situation that is worth the effort.

  

 " In our TAA  Aircraft course completion ride, I use a  four airport scenario. The first airport  is a VFR arrival at a class D airport  with  touch and go and a VFR  departure. The second airport is an ILS to  a published missed approach to a holding  pattern. This is where I dim the MFD  simulating an alternator failure and watch  the pilot try to figure out how to do an  intersection hold with no on screen map  and just the CDI and DBAR on the HSI. Hmmm, same results time after time. The pilots get lost interpreting the  DI and  figuring out how to set up the “To“ and  “From” of the two defining VOR radials. A  loss of Electronic Situational Awareness  and inadequate working memory of the IFR  basics leads to a potentially dangerous  situation. I know they were taught it when  hey got their IFR ticket, but they  obviously are not current using it."  

  

I find this  a bit troubling as I am thinking that the situational testing is not really  trying to figure out how to truly give a situation that is realistic.  With  batteries and the proper setup, most glass will give 30  min plus to get  on the ground. One could argue that 60 is better, but if you did things  correctly, according to training, an alternator failure in IMC is an "Emergency"  and such should be declared. With that, if you are in the air more than 30,  there are bigger problems than finding an intersection with  VOR. 

  

I agree  that those are important skills that one should keep up on, and not suggesting  that we should pitch the VOR or other Nav aids because we have batteries, but  just trying to determine the validity of this and wonder if we as pilots  shouldn't ask more pressing questions about training and standards that are more  likely to mirror the reality of flight that we are likely to  encounter. 

  

The  other thing I do find humorous here is that if there is an Alternator failure,  wouldn't VOR go to?  MFD failure is considerably  less likely, especially on  two screens setup properly, yet that seems to be the focus for so many folks in  training.  I have read over and over that the best training is one that  parallels what one will encounter in real life, so is it me, or is this type of  thinking not realistic?  I open the bashing gates to the discussion, but think this is something that we should help shape  so that it is realistic.  If my design ideas are wrong, then I would like  to hear that. I understand that part of the design is determining acceptable  risk, and just starting the plane bring some. 

  

Thanks 

Jeff

jclarkmail(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:17 am Post subject: Electric failure

Jeff,



I thik I kind of agree with you.



There are two DIFFERENT failures here that might be mixed in the training. If the alternator goes then so does all the OTHER electrical stuff as you say. The more realistic training MIGHT be how to use the Garmin handheld to get to safety (along with the handheld radio). This all assumes a quick failure with no time to communicate with and get assistance from ATC. 



Furthermore some of the EFIS systems (at least the experimental ones) allow multiple voltage inputs  ... SO the EFIS could in fact run off a little dedicated battery and last LONGER than the VOR radio and CDI.

 

Finally the EFIS itself could fail for reasons having little or nothing to do with power. No **THAT** failure is one where you would need to be able to revert to the "old stuff". I hope I never have theproblem, but I must say that I always have my Garmin 396 running in parallel for situational awareness, so if I have "other" failures", I am still "aware" at some level and can point the nose towards home or some other safe haven. 



James

On 7/18/06, Jeffery J. Morgan <jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com (jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		         Hi all,

  

 I am curious if I am  just naive in my thinking and design goals, or if this is a truly a dooms day  approach to the whole glass panel idea.  I was reading the FAA Aviation  News for June and there is an extensive article about training for glass and the  approaches/needs/goals.  As I read this part, I was trying to decide if it  was a realistic situation that is worth the effort.

  

 " In our TAA  Aircraft course completion ride, I use a  four airport scenario. The first airport  is a VFR arrival at a class D airport  with  touch and go and a VFR  departure. The second airport is an ILS to  a published missed approach to a holding  pattern. This is where I dim the MFD  simulating an alternator failure and watch  the pilot try to figure out how to do an  intersection hold with no on screen map  and just the CDI and DBAR on the HSI. Hmmm, same results time after time. The pilots get lost interpreting the  DI and  figuring out how to set up the "To" and  "From" of the two defining VOR radials. A  loss of Electronic Situational Awareness  and inadequate working memory of the IFR  basics leads to a potentially dangerous  situation. I know they were taught it when  hey got their IFR ticket, but they  obviously are not current using it."  

  

I find this  a bit troubling as I am thinking that the situational testing is not really  trying to figure out how to truly give a situation that is realistic.  With  batteries and the proper setup, most glass will give 30  min plus to get  on the ground. One could argue that 60 is better, but if you did things  correctly, according to training, an alternator failure in IMC is an "Emergency"  and such should be declared. With that, if you are in the air more than 30,  there are bigger problems than finding an intersection with  VOR. 

  

I agree  that those are important skills that one should keep up on, and not suggesting  that we should pitch the VOR or other Nav aids because we have batteries, but  just trying to determine the validity of this and wonder if we as pilots  shouldn't ask more pressing questions about training and standards that are more  likely to mirror the reality of flight that we are likely to  encounter. 

  

The  other thing I do find humorous here is that if there is an Alternator failure,  wouldn't VOR go to?  MFD failure is considerably  less likely, especially on  two screens setup properly, yet that seems to be the focus for so many folks in  training.  I have read over and over that the best training is one that  parallels what one will encounter in real life, so is it me, or is this type of  thinking not realistic?  I open the bashing gates to the discussion, but think this is something that we should help shape  so that it is realistic.  If my design ideas are wrong, then I would like  to hear that. I understand that part of the design is determining acceptable  risk, and just starting the plane bring some. 

  

Thanks 

Jeff

  

	


-- 

This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at james(at)nextupventures.com (james(at)nextupventures.com) .

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:15 am Post subject: Electric failure

On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   I agree that those are important skills that one should keep up on,  

 and not suggesting that we should pitch the VOR or other Nav aids  

 because we have batteries, but just trying to determine the  

 validity of this and wonder if we as pilots shouldn't ask more  

 pressing questions about training and standards that are more  

 likely to mirror the reality of flight that we are likely to  

 encounter.

I have been thinking about this from the point of view how cockpit  
	


automation (what we are really talking about when we talk about smart  

glass displays) affects things when the scenario suddenly changes.



The effect isn't only when you have a systems failure but when you  

have a sudden change in routing or weather that involves  

reprogramming the automation on-the-fly. There is an excellent  

article about this here:



http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_bca_story.jsp?id=news/ 

glass_0206.xml



I remember hearing a 737 crew grousing to ATC about a rerouting that  

was so massive that they had to throw out the flight plan in their  

FMS and start from scratch. They even asked ATC to give them a  

rerouting that was not so onerous. The funny thing was that the new  

routing started with turning direct to a different VOR. How hard  

would it have been for them to tune in the new VOR, look at the RMI,  

and turn until the needle was on the nose and THEN start messing with  

the flight plan in the FMS? The captain could have flow the plane to  

the VOR while the FO was working on the next leg of the flight plan  

in the FMS. It didn't even occur to them to do that. (And all of this  

was on the radio for everyone to hear. Scary.)



I have experienced the problem myself when I was trying to run my  

older IFR LORAN while IFR and received three new clearances in the  

space of ten minutes. I went head down twice before falling back to  

thinking about what needed to be done and just flying the airplane.



We are tending more and more to lean on our "smarter" automation. I  

bet everyone here who flies has a GPS and uses that GPS for primary  

navigation. It is just so bloody easy to type in "direct to kabc"  

than it is to haul out a map and a plotter. The problem is what to do  

when that goes away. I have an EHSI and GPS with moving map in my  

currently-flying aircraft. It is so seductive to program that, turn  

on the autopilot, and just watch.



But I have had too many GPS failures to be comfortable relying on  

GPS. I spend as much time seeing to it that my ancient KNS-80 RNAV is  

set up as I do my GPS. When I am in the Caribbean I back up my GPS  

with ADF. The hard part is making the transition from GPS to my  

backup nav system when GPS fails. (Notice my use of the word "when"  

instead of "if"? That was intentional.)



I have found that when new routing comes in or I have to make a rapid  

change, it is often easier to switch to using raw VOR or ADF as my  

primary nav and then go back to reprogram the GPS (or FMS) *AFTER* I  

am reestablished and comfortable. There have even been times when I  

never did have time to go back to reprogram the GPS so at that point  

the GPS was useless for navigation. The only thing it was doing at  

that point was feeding position information to the moving map which I  

was using as a backup to help me maintain situational awareness.



So, yes, becoming dependent on the automation *is* a two-edged sword.  

It can make you a lot more precise when it is working and it can  

really mess you up when it is no longer delivering service (for  

whatever reason).



So when all else fails, do you know how to fly to a VOR radial  

defined intersection and hold?



Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:57 am Post subject: Electric failure

At 08:28 AM 7/18/2006 -0500, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  Hi all,



I am curious if I am just naive in my thinking and design goals, or if 

this is a truly a dooms day approach to the whole glass panel idea.  I was 

reading the FAA Aviation News for June and there is an extensive article 

about training for glass and the approaches/needs/goals.  As I read this 

part, I was trying to decide if it was a realistic situation that is worth 

the effort.


	


   <snip>



 	  Quote: 	
		  



The other thing I do find humorous here is that if there is an Alternator 

failure, wouldn't VOR go to?  MFD failure is considerably  less likely, 

especially on two screens setup properly, yet that seems to be the focus 

for so many folks in training.  I have read over and over that the best 

training is one that parallels what one will encounter in real life, so is 

it me, or is this type of thinking not realistic?  I open the bashing 

gates to the discussion, but think this is something that we should help 

shape so that it is realistic.  If my design ideas are wrong, then I would 

like to hear that. I understand that part of the design is determining 

acceptable risk, and just starting the plane bring some.


	


   This is typical of the mind-set of most pilots, the folks

   who write rules governing the behavior of pilots and still

   more folks who write rules on how airplanes should be configured.



   Instead of worrying about "what do I do if the panel goes

   black", how about considering ways to keep the panel from

   going black. This means failure tolerant design in some

   form or another. It's a failure mode effects analysis that

   considers NOT "what's the likelihood of this part failing?"

   but instead "What is my plan-b for when this part does fail?"



   We worry about alternator failures because (1) they've got

   a poor track record in certified aviation when compared with

   automobiles over the past 60 years, (2) we've read too many

   dark-n-stormy-night stories involving rare but tense electrical

   system failures that have (3) distracted us into unwarranted

   concentration on the alternator. This happens at the expense

   of crafting a plan-b: Well-maintained battery(ies) and/or

   second engine driven power sources.



   These narrowly focused, single-minded worries are the byproduct

   of designers and particularly legislators that do not take

   the system-wide view of reliability. We spec and test the

   crap out of items assigned to very important tasks without

   considering that design and qualification have only a

   small part to play in the product's service life. Then

   there are $kilo$ meetings with lots of deer-in-the-headlights

   expressions when the "golden" device won't perform in the field

   well enough to stay off the top-ten problems list. I can

   show you very complex systems and components with design

   and qualification numbers that run in the thousands of

   hours but in fact don't run 30 hours without lighting a

   "fail" light.



   The simple idea here is to have at least TWO independent

   ways to accomplish any critical task such that no single

   piece of equipment becomes critical to the outcome of that

   task. One begins by accepting the notion that we can craft

   systems wherein NO single item of equipment is critical

   such that failure of that item is never cause to break

   a sweat. This includes alternators. Architecture, understanding

   and reasonable preventative maintenance goes a VERY long

   way to avoiding a bad day in the cockpit without spending

   the Crown Jewels on super-spec components that can fall

   victim to inattention or accident at any time.



   So when you read any article that opens with an experienced

   or hypothesized single failure that caused a bad day in the

   cockpit, the remainder of that article is essentially

   useless to consider . . . not because the experiences or

   hypothesis are not real but because they're writing about

   a collection of hardware that was poorly assembled and/or

   maintained. The better article to publish is now one achieves

   failure tolerance at reasonable costs. Once achieved,

   probability of needing to write (or read) all the other

   articles goes very close to zero. This includes the article

   you cited no doubt written by well intentioned people

   who's salaries and retirements are paid out of our pockets.



   In chapter 17 of the 'Connection I offered:



Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design

sez: "Things break"



The second: "Systems shall be designed so that

when things break, no immediate hazard is created."



The third: "Things needed for comfortable termination

of flight require backup or special consideration

to insure operation and availability"



The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability,

longevity, or capability of a part shall be because

you're tired of replacing it or want some new feature,

not because it damned near got you killed."



   Bob . . .

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: Electric failure

On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

   Instead of worrying about "what do I do if the panel goes

   black", how about considering ways to keep the panel from

   going black. This means failure tolerant design in some

   form or another. It's a failure mode effects analysis that

   considers NOT "what's the likelihood of this part failing?"

   but instead "What is my plan-b for when this part does fail?"


	


But the real issue with all the new glass stuff is that we are moving  

beyond the realm of being able to prevent the glass from going dark.  

When my panel was a collection of small, autonomous devices I could  

address the problem by providing overlap of functionality and  

redundancy of supporting systems (electrical power mostly). When my  

AI went TU I could fall back on needle-ball and airspeed.



Now consider the rate at which Garmin seems to be coming up with new  

firmware for the G1000 because it seems to be prone to flaking at  

inopportune moments. Garmin has removed my ability to prevent  

darkness from falling.



So, plan-B is a very necessary evil and one that seems to be more and  

more required rather than less as integration becomes more complete  

and complex. This is a problem with monolithic systems design. It is  

soo simple because it is all in one integrated box while forgetting  

that failure is so complete because it is all in one integrated box.



Now it is back to redesigning for no-single-point-of-failure but now  

at a higher level.



Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:58 pm Post subject: Electric failure

At 12:46 PM 7/18/2006 -0400, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

>

>   Instead of worrying about "what do I do if the panel goes

>   black", how about considering ways to keep the panel from

>   going black. This means failure tolerant design in some

>   form or another. It's a failure mode effects analysis that

>   considers NOT "what's the likelihood of this part failing?"

>   but instead "What is my plan-b for when this part does fail?"



But the real issue with all the new glass stuff is that we are moving

beyond the realm of being able to prevent the glass from going dark.

When my panel was a collection of small, autonomous devices I could

address the problem by providing overlap of functionality and

redundancy of supporting systems (electrical power mostly). When my

AI went TU I could fall back on needle-ball and airspeed.



Now consider the rate at which Garmin seems to be coming up with new

firmware for the G1000 because it seems to be prone to flaking at

inopportune moments. Garmin has removed my ability to prevent

darkness from falling.



So, plan-B is a very necessary evil and one that seems to be more and

more required rather than less as integration becomes more complete

and complex. This is a problem with monolithic systems design. It is

soo simple because it is all in one integrated box while forgetting

that failure is so complete because it is all in one integrated box.



Now it is back to redesigning for no-single-point-of-failure but now

at a higher level.


	


   How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of

   all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.

   No matter what things on the panel do, the airplane stays

   right side up, the pilot has time and low pressure environment

   to dig out the hand-helds, or simply compass steer to known

   VMC, . . . . whatever.



   If I were going to poke long tunnels in clouds, this is

   the kind of plan-b that smoothly backs up anything that

   glass or gages on the panel decide to do.

    Bob . . .

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: Electric failure

On Jul 18, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  > So, plan-B is a very necessary evil and one that seems to be more and

> more required rather than less as integration becomes more complete

> and complex. This is a problem with monolithic systems design. It is

> soo simple because it is all in one integrated box while forgetting

> that failure is so complete because it is all in one integrated box.

>

> Now it is back to redesigning for no-single-point-of-failure but now

> at a higher level.



   How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of

   all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.


	


Oh, no doubt it can be done. It is just that I am realizing that all  

this complexity is not meeting the promise of reduced cockpit workload.



Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: Electric failure

 	  Quote: 	
		  >   How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of

>   all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.



Oh, no doubt it can be done. It is just that I am realizing that all

this complexity is not meeting the promise of reduced cockpit workload.


	


   As long as any operating mode requires a human to observe,

   and interpret displays, and react in the appropriate controls

   inputs to aviate, then there is nothing anyone can do with either

   brass or glass to "reduce cockpit workload". Who ever is promising

   lower workloads while leaving the pilot in the loop is blowing

   lots of smoke you-know-where.



   We used to EXPECT a pilot to belly up to that bar with

   the aplomb of Lindbergh and the daring-do of a WWI flying

   ace and show us how a "real pilot" does it.



   But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps

   the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than

   a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.

   Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for

   success. When the bill of materials and lines of software

   to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display

   (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)

   I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant

   solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely

   guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.



   Bob . . .



      ---------------------------------------------------------

      < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >

      < the authority which determines whether there can be   >

      < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of   >

      < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests     >

      < with experiment.                                      >

      <                            --Lawrence M. Krauss       >

      ---------------------------------------------------------

Guy Buchanan

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1204
Location: Ramona, CA

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: Electric failure

At 07:00 PM 7/18/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		     But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps

   the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than

   a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.

   Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for

   success. When the bill of materials and lines of software

   to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display

   (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)

   I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant

   solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely

   guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.


	


Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not? If so, 

who does it?



Thanks,

Guy Buchanan

K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.

_________________
Guy Buchanan
Deceased K-IV 1200
A glider pilot too.

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:54 am Post subject: Electric failure

On Jul 18, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>

>>   How about a gps aided wing leveler that is independent of

>>   all other goodies on the panel? Perhaps DUAL wing levelers.

>

> Oh, no doubt it can be done. It is just that I am realizing that all

> this complexity is not meeting the promise of reduced cockpit  

> workload.

   As long as any operating mode requires a human to observe,

   and interpret displays, and react in the appropriate controls

   inputs to aviate, then there is nothing anyone can do with either

   brass or glass to "reduce cockpit workload". Who ever is promising

   lower workloads while leaving the pilot in the loop is blowing

   lots of smoke you-know-where.

Oh, it is quite possible for automation to lower cockpit workload. As  

you point out, automation does a great job of tirelessly watching  

things and making mindless corrections. Your wing-leveler is a good  

point. Engine instrumentation is good too. How annoying is it to  

realize that you got distracted and only just looked up to see that  

the oil pressure is approaching zero and oil temp is well up past red  

line. Much better to have that mindless servant bring it to your  

attention than to depend on you remembering to scan the engine gauges.

Part of the problem is the user interface. Most GPS and FMS have  

confusing, inflexible interfaces with the human that don't permit  

easy changes. The point I was making is that it is a LOT easier to  

dial a new frequency into a VOR receiver and then reach up to turn an  

OBS to center the CDI, look at the new bearing/radial, and turn the  

airplane to a new heading than it is to reprogram even a simple  

flight plan in a GPS.

I was just musing aloud on my recent flying (I have racked up 50  

hours of international cross-country flight in the last month). I am  

finding myself back on the victor airways and using my VORs almost as  

much as my GPS. (The GPS gives me ground track information which  

helps me do a much better job of adhering to to my desired track than  

does the trial-and-error approach of VOR.) I use my charts to decide  

where I am going to go so the GPS is no longer absolutely dominant in  

my navigation. Navigation automation is not necessarily better under  

all conditions.

 	  Quote: 	
		     We used to EXPECT a pilot to belly up to that bar with

   the aplomb of Lindbergh and the daring-do of a WWI flying

   ace and show us how a "real pilot" does it.

Don't forget panache. 

 	  Quote: 	
		     But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps

   the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than

   a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.

   Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for

   success. When the bill of materials and lines of software

   to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display

   (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)

   I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant

   solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely

   guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.

No argument there.

Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:55 am Post subject: Electric failure

In a message dated 7/19/2006 1:24:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  bnn(at)nethere.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

At    07:00 PM 7/18/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		     But it's an inarguable,    simple-idea that nobody keeps

   the wings level tirelessly    and more accurately than

   a rate gyro, a handful of jelly    bean parts and a servo motor.

   Add some GPS data and you've    got a fantastic recipe for

   success. When the bill of    materials and lines of software

   to do the task are 1/10th    that of a panel mounted display

   (that depends on the    eyeball-brain-hand interface)

   I can see no better cost    benefit ratio or more elegant

   solution for lower    complexity. And guess what? It absolutely

   guarantees and    demonstrates lower cockpit workload.


	


Not being smart. Just wondering.    Does this exist? If not, why not? If so, 

who does    it?



Thanks,

Guy Buchanan

K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100%    done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. 



	


 

 This sounds a lot like my Garmin GPS295 and my Navaid autopilot.

  

 Dan Hopper

 RV-7A

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:39 am Post subject: Electric failure

At 10:05 PM 7/18/2006 -0700, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



At 07:00 PM 7/18/2006, you wrote:

>   But it's an inarguable, simple-idea that nobody keeps

>   the wings level tirelessly and more accurately than

>   a rate gyro, a handful of jelly bean parts and a servo motor.

>   Add some GPS data and you've got a fantastic recipe for

>   success. When the bill of materials and lines of software

>   to do the task are 1/10th that of a panel mounted display

>   (that depends on the eyeball-brain-hand interface)

>   I can see no better cost benefit ratio or more elegant

>   solution for lower complexity. And guess what? It absolutely

>   guarantees and demonstrates lower cockpit workload.



Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not? If so, 

who does it?


	


   If anyone is close right now, it's Jim Younkin at

   TruTrak. I've had the core components of a design

   on the back burner for years and things really took

   a turn toward realization when Analog Devices finally

   slew the dragons for manufacturing an inexpensive, solid

   state rotation rate sensor. See:



http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0%2C2877%2CADXRS401%2C00.html



   GPS engines are becomming jelly bean parts too. See:



http://www.rfsolutions.co.uk/acatalog/Embedded_GPS_Module.html



   The hardware is a no-brainer. Development of a manufacturable

   product takes $time$ and ultimately an airplane . . . both

   of which are in my "pretty-hard" pile. But I'm still watching

   for opportunities to consider an entry into this market.

   Jim would be a most worthy competitor.



   Bob . . .

      ---------------------------------------------------------

      < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >

      < the authority which determines whether there can be   >

      < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of   >

      < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests     >

      < with experiment.                                      >

      <                            --Lawrence M. Krauss       >

      ---------------------------------------------------------

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: Electric failure

On Jul 19, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not?  

 If so,

 who does it?



 Thanks,

 Guy Buchanan

 K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.



 This sounds a lot like my Garmin GPS295 and my Navaid autopilot.


	


Well, not quite. I see Bob's idea of a device that will hold an  

aircraft on its current ground track using input from GPS as soon as  

it is turned on. You don't need to enter a flight plan and you don't  

need to tell the autopilot what heading to fly. Flip the 'on' switch  

and the airplane unerringly locks onto its current ground track.  

Pretty simple. Pretty elegant.



Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

glastar(at)gmx.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: Electric failure

Hello Brian,



I switch my digitrack on and then it does track along the current track 

which is supplied from the GPS, i have a left and a right button to 

alter the course by a degree on each click, or keep it 3 sec pressed and 

it will fly some sort of a standard rate turn (4min on my Glastar) 

however I can also decide to use a flightplan from the GPS or without 

GPS it does use the current flown magnetic course.



So quite close I would say 



Werner (Glastar with digitrack and altrak)



Brian Lloyd wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>



 On Jul 19, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:



>

> Not being smart. Just wondering. Does this exist? If not, why not?  

> If so,

> who does it?

>

> Thanks,

> Guy Buchanan

> K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.

>

> This sounds a lot like my Garmin GPS295 and my Navaid autopilot.

 Well, not quite. I see Bob's idea of a device that will hold an  

 aircraft on its current ground track using input from GPS as soon as  

 it is turned on. You don't need to enter a flight plan and you don't  

 need to tell the autopilot what heading to fly. Flip the 'on' switch  

 and the airplane unerringly locks onto its current ground track.  

 Pretty simple. Pretty elegant.



 Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

 brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com          Folsom, CA 95630

 +1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



 I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

 — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry



 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 http://wiki.matronics.com

stein(at)steinair.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:43 am Post subject: Electric failure

I guess I'm kind of confused here.....why re-invent the wheel at all?!?

There is Navaid, Trio and TruTrak. They all literally do exactly what

everyone is debating here....turn them on and they work - Plain and simple.

What's wrong with the panel mounted displays in the low end AP's right now?

I mean, it takes a total of ONE button push to engage them and one to

disengage them....can it get much simpler?



It's easy to think that for a few bucks you can 'roll your own' which is

entirely true from a hardware perspective.  But....anyone who think's

they'll create something to market, sell, support, install, warranty, etc..

is in for a really rude awakening.  Bob knows the expense, time, effort and

engergy it takes and mark my words it's not a simple, cheap or quick

undertaking.  I'll guarantee you that nobody can produce a servo cheaper

than TruTrak right now, seeing as they make around 50-100 of them per week,

every week.  There is a reason they cost what they do...not because they are

getting particularly rich either.



Anyway, I'm just sort of scratching my head wondering why anyone would even

bother trying to recreate something that can readily be had for less that

$1500 today anyway (and from more than one source)?  Heck, just the time

debating it, researching components, time to fabricate, etc.. and you've

already blown more than that in time alone.



No flames or insults intended, just trying to be realistic.



Cheers,

Stein



RV6's, Minneapolis



[quote]--

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:57 am Post subject: Electric failure

On Jul 19, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <glastar(at)gmx.net>



 Hello Brian,



 I switch my digitrack on and then it does track along the current  

 track which is supplied from the GPS, i have a left and a right  

 button to alter the course by a degree on each click, or keep it 3  

 sec pressed and it will fly some sort of a standard rate turn (4min  

 on my Glastar) however I can also decide to use a flightplan from  

 the GPS or without GPS it does use the current flown magnetic course.



 So quite close I would say 


	


Sounds like it. I should know better than to open my mouth when I  

haven't researched something. 



Brian Lloyd                         361 Catterline Way

brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.c
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: electric failure

This has been an informative discussion for me guys - thanks.



I have a GRT EFIS and the Tru-Trak digiflight II (two axis), but no

experience operating or flying with them yet.  The EFIS has a built-in GPS

and I additionally have second Garmin 296 that can pop in and out of the

panel.  The thought was to have a backup for navigation in the event of

EFIS failure, and also so that I can punch in a flight plan at home and

then be able to hop in the plane whenever and instantly dump the flight

plan into the EFIS to control the autopilot.



Im a VFR kind of guy, but would like to understand what to expect regarding

the autopilot capabilities in the event of EFIS failure.  Its my

understanding that the TruTrak has an internal magnetometer that comes into

play if the GPS or other input fails.  Does this mean it will hold the

heading that was in use at the time of failure, or just that I could input

a new heading (assuming I remembered what the desired heading was).

Further, I assume that after EFIS failure I would be on my own with respect

to holding altitude, correct?



regards



Erich Weaver

aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: Electric failure

Hi Jeff-



You raise a good question.  Predictably, and no offense to any of the many

esteemed folks that have replied so far, the conversation has gone down the

path of system design.  The questions you raise are different.  As to what

would actually fail when the alt quits, on my plane nothing will.  I can't

speak for the plane in question.  



I think the issues raised by your article scenario are twofold.  First, the

new, complex equipment tends to have a tremendous amount of functionality. 

Typically, and unless beaten with a stick, pilots only use a small portion

of the power that is available to them.  They then promptly forget how to

use the other 90% of the tools that are still available to them.  I suspect

that is the point the storied instructor was trying to make. In other

words, stay proficient, and with your avionics as well. 



The other issue is that given the loss of presented data, trying to macho

one's way out of the scenario is the wrong response.  A more correct one

would be to inform ATC that they'd lost generation and were partial panel. 

Holds are no longer acceptable, and intersection holds are ludicrous.  Take

vectors, get out of IMC and onto the ground.  It's just that simple.  Do

not relinquish your fate to someone else's expectations.



We now return you to your normally scheduled systems engineering.



Feel free to flame away;  I leave for OSH tomorrow and won't get scorched

for another 10 days or so!



glen matejcek

aerobubba(at)earthlink.net

paul.mcallister

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 177
Location: Waukesha, WI USA

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject: Electric failure

Hi Bob,



I was wondering if you could clarify your  thinking on this.  Are you

proposing that you would install a pair of these simple devices for a fully

redundant system.  Would this extend to having dual servos as well?



Just curious,



Paul



do not archive



--

morgjj

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: Electric failure

Glen and others,



Actually I was asking more about the training and how closely it would

match a likely failure of a system.  I was asking if the types of drills

that seem to be coming up for the Technically Advanced Aircraft (TAA)

seem to be built from the ideas of failures of years ago. I think it is

critical to recognize the past and learn from it, without getting to

arrogant to think that things couldn't fail totally.  True that at any

time, anything can fail.  I didn't say in my previous post, which I am

learning for the future, I was of the mindset that folks are building

systems where a single point of failure isn't really possible.  



So try to my main question again, I think I would word like this. Given

that the article is focused on the least likely event (MFD failure) and

requesting an alternate form of navigation be used, does that seem like

it would be a good use of testing/training of pilots? Wouldn't it be

more prudent to drill more likely scenarios that are more likely then

1-5% likely?  That is not to say that I disagree with the idea that you

need to keep your skills updates, regardless of what you are using as I

think you should.  We do a disservice to other pilots and the public

when we fly into areas that we shouldn't because we lost GPS signal.



As for some of the points I have read over the past few days, I think

that there is merit in many of them. I think we could discuss all of

them at length.  The interfaces on the systems are very different, each

with strong points and weak points. I think that I have often thought is

that the radio should have the closest frequencies in a list off the

tuning button as I fly along.  I think it would be great to punch a

button and have a list of the closest ATIS or AWOS stations from my

position with a distance and bearing. Same for VORs.  On the Garmin's

you can go to the nearest page and select, but it is a lot of dialing to

get there. With VOR's it isn't like I am going to dial much else in the

NAV radio.  If I were 5000' or less, a list of airport CTAF or ATC

controlling facilities on the standby list would be helpful too.

Imagine hitting a button on the radio, and scroll though a list with the

frequency, definition, and direction right on the screen, with the

closest ones first...  There is a feature that would lighten pilot loads

in difficult times.  But all that said, maybe Brian would want it

differently than that.  Never would claim that I am normal by any means.

I am building an airplane after all. 



I think that part of the fundamental problem is that the folks writing

the rules, doing the check rides, and to a fair extent, doing the

training or still trying to catch up as well.  I had that experience in

my flight training where the CFI didn't like to use certain pieces of

equipment, nor talk to ATC, so as a result when I got done, that stuff

was something I had to work on my own to acquire.  TAA is flashy, but it

is a lot of work to learn.  Maybe the need to demonstrate a VOR  when

MFD failure happens is a reflection of that school of thought.  



Personally, I would find things like engine failure, fire, gear

problems, control problems, IMC incursions, strong crosswinds, and even

busy airspace to be much more likely issues that people would run into

prior to failure of most of the systems on the plane, yet very few of

these are even discussed about training suddenly. 



I would stress again that I strongly believe in training and preparing

for the worst, but think that the worst should be prioritized by most

likely to least likely and trained and tested in a similar order.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-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