Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.30.75; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 06:20:38 -0800
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Intersting flight
Message-ID: <20051205.062045.2968.2.alwick@juno.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: al p wick <alwick@juno.com>


On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:38:21 -0500 "Ed Anderson"
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com> writes:
> There is also the added element of should the redundant system 
> be automatically or manually activated - each adds it's own bit of 
> complexity and risk.  Ed A

I sure agree. I have a lot of experience automating things. There are
times when it's valuable to have something automatically activated, but
you have to be super thorough in examining all the potential faults. I
try to resist auto activation as much as possible. None on my plane. 

It is extremely valuable to have computer monitoring. I've found Cozy
faults that no one knew about, just because computer was monitoring all
the sensors. Computer monitoring provides a leap in risk reduction. It's
pretty ironic that computer monitoring is lighter, less expensive, much
much safer, yet seldom done. I'm currently writing installation
instructions so people can buy off the shelf components, install safer
systems.


-al wick
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html