Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <001101c5f9b6$443957e0$2402a8c0@edward2>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-863735@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Intersting flight
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:09:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


>
> 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.
>
That's great to hear, Al.  I agree that computer monitoring of engine and 
performance variables can provide the hard data from which true 
understanding of the problem is derived.  A light weight, inexpensive data 
collector using reasonably priced sensors - perhaps tied in with GPS data 
(not necessary but useful) would be a boon.   Looking forward to seeing your 
design.

Ed A