|
|
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
|
|