X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:28:05 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.2) with ESMTP id 847473 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:25:33 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([71.97.26.227]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IQL000BIIXYMIH3@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:25:13 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:25:21 -0600 From: Jerry Fisher Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Op Technologies opinions? In-reply-to: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net X-Original-Message-id: <43893531.3090307@verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) It seems to me that we have heard these arguments before. Let me see if I understand them. 1. A certified EFIS system is better than an uncertified one, which seems reasonable. 2. The Chelton certified system is therefore likely to prove more reliable than any uncertified system. 3. Because it is so expensive, and outside the budgets of many of us, Chelton produced a non-certified version. Contrary to what had been inferred, this system does not use identical hardware to the certified version. 4. However the Chelton non-certified version is claimed to be demonstrably better than all the other non-certified EFIS systems out there, and we should all stay clear of the others for IFR flight. This would sound a lot more credible if we had not just heard that the Chelton non-certified version has been using an AHRS that has been failing catastrophically on a regular basis. Sorry, but I really do not buy the argument. If you can afford the certified Chelton system, you are lucky, and it will probably be very reliable. If you cannot, the Chelton non-certified system has proven to be no different from the others. Surely the key point is that with any of these systems, certified or otherwise, you must have back up instrumentation, and you have to conduct regular cross checks in flight, particularly in IFR. I have been let down by some much more expensive and better tested instrumentation than any of our EFIS systems, certified or otherwise. By the way, Sagem is a highly reputable and well established company and certainly comparable in most respects to Chelton's parent company. I have nothing against Chelton, they are a good company with a good product base, but let us stop knocking every competitor in the market. There is room for the competition, and Chelton has been shown not to be perfect. Jerry Fisher