Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com
Message-ID: <42287AB3.4070208@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:11:47 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristl@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040929
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel cutoff valve necessary?
References: <list-769379@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-769379@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

rijakits wrote:

>     If you get distracted and fumble around in an emergency for the
>     fuel shut off you are way behind on your emergency procedure
>     practise anyway! That should be one of those items in your flying
>     career that should go automatic even if you are in a coma!
>
>     If you don't use the fuel shut off regularly you still should be
>     able to get at it and actuate it blind/sleeping/dumbfounded/etc.!!
>
Extra training is NOT and will NEVER be an answer to poor ergonomic 
system design. 

Adding valves and switches should only happen if they actually increase 
safety, not to guard against a possible 'something might happen'.  If 
there is a benefit to a pilot controlled shutoff valve (vs. the mechanic 
controlled one) that is not obtained by cutting the power to the pump, 
then I'm all ears.  Otherwise, it appears that a cutoff valve is an 
additional piece of complexity that reduces safety by introducing 
additional failure modes and becoming a distraction (albeit, a small 
one) in an emergency.

"You should be able to do *XXX* while in a coma" is obviated by "there 
is no *XXX* to do".