Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:12:01 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-848720@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Tough Crowd
Thread-Topic: lml Digest #1430
Thread-Index: AcXzQejQ3h/nSPQTTdOVV07wkXgzywAqb+7w
From: "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>

What is it about LML and flame mail?  The latest is the OP vs. Chelton/ =
certified vs. uncertified string.  And not a word from Rick Shrameck =
anywhere in the debate!  FWIW:

I have flown my Legacy for about 3.5 years and 500 hrs.  It has both =
certified and non-certified parts.  In my personal experience (which may =
vary from the experience of others)the certified parts (fuel pump, =
vacuum pump, HSI, LASAR electronic system and both mags) are more prone =
to failure and less well supported by their manufacturers than are the =
non-certified parts (autopilot, backup EFIS, airplane, engine =
(IO-540EXP)).  I therefore cannot conclude from my personal experience =
that certified parts are better, more reliable, better serviced or more =
satisfactory in any other way than are non-certified parts.  Because I =
cannot personally confirm that the process of government intervention =
makes a product better or safer, I prefer to think of equipment as =
either good or bad.  My (up to this weekend) panel had good certified =
equipment (Garmin 530 and 430 and the rest of the stack), good =
uncertified equipment (TruTrak).  It also had bad certified equipment =
(HSI, vaccuum system) and bad uncertified equipment (WSI).  Win some, =
lose some.

When I began thinking about upgrading my panel, I considered both the =
DirectTo and OP products.  I liked both of them and still do.  Both of =
them offer truly awesome advances in navigation technology.  Anyone who =
thinks either system is not reliable enough either has not been flying =
very long or doesn't remember the old systems very well.  (Anyone else =
remember 60 degree lock-offs, chasing the ADF needle on final approach =
as it swung wildly 10 degrees either side of the actual bearing, dialing =
in the wrong VOR or TACAN frequency, forgetting to check the to/from =
indicator?) Both the Chelton and the OP systems have been designed and =
engineered by competent professionals who design for the most demanding =
customers.  As an early implementer, Chelton is a bit ahead on the =
development curve.  As second in, OP has had an opportunity to go to =
school on the Chelton product and make what, to me at least, are a few =
design improvements.  Both systems have experienced shakeout issues =
which both seem largely to have resolved.  I understand there is an =
issue with the Crossbow product in the DirectTo system which may extend =
to the comparable OP AHRS but I have been getting a steady stream of =
AD's from Lycoming on their solidly certified, 1940s technology engine, =
to say nothing of the letters from the vaccuum system people suggesting =
that it is criminally insane for anyone to ever use their product, none =
of which leads me to condemn all certified products or suggest that only =
a fool would ever install one.  Both Chelton and OP offer TSO quality =
GPSs and GPSs that, whatever their quality, cannot meet TSO standards.  =
For Hamid's benefit, I used the term "TSO-able" in an earlier post only =
because I understand that the TSO standard involves not only product =
quality and reliability but also the manner in which it is installed and =
tested.

I think I have told this story before on the list but I had an =
instructor in the Navy that would bet any student he could beat them on =
the bomb range.  The student got to use the state-of-the-art gunsight.  =
The instructor made an x on the windshield with a grease pencil.  He =
never lost.

It's all good.  Buy what sings to you, have fun and be careful.