X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:36:58 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.12.137.3] (HELO imo-m22.mail.aol.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 1964953 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:10:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.3; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r8.1.) id q.c4b.11edfdf3 (40523) for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:09:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:09:40 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Indicated Airspeed Error X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1175623780" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5361 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1175623780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/2007 11:57:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ricargente@cs.com writes: It appears that we should inspect/investigate the static side of the airspeed equation. Maybe water or small bugs or dirt in the static system? Definitely worth checking very closely... While we were flying in close formation, at the same altitude, if never occurred to us to verify altitude readings. If there were any significant differences, this would have indicated some sort of problem with the static port... Rick, If the static port were blocked, thus keeping the atmospheric pressure of the airport in the static system, the airspeed would have been reading low, not high. Anyway, you may have been operating at some off altitude, depending on which altimeter was the reference. That's OK, since an airliner's TCAS would have helped them avoid your flight. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Darwinian culling phrase: Watch This! ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1175623780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 4/3/2007 11:57:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 ricargente@cs.com writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>
It appea= rs that we=20 should inspect/investigate the static side of the airspeed equation. = =20 Maybe water or small bugs or dirt in the static system?  Definitely w= orth=20 checking very closely...
 
While we=  were=20 flying in close formation, at the same altitude, if never occurred=20 to us to verify altitude readings.  If there were any=20 significant differences, this would have indicated some sort of probl= em=20 with the static=20 port...  
Rick,
 
If the static port were blocked, thus keeping the atmospheric pressure=20= of=20 the airport in the static system, the airspeed would have been reading = low,=20 not high.
 
Anyway, you may have been operating at some off altitude,=20 depending on which altimeter was the reference.  That's OK, since an=20 airliner's TCAS would have helped them avoid your flight.=20
 
Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)

Darwinian culling phrase: Watch=20 This!



See wha= t's free at AOL.co= m.
-------------------------------1175623780--