X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:36:35 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman@cablespeed.com> Received: from mxo5.broadbandsupport.net ([209.55.3.85] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTP id 2381317 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:07:03 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.55.3.85; envelope-from=2thman@cablespeed.com X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman@cablespeed.com> Received: from [66.235.44.170] ([66.235.44.170:64773] helo=Home) by mxo5.broadbandsupport.net (ecelerity 2.1.1.23 r(18304)) with ESMTP id 1D/91-20234-E532E074 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:21:35 -0400 From: "John Barrett" <2thman@cablespeed.com> X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: TruTrak ADI X-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:06:16 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <000301c80c0f$e44fd8e0$acef8aa0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C80BD5.37F100E0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcgLPcjPAF0ysWdMQZitxCHRHrkBZQAz1hmA Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C80BD5.37F100E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark, =20 I started this thread and made the observations you are countering. I = totally agree with almost all of your observations. It=E2=80=99s a = little unfortunate the guy at Tru Trak did not mention the warning = indicator that alerts the pilot to slow airspeed. Had I known that I = probably would have bought the thing. =20 =20 I think you MAY be underestimating the power of past training. With a = backup instrument like this that most of us won=E2=80=99t spend a lot of = time getting to know, I think it is possible even for a guy with pretty = fair aircraft handling skills and scanning techniques to be further = misled by misleading data from an instrument that looks identical to but = in fact behaves differently from what he has used regularly during all = of his past years of flying. The airspeed warning feature goes a long = way towards mitigating this potential problem and you are most likely = correct that a good scan would assist the pilot in ferreting out what = data is valid and what isn=E2=80=99t.=20 =20 In the case of the IVP things can happen very rapidly such that at = altitude and speed a deteriorating series of events can easily escalate = into an overwhelming dilemma. I suspect that=E2=80=99s why there are so = many IVP accidents. Any flaw in backup instrumentation needs to be = examined carefully before blindly accepting its ability to help you out = of a tight spot. Since my life could well depend partly on this little = gadget and my ability to interpret it in the most stressful of = conditions, I tend to be very skeptical of the unknown aspects until = they=E2=80=99ve been demonstrated to be effective. Perhaps my 50 years = of flying experience will prove effective should I need to use the ADI. = I am not comfortable with merely an intellectual discussion of the pros = and cons but rather would need to fly the instrument in order to see = what might happen in varying conditions. =20 Thanks to all for your enlightening discussion. =20 Best regards, John Barrett =20 From: marknlisa@hometel.com [mailto:marknlisa@hometel.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:02 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: TruTrak ADI =20 I think you are guys all making a mountain out of a molehill... "Misinterpretation" is possible with ANY kind of instrument, even the = tried and true gyroscopic attitude indicator That's why we are all = taught NOT to rely on any one instrument in IMC to understand what the = aircraft is doing. The way I learned instruments the attitude indicator was NEVER the = primary control instrument for pitch -- it was airspeed. I submit knowing the actual attitude (pitch, yaw, roll) of the aircraft = isn't as important as understanding the SITUATION (attitude, airspeed, = VSI, weather, etc.). Additionally, TruTrak has already considered the above situation and = accounted for it. Should the pilot allow the aircraft to slow enough = such that pitch indications might not match the actual attitude of the = aircraft, the TruTrak ADI will has a programmable warning indicator that = tells the pilot to check the airspeed. For myself, I find the TruTrak ADI a fine alternative to more expensive = mechanical gyroscopic instruments. Mark Sletten No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.=20 Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.7/1062 - Release Date: = 10/10/2007 5:11 PM =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C80BD5.37F100E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mark,

 

I started this thread and made the observations you are countering.=C2=A0 I totally agree with almost all of your = observations.=C2=A0 It=E2=80=99s a little unfortunate the guy at Tru Trak did not mention the warning = indicator that alerts the pilot to slow airspeed.=C2=A0 Had I known that I = probably would have bought the thing.=C2=A0

 

I think you MAY be underestimating the power of past = training.=C2=A0 With a backup instrument like this that most of us won=E2=80=99t spend a = lot of time getting to know, I think it is possible even for a guy with pretty fair = aircraft handling skills and scanning techniques to be further misled by = misleading data from an instrument that looks identical to but in fact behaves = differently =C2=A0from what he has used regularly during all of his past years of flying. = =C2=A0The airspeed warning feature goes a long way towards mitigating this potential = problem and you are most likely correct that a good scan would assist the pilot in ferreting out what data is valid and what isn=E2=80=99t. =

 

In the case of the IVP things can happen very rapidly = such that at altitude and speed a deteriorating series of events can easily = escalate into an overwhelming dilemma.=C2=A0 I suspect that=E2=80=99s why there are so = many IVP accidents.=C2=A0 Any flaw in backup instrumentation needs to be examined carefully before blindly accepting its ability to help you out of a tight spot.=C2=A0 = Since my life could well depend partly on this little gadget and my ability to = interpret it in the most stressful of conditions, I tend to be very skeptical of the = unknown aspects until they=E2=80=99ve been demonstrated to be effective.=C2=A0 = Perhaps my 50 years of flying experience will prove effective should I need to use the = ADI.=C2=A0 I am not comfortable with merely an intellectual discussion of the pros and cons = but rather would need to fly the instrument in order to see what might = happen in varying conditions.

 

Thanks to all for your enlightening = discussion.

 

Best regards,

John Barrett

 

From:= marknlisa@hometel.com [mailto:marknlisa@hometel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:02 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: TruTrak ADI

 

I = think you are guys all making a mountain out of a molehill...

"Misinterpretation" is possible with ANY kind of = instrument, even the tried and true gyroscopic attitude indicator That's why we are = all taught NOT to rely on any one instrument in IMC to understand what the = aircraft is doing.



The way I learned instruments the attitude indicator was NEVER the = primary control instrument for pitch -- it was airspeed.

I submit knowing the actual attitude (pitch, yaw, roll) of the aircraft = isn't as important as understanding the SITUATION (attitude, airspeed, = VSI, weather, etc.).


Additionally, TruTrak has already considered the above situation and = accounted for it. Should the pilot allow the aircraft to slow enough = such that pitch indications might not match the actual attitude of the aircraft, = the TruTrak ADI will has a programmable warning indicator that tells the = pilot to check the airspeed.

For myself, I find the TruTrak ADI a fine alternative to more expensive mechanical gyroscopic instruments.

Mark Sletten


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.7/1062 - Release Date: = 10/10/2007 5:11 PM

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C80BD5.37F100E0--