X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 07:57:11 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-mb01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.164] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2a) with ESMTP id 4823171 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:27:56 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.164; envelope-from=RWolf99@aol.com Received: from imo-da02.mx.aol.com (imo-da02.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.200]) by imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p0N2RLAA020527 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:27:21 -0500 Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo-da02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.d40.5d0c77b4 (37091) for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:27:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-me03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-me03.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.104]) by cia-db07.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADB071-b2d44d3b9200366; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:27:15 -0500 Received: from Webmail-m108 (webmail-m108.sim.aol.com [64.12.232.213]) by smtprly-me03.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYME033-b2d44d3b9200366; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:27:12 -0500 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: Experimenting X-Original-Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:27:12 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-AOL-IP: 174.18.248.58 X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: rwolf99@aol.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CD88BC2D619176_E40_1F64F_Webmail-m108.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33124-STANDARD Received: from 174.18.248.58 by Webmail-m108.sysops.aol.com (64.12.232.213) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:27:12 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CD88BC2D5F3015-E40-F0D4@Webmail-m108.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: RWolf99@aol.com ----------MB_8CD88BC2D619176_E40_1F64F_Webmail-m108.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" <> Oh. Well, in that case, I'll have to own up to the most egregious charact= eristic of all. I have an attitude indicator and a directional gyro that= are actually vacuum powered! No electric backup! A single battery bus!= I know this strikes fear in the hearts of insurers, as I received a writ= ten notice from Cessna warning me of the danger of my Cessna 150 which was= thusly equipped, as was every single Cessna and Piper ASEL certified and= delivered to that date. Colyn, I'm pulling your leg here. In real terms, the vacuum system may ac= tually be the most dangerous feature of my airplane in the eyes of the ins= urers, and yet it has been delivered in hundreds of thousands of single en= gine airplanes. So how bad can it be? I know the insurers look at forums= like this, but I hope that fear of insurers does not stifle innovation in= experimental aviation. After all, the affordable "electronic gyro" displ= ay (Dynon D-10), the electronic ignition (Lightspeed, Jeff Rose, maybe oth= ers), synthetic vision (Sierra Flight Systems) were hatched in the experim= ental market and were probably considered highly dangerous by insurers bec= ause they deviated from the certified norm. However, these products and= their progeny are the very products that we look to for improving flight= safety today. Nevertheless, there are characteristics in most of our airplanes that devi= ate from the certified norm. Dangerous? Some might be, some might not be= . I hope we feel comfortable discussing them in this forum and learning= from our more knowledgeable brethren where the pitfalls might realy be,= so that we can implement safe versions of our innovative ideas. - Rob Wolf (obviously with too much time on my hands today...) ----------MB_8CD88BC2D619176_E40_1F64F_Webmail-m108.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <<Right.  besides it will make interesting reading for the ins= urance underwriter......NOT>>

Oh.  Well, in that case, I'll have to own= up to the most egregious characteristic of all.  I have an attitude= indicator and a directional gyro that are actually vacuum powered! = No electric backup!  A single battery bus!  I know this strikes= fear in the hearts of insurers, as I received a written notice from Cessn= a warning me of the danger of my Cessna 150 which was thusly equipped, as= was every single Cessna and Piper ASEL certified and delivered to that da= te.
 
Colyn, I'm pulling your leg here.  In real= terms, the vacuum system may actually be the most dangerous feature of my= airplane in the eyes of the insurers, and yet it has been delivered in hu= ndreds of thousands of single engine airplanes.  So how bad can it be= ?  I know the insurers look at forums like this, but I hope that fear= of insurers does not stifle innovation in experimental aviation.  Af= ter all, the affordable "electronic gyro" display (Dynon D-10), the electr= onic ignition (Lightspeed, Jeff Rose, maybe others), synthetic vision (Sie= rra Flight Systems) were hatched in the experimental market and were= probably considered highly dangerous by insurers because they deviated fr= om the certified norm.  However, these products and their progeny are= the very products that we look to for improving flight safety today.
 
Nevertheless, there are characteristics in most= of our airplanes that deviate from the certified norm.  Dangerous?&n= bsp; Some might be, some might not be.  I hope we feel comfortable di= scussing them in this forum and learning from our more knowledgeable breth= ren where the pitfalls might realy be, so that we can implement safe versi= ons of our innovative ideas.
 
- Rob Wolf (obviously with too much time on my= hands today...)
----------MB_8CD88BC2D619176_E40_1F64F_Webmail-m108.sysops.aol.com--