X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au ([210.50.30.196] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 986295 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:32:32 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=210.50.30.196; envelope-from=daval@iprimus.com.au Received: from [192.168.1.8] (211.26.28.186) by smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (7.2.060.1) id 42A0AD7E000DF4CE for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 03:31:45 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3-185463637 Message-Id: From: david mccandless Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 problems - solved / rotary risks Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 01:31:40 +0800 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) --Apple-Mail-3-185463637 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi Al, I fail to see how installing another CAS will 'dramatically' reduce=20 risk of all ECM causes. We have already said we have no history of failure of the CAS, how can=20= installing another CAS (with no history of failure), 'dramatically'=20 reduce the risk of failure? And how can installing another CAS have any influence on "the risk of=20 all ECM causes" ? I also have great respect for redundant systems, but I cannot see your=20= logic in this one. It is the 'dramatic reduction' that troubles me. =20 BR, Dave McC On 06/06/2005, at 9:57 PM, al p wick wrote: > > =A0 > Regarding CAS risk. It's not just crank angle sensor that is the risk=20= > item. Going to redundancy with the CAS will dramatically reduce risk=20= > of all ECM causes. Like this connector risk. I'm not always proponent=20= > of redundancy, but with my limited info on this item, I=A0SUSPECT it's=20= > significant, positive step. > > -al wick > Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru = 2.5 > N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon > Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design=20 > info: > http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html --Apple-Mail-3-185463637 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Al, I fail to see how installing another CAS will 'dramatically' reduce risk of all ECM causes. We have already said we have no history of failure of the CAS, how can installing another CAS (with no history of failure), 'dramatically' reduce the risk of failure? =20 And how can installing another CAS have any influence on "the risk of all ECM causes" ? I also have great respect for redundant systems, but I cannot see your logic in this one. It is the 'dramatic reduction' that troubles me. =20 BR, Dave McC On 06/06/2005, at 9:57 PM, al p wick wrote: Verdana = = Verdana=A0 VerdanaRegarding CAS risk. It's not just crank angle sensor that is the risk item. Going to redundancy with the CAS will dramatically reduce risk of all ECM causes. Like this connector risk. I'm not always proponent of redundancy, but with my limited info on this item, I=A0SUSPECT it's significant, positive step. Verdana-al = wick VerdanaArtificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru = 2.5 VerdanaN9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon VerdanaProp construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design = info: = Verdanahttp://www.maddyhome.com/c= anardpages/pages/alwick/index.html = --Apple-Mail-3-185463637--