X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:30:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [198.64.152.110] (HELO sdc.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTP id 5091611 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 08:36:30 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.64.152.110; envelope-from=ronald@sdc.com Received: from [192.168.1.104] [68.202.60.124] by sdc.com with ESMTP (SMTPD-11.5) id 072c00012cdca250; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 08:24:48 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 X-Original-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 08:35:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: EFIS versus From: RONALD STEVENS X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: EFIS versus In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3396155754_3283723" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3396155754_3283723 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Michael I understand that you have a IV-p kit but do not want to have it pressurized? I really would re-consider this carefully, because there are a few reasons that really would want you to have it. I have flown a cirrus, a Velocity all not pressurized and I always was very tired after a 2-2 1/2 hour flight. Now in my IV-p I can be flying 3-3 1/2 hours and still feel great. So when I was up there at 17.500ft I was curious about my oxygen and heart levels, so I checked and they were almost like being on the ground. Now that I have enjoyed pressurized I will not want to go back anymore, it is really really great !! Also consider re-sale value, it will have at least $50k less value than a pressurized one. As a matter of fact, I think if someone is looking for a IV they probably always will go for a pressurized one (as they do not know about any issues). (I hope I did not stepped on anybody toes, but this is just a personal opinion) So if you are stuck with issues,than get some professional help like Fibercraft or RDD to finish this part, just out of a financial point of view this would be a wise investment. And if you do not wish to fly pressurized, just don't, but it is good to have the option ;)~ == Ronald From: Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:48:13 -0400 To: Subject: [LML] Re: EFIS versus six pack Michael Smith, where ever you are, I like to ask you a few questions about the L-IV...All I hear is about the L-IVP and I decided to go the IV route...The kit that I bought is a IVP and after all the troubles that I have heard about I'm staying with the IV...But I would like to ask some info about it. Thanks in advance, Michael Giardino Glasair II-RG flying 7sz L-IV being painted n66mg@aol.com 310-678-4068 cell In a message dated 8/11/2011 1:33:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes: > Hi Michael, > > You left out a very important part of that study, leaving your conclusions > questionable. > > Even the persons who conducted the study suggested that at least part (or > perhaps most) of the reason for the statistics had to do with people flying > in airplanes that were not familiar. With steam gages, they all look pretty > much the same; not so flat panels. > > Like others, you have therefore drawn the wrong conclusion. It is not the > EFIS that is "more dangerous," but the pilot who neglects to become extremely > competent with their chosen panel before flying IFR "for real." > > If you are going to strictly fly random rentals, I would agree that your best > strategy is to stick to steam gages. If, however, 99% of your flying will be > in your own plane then you simply need to become completely knowledgeable > about / comfortable with your panel before flying into the soup. > > Fly safe! > > Bill > > > On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Colyn Case wrote: >> michael, got a link to that report? >> >> On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Michael Smith wrote: >> >> >>> All these discussions about panel upgrades and so on begs the question as to >>> which setup- a an EFIS and flat screen set up or standard spinning gyros >>> works better in terms of delivering an intact crew and passenger to the >>> terminal and a plane that is reusable for further flight. I clearly agree >>> the panels look cool, but I do pay attention to peer reviewed science. The >>> >>> Cirrus folks did a study and the results published about a year ago >>> comparing the conventional gyro panels and the EFIS in the same model of >>> plane- as close a randomized controlled trial in aviation as possible these >>> days. >>> >>> The EFIS cohort bent more planes and orphaned more kids than the old school >>> gyros. >>> >>> So I won't be flying with an EFIS until someone can prove they're safer. >>> >>> Michael Smith >>> LIV now over 1000TT >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > > > -- > > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --B_3396155754_3283723 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Michael

I understand that you have a IV-p kit but do not want to have it pre= ssurized? I really would re-consider this carefully, because there are a few= reasons that really would want you to have it.

I h= ave flown a cirrus, a Velocity all not pressurized and I always was very tir= ed after a 2-2 1/2 hour flight. Now in my IV-p I can be flying 3-3 1/2 hours= and still feel great. So when I was up there at 17.500ft I was curious abou= t my oxygen and heart levels, so I checked and they were almost like being o= n the ground. 
Now that I have enjoyed pressurized I will not= want to go back anymore, it is really really great !!

<= div>Also consider re-sale value, it will have at least $50k less value than = a pressurized one. As a matter of fact, I think if someone is looking for a = IV they probably always will go for a pressurized one (as they do not know a= bout any issues).
(I hope I did not stepped on anybody toes, but t= his is just a personal opinion)

So if you are stuck= with issues,than get some professional help like Fibercraft or RDD to finis= h this part, just out of a financial point of view this would be a wise inve= stment. 

And if you do not wish to fly pressur= ized, just don't, but it is good to have the option ;)~

=
=3D=3D Ronald


From: <N66mg@aol.com>
= Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:48:13 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subj= ect: [LML] Re: EFIS versus six pack

Michael Smith, where ever you are, I like to ask you a few questions about the L-IV...All I hear is a= bout the L-IVP and I decided to go the IV route...The kit that I bought is a IVP= and after all the troubles that I have heard about I'm staying with the IV...Bu= t I would like to ask some info about it.
Thanks in advance,
Michael Giardino
Glasair II-RG flying
7sz L-IV being painted
n66mg@aol.com
310-678-4068 cell
 
In a message dated 8/11/2011 1:= 33:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes:<= /div>
Hi Michael,

You left out a very important part of that study, leaving= your conclusions questionable.

Even the persons who conducted the study= suggested that at least part (or perhaps most) of the reason for the statistics had to do with people flying in airplanes that were not familiar.  With steam gages, they all look pretty much the same; not= so flat panels.

Like others, you have therefore drawn the wrong conclusion.  It is not the EFIS that is "more dangerous," but the pi= lot who neglects to become extremely competent with their chosen panel= before flying IFR "for real."

If you are going to strictly fly ran= dom rentals, I would agree that your best strategy is to stick to steam gages.  If, however, 99% of your flying will be in your own plane th= en you simply need to become completely knowledgeable about / comfortable wi= th your panel before flying into the soup.

Fly safe!

Bill


On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Colyn Case wrote:= 
michael,   got a link to that report?

On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Michael Smith wrote:


All these discussions about panel =
upgrades and so on begs the question as to
which setup- a an EFIS and flat screen set up or standard spinning gyros
works better in terms of delivering an intact crew and passenger to the
terminal and a plane that is reusable for further flight. I clearly agree
the panels look cool, but I do pay attention to peer reviewed science.  The=
 

Cirrus folks did a study and the results published about a year ago
comparing the conventional gyro panels and the EFIS in the same model of
plane- as close a randomized controlled trial in aviation as possible these=
days.  

The EFIS cohort bent more planes and orphaned more kids than the old school=
gyros. 

So I won't be flying with an EFIS until someone can prove they're safer.

Michael Smith
LIV now over 1000TT



--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht=
ml

  
--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html


--B_3396155754_3283723--