X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:16:36 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.43] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1685440 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:05:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.93.47.43; envelope-from=jn@elp.rr.com Received: from [192.168.1.101] (cpe-70-117-164-85.elp.res.rr.com [70.117.164.85]) by ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBI64UhA004398; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:04:30 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--863891797 X-Original-Message-Id: X-Original-Cc: lml@texas.rr.com From: "Joseph Neustein, MD" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: electric attitude indicators X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:04:29 -0700 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine --Apple-Mail-1--863891797 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Jeff and Colyn make the strong point about reliability of the =20 backup. I guess it is just my naivet=E9 but I am just not familiar =20 enough with what it takes to get a TSO rating on an instrument except =20= that once it gets it, the price goes way up. I think the issue is =20 are we more comfortable with old (not necessarily outdated) =20 technology vs new technology. I don't think anyone would advocate =20 vacuum driven instruments as more reliable than electric yet they are =20= certainly TSO'ed. Yet Glass panels of all types would seem to conjure =20= up uncomfortable feelings even though there are plenty of certified =20 versions available! I believe the key is redundancy of all critical =20 systems. Marv was kind enough to post my panel schematic and I have =20 a vertical row of AI, ASI, Alt, and VSI to complement my Chelton =20 (besides the Garmin 480). The pitot static ASI, Alt, VSI are clearly =20 independent. So the goal is to find a reliable AI with independent =20 power to save the day when the rest of the panel goes dark in night =20 IMC (where I should never be anyway). The analogy to medicine is most appropriate. Doctors use FDA =20 approved medications for off shelf indications all the time. And as a =20= surgeon we frequently employ implants for noncertified uses when in =20 the physician's judgement the patient would so benefit. Accordingly, =20 this is precisely why I am posing the AI question to the lml who in =20 my opinion, have the combined experience and insight to make a =20 recommendation that one or another attitude indicator, be it TSOed or =20= not, is a safe option for a backup ( or until my Chelton PINPOINT =20 arrives, a primary instrument). As an aside, the attach link from BlueMountainAvionics (admittedly =20 not an unbiased source) seems to suggest that while TSO'ed equipment =20= may be desirable, it is not required for IFR in an experimental so =20 long as the required instruments perform the tasks specified by the =20 regs . http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/pdf/IFR%20equipment.pdf We fly homebuilt plastic airplanes with modified experimental motors =20 and have faith in the building community to give each other advise =20 based on the reputation of the suppliers we use, the products they =20 produce, and the mission for which they are meant. So at the end of the day what I am going to do? If the Trutrak does =20 not arrive (I am flying with their autopilot so I should probably =20 trust their AI), I will buy the new 2 1/4" mid-continent AI with =20 battery b/u you all have highly praised. thanks again Joe Neustein On Dec 17, 2006, at 9:11 PM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/17/2006 2:17:06 PM Central Standard Time, =20 > marv@lancaironline.net writes: > I > would > greatly appreciate feedback from the LML on the advisibility of =20 > using either > of these AI alternatives and whether or not one could depend on =20 > them for IFR > flight (disclaimers by the manufacturers notwithstanding) given the > configuration of the rest of the panel which includes a Garmin 480. > Dr. Joe, > > Great question. Why would you want a backup AI? Aswer, because of =20 > an emergency requiring you to fly on a backup system in IMC =20 > conditions. Obviously when it happens to you, you will be breathing =20= > very deeply and the seat cusion will have disappeared up the =20 > through the seat of your Levis (I have had this happen more than =20 > once while IMC with my three screen Chelton system). > > Next question: Do you want an experimental attitude system being =20 > your only backup or do you want a TSO'd unit? > > Third question: when you perform surgery on a patient do they get =20 > the tried and true procedure or the new stuff they are doing =20 > clinical trials on? What is more risky? > > Last question? Will you be flying lone or putting your family in =20 > the aircraft, too? Your assumption of risk will be borne by your =20 > passengers as well. > > Mind you this is all tongue and cheek but analyze the risk. I put a =20= > TSO'd AI in as my backup as well as a TSO airspeed and altimeter. =20 > My Levis thanked me. > > Talk to Kirk Hammersmith-- he can set you straight on what has to =20 > be in the aircraft to be IFR certified. Just because the aircraft =20 > is experimental does not mean you do not have to meet some =20 > regulatory requirements, ie. you need a magnetic compass and a =20 > transponder as well. > > > Best Regards, > > Jeff Edwards > LIVP --Apple-Mail-1--863891797 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Jeff and Colyn make the strong = point about reliability of the backup.=A0 I guess it is just my=A0naivet=E9= but I am just not familiar enough with what it takes to get a TSO = rating on an instrument except that once it gets it, the price goes way = up.=A0 I think the issue is are we more comfortable with old (not = necessarily outdated) technology vs new technology. I don't think anyone = would advocate vacuum driven instruments as more reliable than electric = yet they are certainly TSO'ed. Yet Glass panels of all types would seem = to conjure up=A0 uncomfortable feelings even though there are plenty of = certified versions available!=A0 I believe the key is redundancy of all = critical systems.=A0 Marv was kind enough to post my panel schematic and = I have a vertical row of AI, ASI, Alt, and VSI to complement my Chelton = (besides the Garmin 480). The pitot static ASI, Alt, VSI are clearly = independent. So the goal is to find a reliable AI with independent power = to save the day when the rest of the panel goes dark in night IMC (where = I should never be anyway).=A0

The analogy to medicine is = most appropriate.=A0 Doctors use FDA approved medications for off shelf = indications all the time. And as a surgeon we frequently employ implants = for noncertified uses when in the physician's judgement the patient = would so benefit. Accordingly, this is precisely why I am posing the AI = question to the lml who in my opinion, have the combined experience and = insight to make a recommendation that one or another attitude indicator, = be it TSOed or not, is a safe option for a backup ( or until my Chelton = PINPOINT arrives, a primary instrument).

As an aside, the attach = link from BlueMountainAvionics (admittedly not an unbiased source)=A0 = seems to suggest that while TSO'ed equipment may be desirable, it is not = required for IFR in an experimental so long as the required instruments = perform the tasks specified by the regs .


We fly homebuilt = plastic airplanes with modified experimental motors and have faith in = the building community to give each other advise based on the reputation = of the suppliers we use, the products they produce, and the mission for = which they are meant.=A0=A0

So at the end of the day = what I am going to do?=A0 If the Trutrak does not arrive (I am flying = with their autopilot so I should probably trust their AI), I will buy = the new 2 1/4" mid-continent AI with battery b/u you all have highly = praised.

thanks= again

Joe = Neustein=A0
On Dec 17, 2006, at 9:11 PM, VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote:

=
In a message dated 12/17/2006 2:17:06 PM Central Standard Time, marv@lancaironline.net = writes:
I =
would
greatly appreciate feedback from the LML on the = advisibility of using either
of these AI alternatives and whether = or not one could depend on them for IFR
flight (disclaimers by the = manufacturers notwithstanding)=A0 given the
configuration of the = rest of the panel which includes a Garmin = 480.
Dr. Joe,
=
=A0
Great question. Why would you want a backup AI? = Aswer, because of an emergency requiring you to fly on a backup = system in IMC conditions. Obviously when it happens to you, you will be = breathing very deeply and the seat cusion will have disappeared up = the=A0through the seat of your Levis (I have had this happen more than = once while IMC with my three screen Chelton system).
=A0
=
Next question: Do you want an experimental attitude system being = your only backup or do you want a TSO'd unit?
=A0
=
Third question: when you perform surgery on a patient do they get = the tried and true procedure or the new stuff they are doing clinical = trials on? What is more risky?
=A0
Last question? = Will you be flying lone or putting your family in the aircraft, too? = Your assumption of risk=A0will be borne by your passengers as well. =
=A0
Mind you this is all tongue and cheek but = analyze the risk. I put a TSO'd AI in as my backup as well as a TSO = airspeed and altimeter. My Levis thanked me.
=A0
=
Talk to Kirk Hammersmith-- he can set you straight on what has to = be in the aircraft to be IFR certified. Just because the aircraft is = experimental does not mean you do not have to meet some regulatory = requirements, ie. you need a magnetic compass and a transponder as well. =
=A0
=A0
Best Regards,
=
=A0
Jeff Edwards
LIVP =

= --Apple-Mail-1--863891797--