What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Safety...

N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
I've been reading this board for some time now and think I have made some good choices regarding redundancy, safety, etc. but every now and then I read something that just makes me shake my head.

It probably started back when I was telling people I was going to use this new fangled engine monitor with a small LCD display. I heard more than once that it would need a backup of some type. Otherwise, how would I ever know my engine was running if it went dark? Like all that racket up front wouldn't be a clue. Duh!

Anyway, without naming names, what have you witnessed, read, etc. that you would consider "over the edge" in terms of system redundancy or whatever and justified in the name of safety?

BTW, I think bi-planes are the ultimate in redundancy. Just think, some guys go through the trouble of building and installing an extra set of wings just incase the main wings fail. ;)
 
Bill,
I'm going to have to recuse myself from this one. I have seen TOOOOO much.
BTW, You know I'm building a bi-plane! (with dual prop blades and dual cockpits)
 
Fail Safe for me....

Hi Bill,

I agree with you - a lot of times, people are putting in redundancy for things that really aren't required, or more redundancy than they need - which just makes the system more complicated. Many folks think that the Val is more complex than it really is. For instance, I talk about having three GPS's, which I do - a 430, a little hockey-puck OEM GPS18, and a 396. Originally, I wasn't going to have a 396, but it came free with the XM.....

My goal is to be "Fail Safe" - single fault tolerant. That means that I can survive any single credible failure. There are a few things that I simple can't protect in a single engine airplane - losing the single engine, for instance - and for that, I simply have to go with reliability. Hence, a straightforward, standard compression, no-mods O-360-A1A.

Engine monitoring? I am completely with you! A Lyc will run if it has fuel, spark, and compression...and will continue to run if it has oil pressure. I am frankly happy to keep running it as long as I know it has oil pressure, and I know that because I have a dedicated light driven by a pressure switch independent of the fancy engine monitor.

In summary, the art of designing redundancy is to put in only what you really need, and not more. Some of the complex electrical systems I have seen are scary (to me) when it comes to parts count. Everyone will build to their own level of comfort, but my hope would be that people understand their choices - and don't just heap stuff on to keep up with someone else's ideas. You need to save some useful load for a passenger!

Paul
 
Nah....

AntiGravity said:
...is that one that gets flown equally as much by a woman as a man? :D
Click to expand...

Nah,
It's one that can be flown by EITHER a woman or a man.... :D

It's too early,
Pierre
 
pierre smith said:
Nah,
It's one that can be flown by EITHER a woman or a man.... :D

It's too early,
Pierre
Click to expand...
Or in the case of "dual cockpits", can be flown by both at the same time.
Is this getting out of hand?
 
Duel?

Geico266 said:
I prefer to have duel planes. If one is non flying I can still fly.
Click to expand...
Drawn swords at dawn and all that, what what? [in my best aristocratic English accent]
Or am I thinking of a different kind of duel? :p

I gotta stop taking the happy pills and get back to work...
 
Most Bang for the Buck

Not exactly hijacking this thread, but changing direction a little, what are your thoughts on the best use of limited $$ to improve safety? I was thinking about this yesterday on my way back from OSH.

Off about 10:00am between rain showers, I poked around south and west until I found a no-precip lane north of Madison (thru the Class C looked best, but approach was keeping all VFR traffic out of their airspace). Along the way I watched a big AF/Army guy maneuvering at 2500' in the MOA, spotted several targets inbound to OSH, and didn't spot several others called by ATC.

Nashville approach was great, giving me vectors to avoid traffic and precip, and just south of their airspace called an alert on an unidentified target indicating 200' below and closing at 2-3 miles. I made a turn pronto, but never saw the other guy. Likely he never saw me, since I'm so small.

Anyway, I'm now thinking seriously about XM weather in the cockpit, and some sort of traffic alert system. Is that the best use of my $$, or is there something else that would give me more safety bang for the buck?

Joe Lofton
RV-3B
 
Compare the Risks...

JoeLofton said:
Anyway, I'm now thinking seriously about XM weather in the cockpit, and some sort of traffic alert system. Is that the best use of my $$, or is there something else that would give me more safety bang for the buck?
Click to expand...

Now I must admit that I haven't flown with TIS or TCAS systems, so I really am not qualified to make a "comparison", but if you look at the comparative risks, weather systems are "really Big", nd other airplanes are "really small". Your chances of "colliding" with bad weather are much, much greater.....(Very unscientific observations, I admit).

For ANY money, I think that the advantages of having XM weather in the cockpit (and the METARS and TAFS are almost as valuable as the NEXRAD) is probably the greatest single advancement in safety for cross-country flying that I personally have encountered in all my flying career. However....(and there is always a however)...like any tool, it must be used wisely and carefully for it to enhance safety. I'd hate to see a lot of inexperienced folks without a lot of weather savvy launching into questionable stuff, so you've got to sneak up on it a little and be careful with it.

And then, when you get into busy airspace, stop looking at the stuff inside and look for traffic outside - cause colliding with an "aluminum cloud" will certainly ruin your day as well!
 
Ironflight said:
Now I must admit that I haven't flown with TIS or TCAS systems, so I really am not qualified to make a "comparison", but if you look at the comparative risks, weather systems are "really Big", nd other airplanes are "really small". Your chances of "colliding" with bad weather are much, much greater.....(Very unscientific observations, I admit).SNIP
Click to expand...

This is what a few of us around here thought also - until a few flights were made with a traffic system. Well, all I can say is weather IS a lot bigger than another airplane, making it a heck of a lot easier to see! I fly under a class B, and they are really great airplane funnels. Even with the Zaon complaining about an airplane at my altitude and one mile, it is surprisingly difficult to find them even when you know they are there. With the alert systems, you can at least climb or descend until you get a visual.

I'd personally rank the traffic system on par with XM weather with respect to safety, but it totally depends on what type of flying one does. It also really depends upon whether or not one really uses the weather information to reduce risks (that is another thread). There was a mid-air just a few days after I had a near miss in the same area a while back, and I became a believer. Most are quite surprised at how many airplanes are out there...
 
Alex has a VERY good point - the risk trade really depends on the kinds of operations you're doing. If most of your flying is in high density traffic areas versus cross-country cruising at 10,000', you can have totally different requirements!

Paul
 
Safety=AOA

For the kind of flying that I do, VFR in uncrowded skies, the AOA that I installed is the best money that I spent on my plane. It is impossible to stall the plane with the lady in your ear telling you "angle, angle, push". Both of Vans RV-10s have an AOA and they use the AOA lights instead of the airspeed indicator for landings.

Bruce Reynolds
RV-6A 450 Hours on a grass strip.
 
I've got an older Monroy 200 TPAS in my 6A and it works well, giving a lot of piece of mind in congested areas and potentially saved my neck once cruising in the middle of nowhereville. A 421 coming at me at about 45 degrees from head on at the wrong altitude (mine). Without the TPAS warning and my avoiding action, it would have been close- very close. Certainly shook me up!

I've got a Monroy 300 with altitude info now for the -10 panel. Wouldn't fly without one of these. They are so cheap.

Though statistically your chances of a mid air are low, think of how little time you have to spot traffic near head on. 15 seconds inside the cockpit fiddling with something or looking at something is enough to miss any chance of avoidance. Two planes going 180mph are closing head on at 528 ft./sec.- a mile in 10 seconds.

How good is our scan cruising at 10,000 feet in the middle of nowhere? For most of us, not good enough for a small head on target I suspect. Most of us hope that people are flying at the proper altitude and report position frequently. The TPAS helps us when they aren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top