nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: Airmanship, Science and Ruts (was alternator switching). |
 |
|
At 07:08 AM 8/30/2006 -0700, you wrote:
| Quote: | Bob:
It is called Airmanship. Standardization, Procedures, Checklist.
I hate to be boring and repeat my self, but do it as the AFM, AOM
or checklist says. Granted if "experimental" you can set any procedure
you want, BUT WHY NOT stay with the standard method / procedure.
|
George, this is a forum on the design, fabrication and
operation of aircraft supported by the simple-ideas that
bound function and limits. If there's an argument with a
published procedure, I expect to explain the foundation
for that argument.
| Quote: |
I think your observations Bob are weak and insignificant. 
|
Observations of the science? Exactly what observation do
you object to?
| Quote: |
Yea, standardization and check list are stupid (not).
|
Do you dream about these discussions? Where have
I written that standardization and check lists are
"stupid" . . .
| Quote: |
You must be fun to work with Bob, when you tell people their input
is insignificant.
|
I can't help it if someone anthropomorphizes an idea.
I'm not paid to be "fun", I'm paid to study my craft and share
what I've learned with those who choose to invite me to their
sandbox. In arena of ideas, nobody's input is insignificant as
long as the goal of discussion is to sort and assemble the
simple-ideas into the best-we-know-how-to-do. I can't help
it if someone translates my words into personal attacks . . .
beating up on folks is not my style.
| Quote: | Bob, there are other factors to consider that are not
related to electrons alone. You need to get up from you bench and
go fly more. Human factors, AFM's and checklist are key, critical
to aviation safety.
|
No argument.
| Quote: | To get into a NIT PICK of the esoterica of who
is more correct is counter productive.
|
Input with no supporting explanation IS worthy of skepticism.
It becomes insignificant when examination of the science doesn't
support it.
Now, if you wish to discuss POH procedures from a human factors
perspective, be my guest . . . but that wasn't the question
I perceived and answered.
| Quote: |
Repeat: FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AS DESIGNED BY A TEAM
OF ENGINEER'S (who have covered all bases) AND IS APPROVED
BY THE FAA. If experimental try to follow industry standards, which
is: ALT on before start, ALT off after shutdown. Simple.
|
I've never said that a POH procedure was to be ignored
or was even wrong without a lucid explanation as to why.
I was answering what I believe was the core question. Is
there hazard to hardware for adopting one procedure over
another for turning the alternator ON and OFF? The answer
in the physics was, "NO, with caveats noted."
I've ALWAYS supported the development and use of checklists.
The question before us was, "What should the builder adopt
for HIS checklist?" I offered that there was no reason
in the physics to favor one action over another: he could
adopt any technique his wished.
| Quote: |
Cheers George (boring and following standardization and checklist)
|
Mindless acceptance of traditional policy and procedures promotes
several conditions: (1) The approval of your supervisors and
regulators, (2) stagnation of progress, (3) suppression of curiosity,
(4) constraint of understanding and (5) loss of opportunity
to improve on the-best-we-know-how-to-do. There are additional
effects but those are pretty key . . .
Now, if YOU believe alternator operations described in the
C-150 POH are golden from EITHER human factors perspectives, science
OR BOTH, stand up and explain why the original questioner should
hold it in high regard with respect to the crafting of HIS
personal POH.
Speaking of worship at the altar of POH, I'm aware of no
published procedure where the pilot is told "Do not
switch the alternator ON or OFF at times not specifically
cited in this handbook." From this I infer (and physics supports)
the notion that there is no perceived hazard to equipment
for doing it.
You have written that there's no reason for wanting to
turn alternators ON or OFF at will. The assertion was then
morphed into a design goal for installation of automotive
alternators on aircraft without regard for their special operating
limitations. Choose your words carefully George. You're already
on record for having argued more against traditional POH
procedures and system performance goals than I.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
