gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:08 am Post subject: IFR Requirements (required vs. good ) |
 |
|
Hey guys I never said multi-engine is better. With "modern" electric
architecture you can achieve system redundancy on parity of a twin.
The only redundancy you can't achieve in a single is thrust redundancy.
The old joke is don't worry we are flying in a twin. If one engine quits
the other will take us to the scene of the accident.
My point is there is only so much you can do. A lighting strike can
take out the entire glass panel. I was agreeing with the Glasair guy
that a mechanical back up for attitude (of different power source/type)
is a good idea. However vacume is a poor alternate and we are stuck
really with all electric. Jets still use air power. We have three kinds
of hydraulic pumps, mechanically driven, electrical and pneumatic.
Basically the same pump but with three types of power sources to
drive them.
My prop falling off comment was philosophical in nature about single
pilot IFR. Having flown both single pilot part 135, middle of the night
in mountainous terrain and part 121 and corporate w/ two pilot plus
flt crews, the weak link is the single pilot, but this is a different topic.
My point is all the fancy avionics may not prevent you from killing
yourself. The comments about flying partial panel with a T&B or TC
is great but as a CFI/CFII/MEI I can tell you many people do not
do much partial panel. Statistics post vacume pump failure is
really bad.
Also a HOT HOMEBUILT fish-tailing thru the sky with the T&B
wagging its tail in real IMC is a hand full. I know I survived a partial
panel in a RV-4. It was not like flying a C-172 partial panel.
An autopilot for single pilot Ops in a hot plane with little roll
stability should be a must.
Just be careful up there and to repeat what was mentioned
training and currency is key and lack thereof is more likely
to kill you than not having dual battiers and alternators.
George M. ATP/CFI/CFII/MEI
>From: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net (ogoodwin(at)comcast.net)>
| Quote: |
You can take the statistics wherever you want to go, but if I'm on top
or in the clouds in a well maintained twin and lose one engine, I'll have
a much better chance of getting down intact than any single losing one
engine on earth, no matter how well equipped.
|
>From: Kelly McMullen
| Quote: |
>Multi-engine GA flights have just as many fatals as singles, and more
|
[quote]from mechanicals. Simple arithmetic...more than two times as many
devices to fail, more complacency on
| | - 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
