|
Thanks
Brent...great reply to my post - now we're getting to the real issue.
Obviously I wasn't really confused, but I'm glad you elaborated on the subject
anyway! I think all of us would advocate further testing of the EFIS units
we are interested in. I am curious about this statement
though:
<<Having a "Primary" electric gyro may keep you
legal but it may not keep you safe.>>
Why do you suggest
that having an EFIS display (or two on separate busses) and a backup
electrical gyro or T&B is any more unsafe than the traditional setup of
a vacuum gyro and an electric T&B? This of course assumes that your
exp has a very robust and redundant dual batt/dual alt electrical system
with separate busses. I am a proponent of the all-electric panel and do
not beleive that the vacuum backup is any better than dual electric
systems...just to add that to the equation. Are you implying that
all the certified and tested Cessnas/Pipers/Diamonds out there will not give you
an acceptable level of safety with their traditional setup?
Now I
digress....
BTW, I don't think
you are a fool, quite the contrary actually...I just think that having developed
the CFS system and having tested it for certification, you're very aware of the
risks inherent in using such a system and maybe you focus on them more than the
rest of us. Obviously, you're quite biased towards CFS as it's the only
unit out there that's actually been tested. Who could argue with that if
you've got the cash? But how likely are we to see all or any of the
conditions that you tested for? The military routinely pays extravagant
amounts for parts that need to be certified/tested to extreme levels regardless
of their intended use, but is it always necessary? Did we really need
the MILSPEC hammer and the MILSPEC toilet? Many times the answer would be
yes but just as often it might be no! Only the individual
builder/pilot can say for sure how much risk he/she is willing to accept and how
much the perceived benefit of EFIS really is to
them.
I will be very happy
if my CFS EFIS survives that lightning strike, but if it's not my lucky day and
my fiberglass tail gets melted off in the process.... then it may not
matter to me much anymore that my EFIS is telling me I'm upside down headed
toward the ground at 300 knots. There are many systems on our
planes that are NOT redundant and will cause certain death if failure occurs;
yet we don't worry about them very often. I think that even some of the
untested EFIS units out there may be more reliable than my Lycoming up
front! Will I die if my engine quits? Not necessarily, but it's
possible. Will I die if my EFIS quits? Not necessarily, but again,
it's certainly possible given the right circumstances. How much training
has the pilot had. As for me I have thousands of hours of instrument
training on steam gauges and plenty of partial panel, so I feel relatively
confident...BUT you (or I) could always be led astray by the partial
attitude failure or the display of incorrect or partial data (despite all
the best training in the world). There is a first-hand account by a
shuttle astronaut crew who experienced an unplanned attitude gyro failure during
a landing scenario practice sim. The only malfunction was in the attitude
indicator and it was simply displaying incorrect attitude information. You
guessed it. They got themselves into an unrecoverable situation before
they realized what the problem was...good thing it was only the
sim.
The Airbus that
crashed last year due to the "rudder swap" also comes to mind,
speaking of the inherent risk in flying. No amount of testing will
prevent you from crashing if your vertical stab falls off.
Would you agree that
many of the less severe problems will eventually be found and fixed on the
"untested" units? Barring a lawsuit that puts the company outof business,
I tend to think that most problems will eventually surface. If you fly IMC
with your "untested" unit before this and before you have complete faith in
it and before there is an acceptable amount of flight experience with it, then
you're asking for trouble, IMHO. I don't know the numbers but I
vaguely recall from one of my CRM classes that most accidents are caused by
pilot error, not aircraft malfunctions....maybe this will change in the
future if planes start crashing due to EFIS problems.
But compared to the
other risks that we live with every day, how does this risk stack up?
That's the question we need to answer before we go spend a year's worth of pay
on an EFIS system. Yes I know for some out there it may only be a
few days/weeks worth but for the rest of us (gov't employees) it's a lot of
$$$! I would never intentionally put my family (or yours or Brent's for
that matter) at risk for a few dollars, but the risk here needs to be defined
and compared to other risks that we blindly accept each time we raise the gear
handle.
Don't worry Brent -
I won't be flying my plane for a long time...plenty of time to find some of
those problems. So you can still go outside and enjoy the mountains or
whatever! When I do start flying though, watch out because I know
exactly who I want to put my EFIS through it's paces...I'm heading straight
for Coeur d'Alene and your little strip!
Regards,
Brian
Shannon
|