Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.28; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 problems - solved / rotary risks
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:31:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20050607023127.KMCL12158.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>

Dave,

   I think you and Al W. have a misunderstanding here, based 
on semantics.

   What Al was talking about wasn't reducing the risk of a 
specific component failing but, rather, mitigating the 
_consequences_ of a particular component failing.  

   If there is only one CAS and it failed, things get really 
quiet up there.  If there are two, then there is a much 
better chance of completing the flight as originally planned.  Therefore, the overall risk to the flight, from 
causes related to the ECM, is reduced.

My $.002,
Dale R.

 
> From: david mccandless <daval@iprimus.com.au>
> Date: 2005/06/06 Mon PM 01:31:40 EDT
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 problems - solved / rotary risks
> 
> Hi Al,
> I fail to see how installing another CAS will 'dramatically' reduce 
> risk of all ECM causes.
> 
>   We have already said we have no history of failure of the CAS, how can 
> installing another CAS (with no history of failure), 'dramatically' 
> reduce the risk of failure?
> 
> And how can installing another CAS have any influence on "the risk of 
> all ECM causes" ?
> 
> I also have great respect for redundant systems, but I cannot see your 
> logic in this one. It is the 'dramatic reduction' that troubles me.   
> BR, Dave McC