X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from m12.lax.untd.com ([64.136.30.75] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with SMTP id 1151155 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:18:56 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.30.75; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com Received: from m12.lax.untd.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m12.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABCJ5M75A5XLGPA for (sender ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from alwick@juno.com) by m12.lax.untd.com (jqueuemail) id LSPEEXVS; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:16:47 PDT To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:16:16 -0700 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ignition Failure Message-ID: <20060612.111625.3024.3.alwick@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=--__JNP_000_59b2.4fe1.1710 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-6,8,10-11,17-20,24-25,29-30,34-35,40,47,51,54-55,62-63,66-84,85-32767 From: al p wick X-ContentStamp: 21:10:2192852354 X-MAIL-INFO:18ddd9c8ddf838dcc9c8f871598d9dbc1171ad69917c283589d1a8c5a9b9755d28389595e9ec6878787de9fc7919b165007d6d002dd99ca18c00e8c95991e9e88ca1e849e8ec6c395d1c78097d0d7dace9cc2db921cc19fc0c39154de5011d212991f94c494c994939353c41e188a5ed35 X-UNTD-OriginStamp: L941HVjjYzDhN3itp//mkB6UJBSDgzEMwXCinMiiKcDVZ6qd7JghfQ== X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 127.0.0.1|localhost|m12.lax.untd.com|alwick@juno.com This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_59b2.4fe1.1710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:08:28 -0700 "Joe Hull" writes: >> An ECU that was better at self diagnoses would have greatly reduced your risk. On your car, it would be recognized immediately. I know I’ve taken a little flack for my MicroTech computer…but on the plus side it did tell me a couple of months ago that I had a “bad Crank Sensor”. Of course, it turned out to be a bad connector - the Mazda factory pig tail coming out of the sensor had a bad connection in the plug. It must have been intermittent because the engine still ran fine for the most part – just a little rough every now and again. Good of you to share this Joe. Can save a life. So here is what problem solving is all about.......but just a second, some of you are going to have a hard time entertaining what follows. If so, just hit delete, have a nice day. This is for the guys that responded to me privately..and others interested. A) When we first heard of Johns failure, we need to force ourselves to entertain the idea that he crashed. Under slightly different circumstances it would have happened. We do this to eliminate our natural tendency to be complacent, to rationalize. B) We force ourselves to seek the OTHER causes. Because often it's the other causes that can lead us to lasting permanent solutions. I'll explain this better below. So the other causes I can think of are the 5 items I originally listed. C) We look outside our circle. We ask:"Well, how do the automotive guys handle this type of failure". "How do guys outside of the rotary group do it? Etc. Now one of those solutions is absolutely PROFOUND. It has far reaching implications that greatly reduces risk of many historical failures. Let's back up a little bit. Johns ECU saw the time interval between crank pulses drop in half. Meaning the rpm went from 6000 to 3000 in 100 ms. Physically impossible. Only a crank sensor fault can cause this. Realistically, the ECU probably saw this weeks before his incident. Maybe hours before. But it's the nature of most wiring faults to occur that way. Not all of them, one of the crank sensor failures resulted in crash with almost no warning. There is a huge difference in flight risk if the ECU sees this fault, tells you immediately. You land, you focus on the real cause, you don't have to think "Maybe it's my muffler or mixture that gave me that little pop. Maybe it's a spark plug". A key universal truth, is that risk is always reduced if you shorten the delay in notification. Each day Johns connection got a little worse and there was no way for him to know. So we decide "I want the ECU to be smart enough to tell me when the crank sensor develops blip." Our risk is reduced substantially. Then we think about it some more. Crap, you know that guy that had almost crashed a few months ago due to loose buss connection? That was same failure pattern. His airplane likely saw a momentary voltage drop minutes or hours before he headed to airport. So we say:"Hey, I want my EIS to respond to dips in voltage, so I get advance notice of those faults too. So you put this solution in place, and you have made every plane less risky. Even though some of the wiring faults will still occur. You've now reduced flight risk. -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html ----__JNP_000_59b2.4fe1.1710 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:08:28 -0700 "Joe Hull" <joeh@pilgrimtech.com> writes:

>>=20 An ECU that was better at self diagnoses would have greatly reduced your = risk.=20 On your car, it would be recognized immediately.

 

I know I’= ;ve taken a=20 little flack for my MicroTech computer…but on the plus side it did = tell me a=20 couple of months ago that I had a “bad Crank Sensor”.  = Of course, it=20 turned out to be a bad connector - the Mazda factory pig tail coming out = of=20 the sensor had a bad connection in the plug.  It must have been=20 intermittent because the engine still ran fine for the most part – = just a=20 little rough every now and again.

 
Good of you to share this Joe. Can save a life.
 
So here is what problem solving is all about.......but just a second, = some=20 of you are going to have a hard time entertaining what follows. If so, just= hit=20 delete, have a nice day. This is for the guys that responded to me=20 privately..and others interested.
 
A) When we first heard of Johns failure, we need to force ourselves to= =20 entertain the idea that he crashed. Under slightly different circumstances = it=20 would have happened. We do this to eliminate our natural tendency to be=20 complacent, to rationalize.
 
B) We force ourselves to seek the OTHER causes. Because often it's the= =20 other causes that can lead us to lasting permanent solutions. I'll explain = this=20 better below. So the other causes I can think of are the 5 items I = originally=20 listed.
 
C) We look outside our circle. We ask:"Well, how do the automotive = guys=20 handle this type of failure". "How do guys outside of the rotary group do = it?=20 Etc. Now one of those solutions is absolutely PROFOUND. It has far reaching= =20 implications that greatly reduces risk of many historical failures.
Let's back up a little bit. Johns ECU saw the time interval between = crank=20 pulses drop in half. Meaning the rpm went from 6000 to 3000 in 100 ms.=20 Physically impossible. Only a crank sensor fault can cause this. = Realistically,=20 the ECU probably saw this weeks before his incident. Maybe hours before. = But=20 it's the nature of most wiring faults to occur that way. Not all of them, = one of=20 the crank sensor failures resulted in crash with almost no warning.
There is a huge difference in flight risk if the ECU sees this fault, = tells=20 you immediately. You land, you focus on the real cause, you don't have to = think=20 "Maybe it's my muffler or mixture that gave me that little pop. Maybe it's = a=20 spark plug".
A key universal truth, is that risk is always reduced if you shorten = the=20 delay in notification. Each day Johns connection got a little worse and = there=20 was no way for him to know.
 
So we decide "I want the ECU to be smart enough to tell me when the = crank=20 sensor develops blip." Our risk is reduced substantially. Then we think = about it=20 some more. Crap, you know that guy that had almost crashed a few months ago= due=20 to loose buss connection? That was same failure pattern. His airplane = likely saw=20 a momentary voltage drop minutes or hours before he headed to airport. So = we=20 say:"Hey, I want my EIS to respond to dips in voltage, so I get advance = notice=20 of those faults too.
 
So you put this solution in place, and you have made every plane less= =20 risky. Even though some of the wiring faults will still occur. You've now=20 reduced flight risk.
 

-al wick
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by= =20 stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland,=20 Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel = design=20 info:
http:= //www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
 
 
 
 
 

-al wick
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by= =20 stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland,=20 Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel = design=20 info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
----__JNP_000_59b2.4fe1.1710--