|
|
snip...If you want to be totally safe, stay on
the ground, in your house, in your bed...
Sorry, I can't resist. One may not be safe in their own bed...you never know when one of our marginal aircraft will be overhead.
Finn, I find your point right on the money. Using the logic presented in this topic, if I were a Lear pilot and I initiated a steep decent at full power which resulted in a Mach Tuck, it would be the fault of a marginal aircraft design.
I find it interesting that the statement is made that systems are marginal while marginal is defined as fuzzy, undefined, and a point on the curve (last time I checked, a curve has many points.) Is the point selected arbitrarily to support one's position? If there were a generally accepted formula for determining said point, would it not have been shared in the definition? Or practically speaking, is the point one that fits or defines our operating limitations?
I also find it interesting that one would make an argument using an event as the basis or support of the argument, yet specifics of the event that said argument is based on are not disclosed such as date, n-number, location. This seems to be in conflict with the philosophical ideals for a proponent of data based decisions. About as useful as a report that the epoxy used in one's fuel tanks can resist alcohol or other solvents, but can not disclose the brand or type designation.
I am reminded of a joke about Microsoft with the punchline:
"While the answer was technically accurate, the information was useless."
Knowing an epoxy is resistant to solvents is great for the AC that was tested, but the information is useless for the rest of us trying to improve our own installations if we do not know specifically what materials were used.
I do not disagree with the use of automation (I program it as part of my occupation) and am employing it in my own installation (nice to warned of high temp, low pressure, etc.); however, IMO I do not considered automation as a substitute for attentiveness, discipline or sound judgment ... can we say Pilot In Command.
Well I should probably have spent this time building rather than rambling ...
Joe
----- Original Message ----- From: "Finn Lassen" <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:52 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Marginal Cooling contributes to Crash.
al p wick wrote:
"Marginal cooling" is actually a point on a curve. So that supports your
concept of it being fuzzy, undefined. If you find yourself watching the
temperature and changing decisions based on it, you are approaching
marginal.
So keeping below VNE means there is something wrong with the aircraft -- marginal design?
Keeping an eye on and reducing RPM in that Cessa 152 when it approaches red line means a marginal engine/prop design?
Sorry Al, this simply doesn't wash. It's called staying within operating limits and is standard procedure in operation of any machine. Yes, I know some are on a quest to automate and install safeguards to the point where the operator does not have to think or can't do anything wrong, but where is the fun in that? If you want to be totally safe, stay on the ground, in your house, in your bed (well -- that may not be totally safe either). To be totally "safe" is to stop living -- being dead.
So the trick is finding the middle ground -- don't do anything completely stupid and don't stop living either.
Finn
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|