X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 10:56:47 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-5084599@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <rwolf99@aol.com>
Received: from imr-da03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.145] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1)
  with ESMTP id 5084304 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 07 Aug 2011 00:15:32 -0400
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.145; envelope-from=rwolf99@aol.com
Received: from mtaomg-ma05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.12])
	by imr-da03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p774EsoC006467
	for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 00:14:54 -0400
Received: from core-dqd005b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dqd005.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.162.17])
	by mtaomg-ma05.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 6DD87E0000A5
	for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sun,  7 Aug 2011 00:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: Re-doing my panel - carefully thinking through failures
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
X-AOL-IP: 97.115.229.111
X-MB-Message-Type: User
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: rwolf99@aol.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
 boundary="--------MB_8CE22CFB1C92F4E_13FC_30EDD_webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com"
X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 34007-STANDARD
Received: from 97.115.229.111 by webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com (64.12.183.157) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sun, 07 Aug 2011 00:14:54 -0400
X-Original-Message-Id: <8CE22CFB1BAE6F6-13FC-14CE7@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com>
X-Originating-IP: [97.115.229.111]
X-Original-Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 00:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
x-aol-global-disposition: G
X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:403268672:93952408  
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d290c4e3e113e3048

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----------MB_8CE22CFB1C92F4E_13FC_30EDD_webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


<<Modern electronic EFIS systems properly installed with backup batteries a=
nd internal automatic isolation circuitry are about as fail-proof as a sing=
le piece of electronic equipment can get.>>

This is not Brent's statement.  Rather, this relates to a suggestion that n=
on-TSOd units should be considered equally reliable as TSOd units, which is=
 something that Brent disagrees with.

I think Brent is saying that a device that has successfully passes environm=
ental qualification testing (a TSOd unit) is way less likely to fail than a=
 unit which has not.  His first-hand experience taking an experimental syst=
em through this process (Sieera Flight Systems, now Chelton) bears this out=
.  Such units are most likely more resilient to power fluctuation, temperat=
ure extremes, shock and vibration, and even exposure to water.  In this sen=
se, the TSOd unit is more reliable.

Having said that, no electronic unit will work without power.  Now you look=
 at internal backup batteries, redundant power sources, multiple generators=
/alternators, duplicate paths for power, no single point failures, and perh=
aps other things which are totally separate from the unit itself.  In this =
sense, the non-TSOd unit and the TSOd unit are equally reliable.

Just my two cents...

- Rob Wolf

p.s. I'm using a vacuum pump and steam gauges.  I don't need no stinkin' el=
ectricity.... (But then, if the weather is really bad -- like it's raining =
-- I stay on the ground.  YMMV)



----------MB_8CE22CFB1C92F4E_13FC_30EDD_webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<font color=3D'black' size=3D'2' face=3D'arial'>
<div>&lt;&lt;Modern electronic EFIS systems properly installed with backup =
batteries and internal automatic isolation circuitry are about as fail-proo=
f as a single piece of electronic equipment can get.&gt;&gt;</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>This is not Brent's statement.&nbsp; Rather, this relates to a suggest=
ion that non-TSOd units should be considered equally reliable as TSOd units=
, which is something that Brent disagrees with.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>I think Brent is saying that a device that has successfully passes env=
ironmental qualification testing (a&nbsp;TSOd unit)&nbsp;is way less likely=
 to fail than a unit which has not.&nbsp; His first-hand experience taking =
an experimental system through this process (Sieera Flight Systems, now Che=
lton) bears this out.&nbsp; Such units are most likely more resilient to po=
wer fluctuation, temperature extremes, shock and vibration, and even exposu=
re to water.&nbsp; In this sense, the TSOd unit is more reliable.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>Having said that, no electronic unit will work without power.&nbsp; No=
w you look at internal backup batteries, redundant power sources, multiple =
generators/alternators, duplicate paths for power, no single point failures=
, and perhaps other things which are totally separate from the unit itself.=
&nbsp; In this sense, the non-TSOd unit and the TSOd unit are equally relia=
ble.</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>Just my two cents...</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>- Rob Wolf</div>


<div>&nbsp;</div>


<div>p.s. I'm using a vacuum pump and steam gauges.&nbsp; I don't need no s=
tinkin' electricity.... (But then, if the weather is really bad -- like it'=
s raining --&nbsp;I stay on the ground.&nbsp; YMMV)<br>
</div>


<div style=3D"CLEAR: both"></div>
</font>
----------MB_8CE22CFB1C92F4E_13FC_30EDD_webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com--