X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:48:13 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-mb02.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.163] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTP id 5090196 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:09:35 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.163; envelope-from=N66mg@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.138]) by imr-mb02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p7CF8mtm016258 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:08:48 -0400 Received: from core-dqa001a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dqa001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.211.193]) by mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id AAA64E00009A for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:08:48 -0400 (EDT) From: N66mg@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <22f8b.abe2ffb.3b769c00@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: EFIS versus six pack X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_22f8b.abe2ffb.3b769c00_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 5004 X-AOL-IP: 68.225.243.134 X-Originating-IP: [68.225.243.134] x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:418823456:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338a4e4542003724 --part1_22f8b.abe2ffb.3b769c00_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Smith, where ever you are, I like to ask you a few questions about the L-IV...All I hear is about the L-IVP and I decided to go the IV route...The kit that I bought is a IVP and after all the troubles that I have heard about I'm staying with the IV...But I would like to ask some info about it. Thanks in advance, Michael Giardino Glasair II-RG flying 7sz L-IV being painted _n66mg@aol.com_ (mailto:n66mg@aol.com) 310-678-4068 cell In a message dated 8/11/2011 1:33:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes: Hi Michael, You left out a very important part of that study, leaving your conclusions questionable. Even the persons who conducted the study suggested that at least part (or perhaps most) of the reason for the statistics had to do with people flying in airplanes that were not familiar. With steam gages, they all look pretty much the same; not so flat panels. Like others, you have therefore drawn the wrong conclusion. It is not the EFIS that is "more dangerous," but the pilot who neglects to become extremely competent with their chosen panel before flying IFR "for real." If you are going to strictly fly random rentals, I would agree that your best strategy is to stick to steam gages. If, however, 99% of your flying will be in your own plane then you simply need to become completely knowledgeable about / comfortable with your panel before flying into the soup. Fly safe! Bill On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Colyn Case wrote: michael, got a link to that report? On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Michael Smith wrote: All these discussions about panel upgrades and so on begs the question as to which setup- a an EFIS and flat screen set up or standard spinning gyros works better in terms of delivering an intact crew and passenger to the terminal and a plane that is reusable for further flight. I clearly agree the panels look cool, but I do pay attention to peer reviewed science. The Cirrus folks did a study and the results published about a year ago comparing the conventional gyro panels and the EFIS in the same model of plane- as close a randomized controlled trial in aviation as possible these days. The EFIS cohort bent more planes and orphaned more kids than the old school gyros. So I won't be flying with an EFIS until someone can prove they're safer. Michael Smith LIV now over 1000TT -- For archives and unsub _http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html_ (http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html) -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --part1_22f8b.abe2ffb.3b769c00_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Michael Smith, w= here ever=20 you are, I like to ask you a few questions about the L-IV...All I hear is a= bout=20 the L-IVP and I decided to go the IV route...The kit that I bought is a IVP= and=20 after all the troubles that I have heard about I'm staying with the IV...Bu= t I=20 would like to ask some info about it.
Thanks in=20 advance,
Michael=20 Giardino
Glasair II-RG=20 flying
7sz L-IV being= =20 painted
n66mg@aol.com
310-678-4068=20 cell
 
In a message dated 8/11/2011 1:33:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,=20 gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes:
= Hi=20 Michael,

You left out a very important part of that study, leaving= your=20 conclusions questionable.

Even the persons who conducted the study= =20 suggested that at least part (or perhaps most) of the reason for the=20 statistics had to do with people flying in airplanes that were not=20 familiar.  With steam gages, they all look pretty much the same; not= so=20 flat panels.

Like others, you have therefore drawn the wrong=20 conclusion.  It is not the EFIS that is "more dangerous," but the pi= lot=20 who neglects to become extremely competent with their chosen panel= =20 before flying IFR "for real."

If you are going to strictly fly ran= dom=20 rentals, I would agree that your best strategy is to stick to steam=20 gages.  If, however, 99% of your flying will be in your own plane th= en=20 you simply need to become completely knowledgeable about / comfortable wi= th=20 your panel before flying into the soup.

Fly=20 safe!

Bill


On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Colyn Case wrote:= =20
michael, got a link to that report? On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Michael Smith wrote: 
All these discussions about pa=
nel upgrades and so on begs the question as to
which setup- a an EFIS and flat screen set up or standard spinning gyros
works better in terms of delivering an intact crew and passenger to the
terminal and a plane that is reusable for further flight. I clearly agree
the panels look cool, but I do pay attention to peer reviewed science.  The=
=20

Cirrus folks did a study and the results published about a year ago
comparing the conventional gyro panels and the EFIS in the same model of
plane- as close a randomized controlled trial in aviation as possible these
days. =20

The EFIS cohort bent more planes and orphaned more kids than the old school
gyros.=20

So I won't be flying with an EFIS until someone can prove they're safer.

Michael Smith
LIV now over 1000TT



--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/Lis=
t.html


  
--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html=


--part1_22f8b.abe2ffb.3b769c00_boundary--