Aero Advantage closing shop.

[Eric Ulner]

Got this Email today in my mail. I found it a big troubling as I just
installed the Dual pump in September last year in my B35.
(Works great BTW)

Does anyone else know the specifics behind the failure of the vanes,
and if there is an AD pending?


Important Information for Customers
Customer experience has uncovered a type of pump failure never
experienced in years of field and laboratory testing of the dual rotor
vacuum pump design, including the deliberate destruction of over 300
test pumps. These failures resulted in malfunctioning of both pumping
chambers simultaneously. The failures are concentrated on the 300
horsepower Lycoming IO-540 engines. We believe that these engines
generate a resonant frequency resulting in breakage of both graphite
rotors. Multiple replacement pumps have failed on three different
engines. At this point, we can't be certain about similar failures
occurring on other engines. A failure rate of 3%, while seemingly
small, is not acceptable for our product. Although the dual rotor
pumps are performing well in the other 97% of installations, shipping
of dual rotor pumps has been halted. The tens of thousands of dollars
of orders on hand will not be filled. Aero Advantage refuses to
continue marketing a product that might not perform satisfactorily for
all its customers.

Aero Advantage was founded, in good faith, to improve safety of flight
and to allow greater peace of mind for its customers by eliminating
sudden loss of the vacuum source. While the precise changes that are
needed to improve reliability may already be in place, they would
likely require between 3 and 9 months to finalize and place into
production. The company can not survive the financial burden of having
no sales for that length of time and is closing its doors. Closure of
the business was an extremely difficult decision for me, the inventor
and company founder, since I have invested five years of work and most
of my life's savings in the business.

Several parties have expressed an interest in procuring the current
technology and continuing the development of the necessary product
improvements.

It is with much regret that I announce the above decision. I believe
it is the correct one for all concerned.

Sincerely,

David A. Boldenow

[Jay Honeck]

> It is with much regret that I announce the above decision. I believe
> it is the correct one for all concerned.

Wow -- that's sad.

It sure sounded like a good idea -- too bad it didn't work out for him.
(And those of you who did the installation on your birds...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Megginson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> It sure sounded like a good idea -- too bad it didn't work out for him.
> (And those of you who did the installation on your birds...)

It did sound like a good idea. I came close to buying one when my last
vacuum pump failed, but the wait time was too long.

Afterwards, I read the Air Safety Foundation report that everyone cites on
the danger of vacuum pump failures: it turns out that they did not find a
*single* fatal accident from 1983 to 1997 involving a vacuum-pump failure
for a fixed-gear plane flying IFR -- losing control partial panel seems to
be a retractable thing.

Does anyone know of any vacuum-pump-related fatal accidents from 1997-2004
in fixed-gear planes flying IFR?


All the best,


David

[Jay Honeck]

> It did sound like a good idea. I came close to buying one when my last
> vacuum pump failed, but the wait time was too long.

This whole topic drives me crazy, since the idea of a "vacuum system" is
ridiculous in the first place.

I'm stuck with one, and have replaced both of my vacuum instruments in the
last six months. Why? Because the danged electric replacements are
absurdly over-priced, and the back-up battery that would make an
all-electric system prudent (and legal) is even worse.

Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum
instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Vcqnc.11795$xw3.806601@attbi_s04...


> Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum
> instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd.


Then figure out a way to go to a wet pump. I worry about wet pump failure
as much as I worry about my tires going square.

[zip]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Vcqnc.11795$xw3.806601@attbi_s04...
>
>
> > Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum
> > instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd.
>
>
> Then figure out a way to go to a wet pump. I worry about wet pump failure
> as much as I worry about my tires going square.
>
>
Electric would clearly be the way to go. There are some wonderful
advancements in A/C instrumentation that would be a clear advantage to the
recreational aviation crowd. You will likely not see them until sport pilot
and/or some form of simplified certification is allowed. We are flying stuff
certified in the forties simply because there are too many liability lawyers
in the world. If anything fails, for any reason, at any time, ever, somebody
will be sued. I'm all for corporate responsibility, but the situation as it
exists now is deadly for everyone.

Do you know why ultralight piilots are flying Rotax two strokes? Because the
company that makes them has NO assets in the USA, liniting the damage that
can be done to them by silly lawsuits. Same with motorcycle helmets, there
are NO manufacturers wuth assets in the U.S. Want to save american jobs?
Stop frivolous profit oriented lawsuits.

Sorry I didn't mean to get into a rant when I started this letter but I
stand behind every opinion.

[David Megginson]

zip wrote:

> Do you know why ultralight piilots are flying Rotax two strokes? Because the
> company that makes them has NO assets in the USA, liniting the damage that
> can be done to them by silly lawsuits. Same with motorcycle helmets, there
> are NO manufacturers wuth assets in the U.S. Want to save american jobs?
> Stop frivolous profit oriented lawsuits.

It's an easy problem to fix, if you American voters cared enough to make it
an election issue: just revise the law so that punitive damages in a law
suite go to the government instead of the plaintiff. For example, if I get
injured by someone, and the judge and jury determine that my injuries are
worth 500K plus legal costs, then I get 500K plus legal costs. If they also
decide to award 50M punitive damages to teach the defendant a lesson, that
money should go to the government like any other fine would. If lawyers
cannot hope for a cut of the (enormous) punitive damages, they'll be less
likely to take on trivial litigation.

Another alternative is the system that we have here in Canada (and, I think,
in the U.K. and other Commonwealth countries, though I'm not sure). The
loser in a civil case normally pays the winner's costs, so I'm not about to
go out and sue Lycoming or Piper unless I'm pretty sure I'll win: otherwise,
they might send me a bill for millions in legal expenses. That one might
not go over so well, though, since it discourages people from suing even
when they do have a legitimate case.


All the best,


David

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> This whole topic drives me crazy, since the idea of a "vacuum system" is
> ridiculous in the first place.
> I'm stuck with one, and have replaced both of my vacuum instruments in the
> last six months. Why? Because the danged electric replacements are
> absurdly over-priced, and the back-up battery that would make an
> all-electric system prudent (and legal) is even worse.
> Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum
> instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd.

I suspect it's a lot easier to get a gyro to spin at 10 or 15,000 RPM (or
whatever) using vanes and vaccum, than it is to design a reliable electric
motor to spin the gyro at that speed. It can obviously be done, but I
suspect the parts neccessary to do it might be a little more exotic and
expensive than vaccum gyro parts. Add to that the immense liability that
a manufacturer of such devices are taking on, you start to see why all of
these devices are expensive (even the vaccum devices, really).

Turn coordinators spin a gyro with an electric motor, but I bet the fact
that horizons have to pivot in two directons (roll and pitch) makes the
internal design way more complex.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Steve]

There certainly are good ideas out there for changing our civil
liability system, but doing anything about punitive damages is not
likely to change anything. Punitive damages are awarded in less than
5% of the cases where plaintiff wins (which means it's an even smaller
percentage of all cases) and the median punitive damage award is
$50,000. Hardly "enormous". Do you wonder why large punitive
damages are so newsworthy? It's because they are so rare.

I do think some modification of the second part of your idea would be
a good thing.


On Sun, 09 May 2004 16:55:31 GMT, David Megginson >
wrote:

>zip wrote:
>
>> Do you know why ultralight piilots are flying Rotax two strokes? Because the
>> company that makes them has NO assets in the USA, liniting the damage that
>> can be done to them by silly lawsuits. Same with motorcycle helmets, there
>> are NO manufacturers wuth assets in the U.S. Want to save american jobs?
>> Stop frivolous profit oriented lawsuits.
>
>It's an easy problem to fix, if you American voters cared enough to make it
>an election issue: just revise the law so that punitive damages in a law
>suite go to the government instead of the plaintiff. For example, if I get
>injured by someone, and the judge and jury determine that my injuries are
>worth 500K plus legal costs, then I get 500K plus legal costs. If they also
>decide to award 50M punitive damages to teach the defendant a lesson, that
>money should go to the government like any other fine would. If lawyers
>cannot hope for a cut of the (enormous) punitive damages, they'll be less
>likely to take on trivial litigation.
>
>Another alternative is the system that we have here in Canada (and, I think,
>in the U.K. and other Commonwealth countries, though I'm not sure). The
>loser in a civil case normally pays the winner's costs, so I'm not about to
>go out and sue Lycoming or Piper unless I'm pretty sure I'll win: otherwise,
>they might send me a bill for millions in legal expenses. That one might
>not go over so well, though, since it discourages people from suing even
>when they do have a legitimate case.
>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>David

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
(Jay Masino) wrote:

> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > This whole topic drives me crazy, since the idea of a "vacuum system" is
> > ridiculous in the first place.
> > I'm stuck with one, and have replaced both of my vacuum instruments in the
> > last six months. Why? Because the danged electric replacements are
> > absurdly over-priced, and the back-up battery that would make an
> > all-electric system prudent (and legal) is even worse.
> > Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum
> > instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd.
>
> I suspect it's a lot easier to get a gyro to spin at 10 or 15,000 RPM (or
> whatever) using vanes and vaccum, than it is to design a reliable electric
> motor to spin the gyro at that speed.

It's easy to build an electric motor which spins a disk at 10,000 RPM.
It doesn't cost much either... http://shop4.outpost.com/product/3120560/

[Jay Masino]

Roy Smith > wrote:
> It's easy to build an electric motor which spins a disk at 10,000 RPM.
> It doesn't cost much either... http://shop4.outpost.com/product/3120560/

I'm not sure that 10,000 is enough. Plus, the mass you'd probably be
spinning in a gyro might be greater than a disk. The mechanics of
allowing the gyro to pivot in both roll and pitch, with very little
friction is also not trivial. Finally, you have to do this in a manner
that will withstand environmental abuse, and run for years, reliably,
without killing someone.

The point I was trying to make is that there are often many, many
technical reasons why something is designed the way it is, and why it
might cost what it does. Jay often spouts off on this type of
topic without having adequate background on these types of engineering
issues.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum
> instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd.

Fine. Then quitcherbitchin and spring the bucks for the electric system. You're only
flying behind a vacuum system because you're a cheapskate (as am I).

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> That one might
> not go over so well, though, since it discourages people from suing even
> when they do have a legitimate case.

I agree, so my variation of your idea is that punitive damages go into a fund that
pays the winner's legal costs.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Masino wrote:
>
> I suspect it's a lot easier to get a gyro to spin at 10 or 15,000 RPM (or
> whatever) using vanes and vaccum, than it is to design a reliable electric
> motor to spin the gyro at that speed.

Actually, the main problem is building them small enough. That's what makes the
electric gyros so expensive.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> Jay Masino wrote:
> >
> > I suspect it's a lot easier to get a gyro to spin at 10 or 15,000 RPM (or
> > whatever) using vanes and vaccum, than it is to design a reliable electric
> > motor to spin the gyro at that speed.
>
> Actually, the main problem is building them small enough. That's what makes
> the
> electric gyros so expensive.
>
> George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

I wonder how long it's going to take for things like ring laser gyros to
become cheap enough for GA use.

[Jay Honeck]

> The point I was trying to make is that there are often many, many
> technical reasons why something is designed the way it is, and why it
> might cost what it does. Jay often spouts off on this type of
> topic without having adequate background on these types of engineering
> issues.

Actually, I was referring to the new line of solid state electric AIs -- no
internal spinning parts to wear out or fail.

I saw one at SNF for less than $500 -- uncertified, of course.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Fine. Then quitcherbitchin and spring the bucks for the electric system.
You're only
> flying behind a vacuum system because you're a cheapskate (as am I).

It's amazing when spending something approaching $1500 for two lousy vacuum
instruments makes me a "cheapskate"...

Gotta love aviation!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kyler Laird]

Roy Smith > writes:

>I wonder how long it's going to take for things like ring laser gyros to
>become cheap enough for GA use.

While you're waiting, consider a MEMS-based system.
http://www.xbow.com/General_info/gyro_guide.htm

--kyler

[Tom Sixkiller]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
ogers.com...
> zip wrote:
>
> > Do you know why ultralight piilots are flying Rotax two strokes? Because
the
> > company that makes them has NO assets in the USA, liniting the damage
that
> > can be done to them by silly lawsuits. Same with motorcycle helmets,
there
> > are NO manufacturers wuth assets in the U.S. Want to save american jobs?
> > Stop frivolous profit oriented lawsuits.
>
> It's an easy problem to fix, if you American voters cared enough to make
it
> an election issue: just revise the law so that punitive damages in a law
> suite go to the government instead of the plaintiff.

That violates separaton of powers and creates overlap with civil law- not a
good idea, as then they make it even worse to fill their coffers. Look at
how much of traffic fines are merely to fill the revenue chest rather than
promote safety. MOF, many jurisdictions compromise safety to as to encourage
traffic violations and the revenue they generate.

> For example, if I get
> injured by someone, and the judge and jury determine that my injuries are
> worth 500K plus legal costs, then I get 500K plus legal costs. If they
also
> decide to award 50M punitive damages to teach the defendant a lesson, that
> money should go to the government like any other fine would.

See above.

> If lawyers
> cannot hope for a cut of the (enormous) punitive damages, they'll be less
> likely to take on trivial litigation.

See below.
>
> Another alternative is the system that we have here in Canada (and, I
think,
> in the U.K. and other Commonwealth countries, though I'm not sure). The
> loser in a civil case normally pays the winner's costs, so I'm not about
to

The entire world outside the US has "Loser Pays"...and it works.

Punitives to the government is an "easy out" with dire consequences.

[Kai Glaesner]

> >I wonder how long it's going to take for things like ring laser gyros to
> >become cheap enough for GA use.
>
> While you're waiting, consider a MEMS-based system.
> http://www.xbow.com/General_info/gyro_guide.htm

I think Garmin has found some (Comparatively) cheap solution for that in
their G1000

Regards

Kai

[Nathan Young]

On 09 May 2004 22:12:21 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote:

>Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> This whole topic drives me crazy, since the idea of a "vacuum system" is
>> ridiculous in the first place.
>> I'm stuck with one, and have replaced both of my vacuum instruments in the
>> last six months. Why? Because the danged electric replacements are
>> absurdly over-priced, and the back-up battery that would make an
>> all-electric system prudent (and legal) is even worse.
>> Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum
>> instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd.
>
>I suspect it's a lot easier to get a gyro to spin at 10 or 15,000 RPM (or
>whatever) using vanes and vaccum, than it is to design a reliable electric
>motor to spin the gyro at that speed. It can obviously be done, but I
>suspect the parts neccessary to do it might be a little more exotic and
>expensive than vaccum gyro parts. Add to that the immense liability that
>a manufacturer of such devices are taking on, you start to see why all of
>these devices are expensive (even the vaccum devices, really).
>
>Turn coordinators spin a gyro with an electric motor, but I bet the fact
>that horizons have to pivot in two directons (roll and pitch) makes the
>internal design way more complex.

As long as we are talking about conventional gyros, it doesn't matter
if they are vacuum or electric driven. Since they have moving parts,
eventually they will fail. On the other hand, accelerometer based
electric 'gyros' have lifetimes well beyond airframe life.

Jay's original comment of the absurdity of vacuum systems is dead on.
But the solution isn't to replace with electric gyros, the solution is
to replace with solid-state ones.

-Nathan

[Richard Kaplan]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...

> Jay's original comment of the absurdity of vacuum systems is dead on.
> But the solution isn't to replace with electric gyros, the solution is
> to replace with solid-state ones.

Very few piston general aviation airplanes have dual alternators and you
could not even begin to consider a non-vacuum-system airplane without both
dual alternators and dual electrical buses. Even dual electrical buses can
fail and that is why business jets often have an emergency battery-powered
gyro which completely self-contained; these backup gyros can easily cost
over $7,000.

At those prices, it seems a lot more practical or at least economical in a
GA airplane to simply have a conventional vacuum AI backed up by a
conventional electric AI.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Sandy Mustard]

Why spin a gyro at all? Laser ring gyros are the way to go. No moving
parts.

Sandy Mustard

Jay Masino wrote:

> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>This whole topic drives me crazy, since the idea of a "vacuum system" is
>>ridiculous in the first place.
>>I'm stuck with one, and have replaced both of my vacuum instruments in the
>>last six months. Why? Because the danged electric replacements are
>>absurdly over-priced, and the back-up battery that would make an
>>all-electric system prudent (and legal) is even worse.
>>Personally, I think the fact that we're flying around behind vacuum
>>instruments in the 21st century is patently absurd.
>
>
> I suspect it's a lot easier to get a gyro to spin at 10 or 15,000 RPM (or
> whatever) using vanes and vaccum, than it is to design a reliable electric
> motor to spin the gyro at that speed. It can obviously be done, but I
> suspect the parts neccessary to do it might be a little more exotic and
> expensive than vaccum gyro parts. Add to that the immense liability that
> a manufacturer of such devices are taking on, you start to see why all of
> these devices are expensive (even the vaccum devices, really).
>
> Turn coordinators spin a gyro with an electric motor, but I bet the fact
> that horizons have to pivot in two directons (roll and pitch) makes the
> internal design way more complex.
>
> --- Jay
>
>

[Michael]

David Megginson > wrote
> Afterwards, I read the Air Safety Foundation report that everyone cites on
> the danger of vacuum pump failures: it turns out that they did not find a
> *single* fatal accident from 1983 to 1997 involving a vacuum-pump failure
> for a fixed-gear plane flying IFR -- losing control partial panel seems to
> be a retractable thing.

As a gross generalization, that makes sense to me.

IMO the really critical parameters are drag coefficient and roll
stability. Airplanes which are roll stable and draggy (Cherokees,
C-172's, and their ilk) are easy to fly partial panel and it takes a
long time for a nose low unusual attitude to develop to the point
where the airplane will redline. Airplanes that are clean and not
terribly roll stable (Bonanzas, Mooneys) are much more demanding
partial panel, and will go to redline in a heartbeat once you let a
nose-low unusual attitude develop. I suspect, though, that the new
crop of high-speed low-drag fixed gear singles from Lancair and Cirrus
are likely to behave more like the Mooneys and Bonanzas, whereas
retracts like the Arrow and Cutlass are probably not significantly
more likely to have loss of control problems when partial panel than
their fixed gear cousins.

Personally, I consider backup vacuum/gyros to be a low priority for
something like a Cherokee. I suspect that the same money spent on
regular recurrent training would have a significantly higher payoff in
safety. I would put the backup vacuum/gyro for something like a
Cherokee lower on the list than some sort of weather avoidance
capability (spherics, datalink, etc.) and lower than a good handheld
GPS with fresh batteries. Once you have those things, and you're
doing regular recurrent training, then sure - get athe backup. I'm
sure it must have some marginal safety advantage.

Michael

[David Megginson]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> Very few piston general aviation airplanes have dual alternators and you
> could not even begin to consider a non-vacuum-system airplane without both
> dual alternators and dual electrical buses. Even dual electrical buses can
> fail and that is why business jets often have an emergency battery-powered
> gyro which completely self-contained; these backup gyros can easily cost
> over $7,000.

It can be a fraction of that if you don't mind yet another portable device
cluttering your cockpit:

http://www.icarusinstruments.com/microEFIS.html

People have also reported some success under the hood flying a plane using
the display on the Garmin 196. Of course, until people are forced to used
it in actual IMC, we won't know how well it really works in an emergency.

> At those prices, it seems a lot more practical or at least economical in a
> GA airplane to simply have a conventional vacuum AI backed up by a
> conventional electric AI.

That's just it -- even my cheap little Warrior has a lot of options for
keeping the wings level in IMC:

Vacuum-powered AI and HI
Electic-powered TC
Battery-powered GPS
Magnetic compass

Of course, these become less and less useful as you go down the list (I
wouldn't be much on my chances with just the magnetic compass), but in real
life, but how much redundancy do you need before you've overdesigned the
system? As I mentioned earlier, I have not yet managed to find a single
example of a fatal accident caused by a vacuum-pump failure in a fixed-gear
plane flying IFR. There must be one or two, but it does not appear to be a
significant risk.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

Michael wrote:

> Personally, I consider backup vacuum/gyros to be a low priority for
> something like a Cherokee. I suspect that the same money spent on
> regular recurrent training would have a significantly higher payoff in
> safety. I would put the backup vacuum/gyro for something like a
> Cherokee lower on the list than some sort of weather avoidance
> capability (spherics, datalink, etc.) and lower than a good handheld
> GPS with fresh batteries.

Funny, you just listed my major purchases over the past six months: I bought
a Garmin 196 in December, and just ferried my plane back from Montreal this
afternoon with a (used but factory updated) WX-900 Stormscope installed by
an experienced shop. It was the perfect afternoon for it: solid IMC above
1,200 ft AGL, with a small risk of occasional embedded TCU and CB (normally,
I cancelled flights under those conditions).


All the best,


David

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:15:48 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

snip

>Very few piston general aviation airplanes have dual alternators and you
>could not even begin to consider a non-vacuum-system airplane without both
>dual alternators and dual electrical buses. Even dual electrical buses can
>fail and that is why business jets often have an emergency battery-powered
>gyro which completely self-contained; these backup gyros can easily cost
>over $7,000.
>
>At those prices, it seems a lot more practical or at least economical in a
>GA airplane to simply have a conventional vacuum AI backed up by a
>conventional electric AI.

I would be interested in the maintenance requirements for a couple of
the new "electric" aircraft. Another thread was asking about the
batteries keeping the engine turning on the Liberty XL2. My totally
uninformed guess is that on the Liberty, when the batteries quit, the
engine does as well. This was indeed the case with the certified
Porsche-powered Mooney.

Having maintained a few turbine aircraft & "business jets", periodic
maintenance and inspection/cap check of the various batteries and
specific DC generator life limits (one specific example has three
primary DC buses, six batteries, and three generators installed) are
an important factor in maintaining the "normal" and "emergency"
systems.

I would like to think that this same matter (periodic cap check and
alternator life limts) is specifically addressed in the new GA
designs.

BTW, I've also thought that it curious that cap checks on the main
ship's battery (which is the sole source of emergency electricity) on
"classic" GA designs seems to be a non-issue.

Regards;

TC

[Bob Miller]

<<Airplanes that are clean >>

Aye

<<and not
terribly roll stable (Bonanzas, Mooneys)
are much more demanding
partial panel,>>

My 65 C Mooney is incredibly roll stable and extremely easy to fly
partial panel; so much so that some view it as a weakness (I dunno,
maybe in a flat scissors?). I fly partial panel approaches IMC for
practice. Later M20's are more pitch stable as well.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> It's amazing when spending something approaching $1500 for two lousy vacuum
> instruments makes me a "cheapskate"...

If you manufactured a clock to that level of precision, it would cost more than one
of those items. And wouldn't have to be certified. Don't believe me, check out the
prices on Swiss watches these days.

I repeat. Quitcherbitchin.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Richard Kaplan]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...


> It can be a fraction of that if you don't mind yet another portable device
> cluttering your cockpit:

If we are talking about why airplanes have vacuum systems then we need to
keep the discussion to certified equipment -- other options may work but if
they are not certified then the FAA will require a vacuum system for legal
IFR.

> system? As I mentioned earlier, I have not yet managed to find a single
> example of a fatal accident caused by a vacuum-pump failure in a
fixed-gear
> plane flying IFR. There must be one or two, but it does not appear to be
a
> significant risk.

I think part of this may be related to how the accidents are classified.

For example, there are a number of examples each year of IFR airplanes which
simply suffer inflight break-up for unknown reasons; these could well be due
to vacuum pump failure.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 03:59:27 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>"David Megginson" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
>
>
>> It can be a fraction of that if you don't mind yet another portable device
>> cluttering your cockpit:
>
>If we are talking about why airplanes have vacuum systems then we need to
>keep the discussion to certified equipment -- other options may work but if
>they are not certified then the FAA will require a vacuum system for legal
>IFR.
>
>> system? As I mentioned earlier, I have not yet managed to find a single
>> example of a fatal accident caused by a vacuum-pump failure in a
>fixed-gear
>> plane flying IFR. There must be one or two, but it does not appear to be
>a
>> significant risk.
>
>I think part of this may be related to how the accidents are classified.
>
>For example, there are a number of examples each year of IFR airplanes which
>simply suffer inflight break-up for unknown reasons; these could well be due
>to vacuum pump failure.

What's the FAA position on venturi-driven instruments?

Don

[David Megginson]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> For example, there are a number of examples each year of IFR airplanes which
> simply suffer inflight break-up for unknown reasons; these could well be due
> to vacuum pump failure.

The pilot would have to not report the vacuum pump failure to ATC, and then
the wreckage would have to be so scattered or burned that the NTSB could not
check the vacuum pump in the wreckage to see if the shaft had sheared before
impact (something they always seem to do). It's not that it's impossible
that that's happened, but there no evidence that it's a significant pattern
for fixed-gear planes -- if there were more than a couple such cases, you'd
expect at least one where the wreckage wasn't burned or the pilot did report
the failure.

If I were investigating this question, I'd try to find some examples where a
fixed-gear plane experienced an inflight break-up flying IFR in IMC, it was
not possible for the NTSB to check the vacuum pump (say, because of a fire),
the radar and ATC voice tapes show the plane flying fine in IMC until just
before the crash, and there was no likely convective activity, icing, or
mountain wave activity in the area.


All the best,


David

[G.R. Patterson III]

Don Tuite wrote:
>
> What's the FAA position on venturi-driven instruments?

Better be able to heat them.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Occom]

It's curious that those who caution against the electronic substitutes want
dual alternators, dual (triple) batteries, dual DC bus, and more to run the
normally vacuum driven instruments. Curious because alternators, DC buses
and batteries rarely fail, and the single vacuum pump which is currently
allowed (required) are somewhat failure prone and rarely give any warning
before failure.

Electronics have clearly far outstripped mechanical instruments in terms of
performance and reliability. They can also be relatively inexpensive over
their lifetime, and are frequently able to give much more information. The
reason they are not in your aircraft relates solely with the cost of
certification and insurance.

This is one case where the caution of the regulating bodies may well be
holding safety advancements back.

[David Megginson]

Occom wrote:

> It's curious that those who caution against the electronic substitutes want
> dual alternators, dual (triple) batteries, dual DC bus, and more to run the
> normally vacuum driven instruments. Curious because alternators, DC buses
> and batteries rarely fail, and the single vacuum pump which is currently
> allowed (required) are somewhat failure prone and rarely give any warning
> before failure.

I think that the point having gyros with different power sources. The
vacuum pump, for good or ill, is entirely redundant to the electrical system
-- it's unlikely that both will fail on the same flight.

I agree that the vacuum pump fails more often than the alternator, but on
the other hand, alternators do fail fairly often as well -- I know several
pilots who've experienced that. Redundancy, whether vacuum/electric or dual
electric, is the only safe option.


All the best,


David

[Roy Smith]

David Megginson > wrote:
> I agree that the vacuum pump fails more often than the alternator, but on
> the other hand, alternators do fail fairly often as well -- I know several
> pilots who've experienced that. Redundancy, whether vacuum/electric or dual
> electric, is the only safe option.

There's no doubt that redundancy is critical. I suspect the trend in
the future will be towards dual (if not more) alternators. A typical GA
engine has three accessory pads on the back, generally filled with two
magnetos and a vacuum pump. We should get rid of all the crud, and
instead put three little alternators in their place. This would supply
triple-redundant power for electronic ignition, solid-state gyros,
fadec, etc. It would work better, weigh less, and be more reliable than
the 50 year old rube goldberg designs we're flying now.

Not likely I'll ever see it, but I can dream, can't I?

[Michael]

David Megginson > wrote
> Funny, you just listed my major purchases over the past six months: I bought
> a Garmin 196 in December, and just ferried my plane back from Montreal this
> afternoon with a (used but factory updated) WX-900 Stormscope installed by
> an experienced shop. It was the perfect afternoon for it: solid IMC above
> 1,200 ft AGL, with a small risk of occasional embedded TCU and CB (normally,
> I cancelled flights under those conditions).

All I can tell you is that you've made the right purchases. If you're
already taking regular recurrent training, still have money left over,
and have a burning desire to spent it to improve safety in your plane,
go ahead and get the backup vacuum or electric attitude gyro. Can't
hurt, might help.

It's all about priorities. You can keep spending money forever.

Michael

[PaulaJay1]

In article ers.com>, David
Megginson > writes:

>Of course, these become less and less useful as you go down the list (I
>wouldn't be much on my chances with just the magnetic compass), but in real
>life, but how much redundancy do you need before you've overdesigned the
>system? As I mentioned earlier, I have not yet managed to find a single
>example of a fatal accident caused by a vacuum-pump failure in a fixed-gear
>plane flying IFR. There must be one or two, but it does not appear to be a
>significant risk.
>

I have need to use my Precise Flight backup vacuum only once but then it was
worth the price.

Chuck

[G.R. Patterson III]

Occom wrote:
>
> It's curious that those who caution against the electronic substitutes want
> dual alternators, dual (triple) batteries, dual DC bus, and more to run the
> normally vacuum driven instruments.

That's because the vacuum instruments have an electric backup in the turn coordinator
or turn&bank. If you use electricity for all of your instruments, there is no backup
when the electrical system fails. The solution is to put in a backup electrical
system.

Perhaps it would be better to start using the vacuum system to drive the turn
coordinator and install electric AI and DGs?

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> I agree that the vacuum pump fails more often than the alternator, but on
> the other hand, alternators do fail fairly often as well -- I know several
> pilots who've experienced that.

Yep. I've got a bit over 500 hours on my plane. Lost the alternator near SHD on a run
to Tennessee a few years ago. The vacuum pump is still breathing fine. On the other
hand, nothing quit working when the alternator died except for the fuel gauges. You
don't have something like a battery to keep things going for a while in a vacuum
system.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[David Megginson]

Michael wrote:

> All I can tell you is that you've made the right purchases. If you're
> already taking regular recurrent training, still have money left over,
> and have a burning desire to spent it to improve safety in your plane,
> go ahead and get the backup vacuum or electric attitude gyro. Can't
> hurt, might help.

Recurrent training sort-of takes care of itself up here. Canadian IFR
ratings are good for only 48 months, even when you are current, so I'll be
retaking the full IFR oral and flight test every two years as well as
keeping up with currency requirements.

From what I've heard, the examiners are much tougher on the experienced IFR
pilots, using tricks like pulling the TC circuit breaker and then failing
the pilot if he or she doesn't notice the dead TC fast enough. Fortunately,
my TC circuit breaker isn't the kind you can pull.



All the best,


David

[Martin Kosina]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> At those prices, it seems a lot more practical or at least economical in a
> GA airplane to simply have a conventional vacuum AI backed up by a
> conventional electric AI.

I came to the same conclusion after researching all the options, the
electric AI placed in a sane location is the best overall value for a
small GA craft, IMHO. Backs up the gyro itself, always on, and has
very familiar presentation when the chips are down and you need to
decide quick.

Michael wrote:
> Personally, I consider backup vacuum/gyros to be a low priority for
> something like a Cherokee. I suspect that the same money spent on
> regular recurrent training would have a significantly higher payoff in
> safety.

I used to be of the "backup AIs are for non-proficient sissies" school
for a long time (exxagerating, I know Michael didn't say that :-),
until a recent challenging IPC at night. I held it together just fine,
but I realized how much energy it was taking me in a relaxed training
atmosphere. It suddenly hit me that things must look VERY different
when the same situation presents itself (and insidiously, at that)
after a long, tiring day, perhaps with some ice and fuel concerns
thrown in. Bad situation to be in, no doubt, but I realized it could
happen to me one day if I continue to fly weather often enough...
Besides, I am at a point in my flying career where I should
statistically see a pump failure (I have already seen an AI go, VFR).

In the end, I decided to forgo other planned upgrades in favor of the
instrument backup first. I agree its one of those low probability/high
risk scenarios (as is the single engine operation, after all), but its
really not *that* expensive in the grand scheme of things. If you have
an empty hole on the copilot side like most mid-70's spam cans (not
too far out), the electric gyro is also really easy to install, just a
pair of wires and a breaker jumpered to the bus bar. The WX info is
right behind all this, however, and it is a close call priority-wise,
I agree.

Martin


1 RC-Allen RCA26AK4 - $1600
1 P&B 3A breaker - $10
3' MIL-W-22759/20 wire - $5
Seeing both balls tilt the same direction on a dark stormy night -
......

[David Megginson]

Martin Kosina wrote:

> I used to be of the "backup AIs are for non-proficient sissies" school
> for a long time (exxagerating, I know Michael didn't say that :-),
> until a recent challenging IPC at night.

I don't think that any of us would suggest that. It's more a matter of
statistics -- we're still looking for even one example of a fixed-gear plane
getting into a fatal accident flying IFR after a vacuum pump failure.

> In the end, I decided to forgo other planned upgrades in favor of the
> instrument backup first. I agree its one of those low probability/high
> risk scenarios (as is the single engine operation, after all), but its
> really not *that* expensive in the grand scheme of things.

That's fair -- we put a lot of money into our planes for reasons of our own.
I'm thinking of replacing my cracked old panel plastics, and those do not
affect the safety of my plane at all (unless, of course, a piece fell and
wedged under a control, I guess).


All the best,


David

[Roy Smith]

(Martin Kosina) wrote:
> Seeing both balls tilt the same direction on a dark stormy night -

I'll confess I've never flown with two AI's, but I would imagine that's
a very powerful argument in favor of it.

The hardest part of partial panel flying is not flying with just the TC,
but recognizing that something has gone wrong. Having two instruments
with identical presentations should make it a lot easier to recognize
that a problem exists.

[David Megginson]

Roy Smith wrote:

> The hardest part of partial panel flying is not flying with just the TC,
> but recognizing that something has gone wrong. Having two instruments
> with identical presentations should make it a lot easier to recognize
> that a problem exists.

An annunciator light near the primary instruments can help with that as
well, as can a flag on the AI itself.


All the best,


David

[Richard Kaplan]

"Occom" > wrote in message
...

> It's curious that those who caution against the electronic substitutes
want
> dual alternators, dual (triple) batteries, dual DC bus, and more to run
the
> normally vacuum driven instruments. Curious because alternators, DC buses
> and batteries rarely fail, and the single vacuum pump which is currently
> allowed (required) are somewhat failure prone and rarely give any warning
> before failure.

Pure vacuum-driven airplanes are rare, if they exist at all.

More common is a setup with an electric turn coordinator and vacuum DG/AI.
Thus total gyro failure is extremely unlikely.

A pure electric airplane without dual buses/alternators/batteries could
indeed lead to a no-panel situation, which would be quite undesirable.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...

> There's no doubt that redundancy is critical. I suspect the trend in
> the future will be towards dual (if not more) alternators. A typical GA
> engine has three accessory pads on the back, generally filled with two
> magnetos and a vacuum pump. We should get rid of all the crud, and


To get rid of the vacuum system you would also need dual batteries, dual
electrical buses, and a way to bypass the master contactor. Engineering
this into an existing design would be tough.

[Dave Butler]

> If you have
> an empty hole on the copilot side like most mid-70's spam cans (not
> too far out), the electric gyro is also really easy to install,

As one who flies an airplane with an electric gyro "on the copilot side (not too
far out)", I highly recommend that you sit in an airplane with this kind of
setup and carefully evaluate whether it is near enogh in your scan to be useful.

Dave

[Michael]

(Martin Kosina) wrote
> I used to be of the "backup AIs are for non-proficient sissies" school
> for a long time (exxagerating, I know Michael didn't say that :-),

Well, let's say I may have implied it - but that's not really where I
was going with this. In fact, I have dual vacuum and dual AI's. I
was getting at something different. In my experience,
non-professional IFR pilots are a risk group unto themselves.

Those pilots who fly professionally get regular recurrent training (at
least annual, maybe semiannual). Technically, the corporate guys
don't need it - but just try to find an insurer who will write you
without it.

The rest of us are on our own. The FAA does not mandate recurrent
training for Part 91 operators. All you need is six approaches and a
hold in the past six months, and you are good to go. Until very
recently, there was no requirement for partial panel work even on an
ICC. I know a pilot who was signed off on an ICC after doing one
full-panel ILS. So you could easily have a pilot who flies IFR
regularly, has hundreds of hours in the plane - and hasn't flown
partial panel in years.

I'm generally very sceptical when people tell me they will never run
out of fuel because they are careful about making sure they have
enough, using a watch to time fuel burn, etc. Near as I can tell,
everyone does that - and fuel starvation remains the most common mode
of engine failure. I'm equally sceptical of those who say they will
not be caught by weather because they get briefings, have personal
minimums, etc. Near as I can tell, everyone is getting briefings,
setting personal minimums, etc - and yet VFR into IMC continues to
kill those with and without instrument ratings. But when someone
tells me that he's not terribly concerned about vacuum failure because
he practices partial panel flight under adverse conditions on a
regular basis - well, is that something all IFR pilots are doing? My
experience indicates that it's not - and for some reason, the ones who
need it most (those flying slippery retracts) are the ones who do it
least.

In this discussion, we've failed to turn up a single case of a fixed
gear airplane crashing due to vacuum/gyro failure. I'll take odds
that we're also not going to find one that crashed due to vacuum/gyro
failure while piloted by a PIC who had, in the past year, demonstrated
proficiency in partial panel non-precision approaches without use of
autopilot or moving map. I do know that not too many years ago, a
C-210 crashed in the Houston area. The PIC's last transmission to ATC
was "We've lost our vacuum. We're dead." Clearly he knew that he had
neither the skill nor the backup system to handle the failure, and
flew IMC anyway. I suppose we will never know why.

> until a recent challenging IPC at night. I held it together just fine,
> but I realized how much energy it was taking me in a relaxed training
> atmosphere. It suddenly hit me that things must look VERY different
> when the same situation presents itself (and insidiously, at that)
> after a long, tiring day, perhaps with some ice and fuel concerns
> thrown in.

In my experience, failure of the attitude indicator (which is all you
are backing up with an electric AI) was significantly easier to handle
in real life (at night, after a full day's work, on the climbout,
while getting a reroute in IMC) than in the training environment. In
the training environment, I am expected to continue whatever I am
doing as if nothing had happened. In real life, I could slow down and
take things one step at a time. Also, in real life I had my moving
map GPS with HSI presentation; in the training environment that would
have been failed as well. My point is that if you can handle it in
training, where you are constantly subjected to multiple failures and
no time to rest, doing it in real life should be easy - and in my
experience it is.

I also had a backup AI on the right side of the panel - and at first I
tried using it. I quickly discovered that it wasn't any easier than
just flying partial panel. This despite the fact that I can and
routinely do fly instruments from the right seat. In the end, I wound
up finishing the flight partial panel, with an occasional glance at
the AI for crosscheck.

Does all this mean a backup system is a bad idea? No, a backup system
is never a bad idea. The real question is - is it the best bang for
the buck in terms of safety? In the real world funds are limited for
most of us, and installing a backup AI means we won't do something
else. If that something else is a new interior, then there's no
problem. If it's a good handheld GPS with HSI presentation, the
decision is questionable. I would lean towards the GPS, but I can see
how there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. But if the
backup AI comes at the cost of serious recurrent training, then I
think it's definitely a bad deal.

There is value to partial panel flying over and above preparation for
the possibility of vacuum failure. The value is precisely the fact
that it is more difficult, that it does require the pilot to
anticipate more and to maintain a mental image of attitude rather than
just reading it off the AI. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say
that practicing partial panel non-precision approaches makes you a
safer pilot even if you know you will never need to do one. The
biggest cause of IFR accidents is still sheer pilot error, not
equipment failure. There's nothing wrong with investing in backup
equipment, but not at the cost of investing in pilot proficiency.

Michael

[Martin Kosina]

> I also had a backup AI on the right side of the panel - and at first I
> tried using it. I quickly discovered that it wasn't any easier than
> just flying partial panel. This despite the fact that I can and
> routinely do fly instruments from the right seat. In the end, I wound
> up finishing the flight partial panel, with an occasional glance at
> the AI for crosscheck.
>
> Does all this mean a backup system is a bad idea? No, a backup system
> is never a bad idea. The real question is - is it the best bang for
> the buck in terms of safety?
....
>
> There's nothing wrong with investing in backup
> equipment, but not at the cost of investing in pilot proficiency.
>

Thanks for the informative reply, you have some excellent points. I
elected to install the backup AI instead of a fancier GPS, and already
take regular IPCs whether I need them or not (I'd love to be able to
say I am so virtous, but in reality there just isn't enough low WX
around here to stay proficient).

Good to hear some real-world experiences, too, there tends to be a lot
of opinion floating around on this from people that have never had a
problem (myself included ;-)

Martin

[Richard Kaplan]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...

> statistics -- we're still looking for even one example of a fixed-gear
plane
> getting into a fatal accident flying IFR after a vacuum pump failure.

Such an accident may not be listed with vacuum failure as the cause because
the cause may not ever be determined as such.

There are certainly examples of airplanes flying along in IMC which
experience an in-flight breakup; it is quite plausible to think this type of
accident occured due to a vacuum failure or AI failure, but if the wreckage
is damaged enough there may not be any way to tell for sure.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Michael]

(Martin Kosina) wrote
> I elected to install the backup AI instead of a fancier GPS

I can see that making sense. After all, if you already have a GPS,
the incremental improvement from getting a fancier one is pretty
small.

> and already
> take regular IPCs whether I need them or not (I'd love to be able to
> say I am so virtous, but in reality there just isn't enough low WX
> around here to stay proficient).

Well, I don't know about virtuous - but I will tell you that despite
the fact that I fly IMC a lot and never really go out of currency (I
bat cleanup for Angel Flight SC and generally take the missions other
pilots cancel for weather) I still take regular ICC's. Still, I'm not
perfect either. I try to do it on a six month cycle but it never
works out that way - something always gets in the way and the reality
is that I go as much as 9 months between.

I don't bother with normal approaches - I fly enough IMC to stay
proficient on those - but I don't normally do my approaches single
engine, partial panel, or without RNAV so I consider recurrent
training in those operations to be a necessity.

> Good to hear some real-world experiences, too, there tends to be a lot
> of opinion floating around on this from people that have never had a
> problem (myself included ;-)

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, and they all stink.
My opinion is that the biggest problem in the world of personal IFR
isn't the equipment we fly (though thanks to the FAA's stranglehold on
new technology that's not a minor problem) and not the weather (though
of course that's what challenges us) but the absolutely ****-poor
training, both initial and recurrent. When I took my initial IFR
training, I tried to find an experienced instructor. He simply wasn't
available - though I will admit that since I had no idea what I was
really looking for I set the requirements too high in some areas, and
had I known what I was talking about I would probably have been able
to find what I was looking for. But what are the odds that someone
who has yet to start instrument training will know what to look for in
a CFII? Right, nil.

So I flew with a very nice kid. He was conscientious (he always
showed up on time and was always prepared), he was enthusiastic, he
truly wanted to do a good job, and he did his level best. And I got
my rating, in just about the minimum hours (and a lot of those were
safety pilot time) and went out into the IFR world. And I almost
killed myself. Not because I couldn't fly an approach to minimums - I
could and did, and frankly that was about all that saved me. But I
scared myself so badly that I decided that the plane I had was
completely unfit for IFR. Well, it was unfit for the flights I made
in the way I made them, and truly it was poorly suited to IFR and
totally unsuited to the demands I made on it - but I have flown IFR in
it recently, without scaring myself - because I now know its
limitations and how to operate within them. But how did I learn?

When I bought my twin, an airline captain took me under his wing and
taught me how to fly it. There are places you can go to get a multi
rating in 4 hours; we took 25. But that was when I actually learned
to fly IFR - not just to go through the mechanics of approaches and
holds, which I could do just fine, but how to think about the problems
and solve them. You don't buy a twin to fly day-VFR, so he taught me
instrument flying from the ground up. It was a priceless education -
and it made me understand exactly where my prior education had been
remiss. It wasn't the kid's fault. He just didn't know what he
didn't know. He did the best he could with what he had, but no way
was it good enough. It was good enough to pass the checkride - but in
the real world of flying weather that can't be flown VFR, even by an
experienced VFR pilot, it was just good enough to nearly get me killed
- without a single equipment failure. What's more, I doubt any amount
of experience would really have helped - I just didn't have the tools
to progress without killing myself.

It wasn't that the airline captain taught me all there was to know -
you can't do that in 25 hours, and I'm not sure you can do it in 2500.
But he did give me the necessary tools to progress without killing
myself.

I've flown with a fair number of instrument pilots, often in an
instructional capacity, and I've had a chance to evaluate the quality
of the training they got. Unfortunately, it's the training I got with
the timebuilder kid that seems to be the norm, not the training I got
with the airline captain. I suppose that's unsurprising - there are a
lot more timebuilder kids teaching instruments than airline captains.
I think that is the absolute biggest cause of the absolutely horriffic
accident rate in personal IFR flying. Most of the accidents involve
no equipment failure at all, and the vast majority of the rest involve
equipment failures the pilot not only should have been able to handle
but supposedly demonstrated the ability to handle, at least once upon
a time. Sure, weather is usually a factor - but if an instrument
rating is not for being able to go where you want to go when you want
to go there even if the weather is bad, then what is it for?

So why do I think recurrent training will fix the problem? Well, let
me be a bit specific. If you are already flying instruments
regularly, I don't think recurrent training where you just pick a
random CFII at the local flight school and have him give you a repeat
of the instrument ride (which is all the IPC really is) will do a huge
amount of good. I think it will do some, because now a partial panel
non-precision approach is required, and that's probably something
you're not doing as part of regular IFR flying. But that's about all,
and just squeaking by with PTS tolerances on a partial panel localizer
with the moving map going is probably not going to make a huge
difference.

On the other hand, the kind of recurrent training done by a CFII who
is an experienced instrument pilot, flies in weather regularly, has
had **** happen and dealt with it, knows where the problem areas are,
and will take the time to discuss your mission and equipment, asess
your skill level, and set you up with realistic scenarios that push
your ability and challenge you to solve problems - that kind of
recurrent training is going to pay big dividends when the **** hits
the fan - and not just the particular problem you covered. It's an
opportunity not only to sharpen your skills to but to fill gaps in
your knowledge. It's the opportunity to be surprised under controlled
conditions. Done right, it's pretty close to what the airline guys
get in the sim.

Training like that is available. Sometimes it's a matter of knowing
someone and being willing to work around his schedule. Sometimes it's
a matter of going to one of the specialized schools - but generally
that means paying a daily rate of hundreds of dollars, not $35 per
flight hour for the local CFII. Is it worth it? Someone will pipe up
with "How much is your life worth" but I think that's intellectually
dishonest at best. Nobody can afford every possible safety edge.
Instead of comparing it to the value of your life, compare it to what
the money will otherwise get spent on in the aviation game.

That backup attitude gyro was worth $1600 plus accessories and
installation, and it won't last forever. That would probably have
paid for 3 or 4 years worth of very high grade annual recurrent
training - the kind that will prepare you for a lot more than just
vacuum/AI failure. That's what I'm talking about when I say that
training represents better bang for the buck than backup
instrumentation. OF COURSE if you can have both, that's best.

Michael