Adrenalin rush

[Wizard of Draws]

September 17, 2004 1:00 1.3 hrs. (.2 actual)

It was an overcast morning that cleared somewhat to scattered clouds around
5 and 6 thousand. Steve M. and I had plans to get a little actual on the way
to Thompson-Mcduffie (KHQU), and possibly log an approach or two. After I
filed and pre-flighted, we hopped in and contacted Atlanta Approach to open
our flight plan while we sat on the ground. As we sat there, Steve
discovered that we had power to our #2 radio, but no display. Not a flight
ending squawk, but annoying.

After getting our clearance direct HQU at 3000, expect 5000 after 10
minutes, void if not off in 10, we went wheels up from 22 and departed the
pattern from midfield on course 120. As soon as we reached 3000 they cleared
us to 5000, where we began to run into the clouds. After I leveled off and
setup for cruise, we had a few minutes to enjoy looking at the inside of the
clouds. When we reached the middle of Lake Lanier, the clouds gave way and
we had a pretty hazy view in front of us.

Then we smelled it. A sharp electrical smell that told us something was
burning and not quite right. Steve quickly turned off the misbehaving #2
radio. The smell got stronger, but there was no visible smoke. A moment
later, when the realization hit home that we might have a serious problem, I
keyed the mike to tell Atlanta Center that we smelled smoke, may have a
developing issue with our #2 radio, and that we wanted to divert to Athens
as a precaution. He answered immediately that Gainesville was our nearest
airport, and asked if we were declaring an emergency, can we maintain our
current altitude. I replied affirmative on the altitude but we didn't have
an emergency yet, so we just wanted vectors to Gainesville. "OK, turn left
heading 050, and it will be 11 miles at your 12 o'clock." Then he gave us
the pertinent airport info and handed us off to Atlanta Center on 134.8,
telling us that they were aware of our situation. They instructed us to
descend and maintain 3700. Shortly after we arrived there, he cleared us to
land on the runway of our choice.

By now we were directly over the airport, so we canceled IFR, alerted GVL
UNICOM of our situation and dropped into the pattern where another plane on
base leg terminated his approach to get out of our way. A pretty gusty
crosswind made for a roller coaster style approach, but we made it down
without bending any metal.

After we parked, we tried to pull the #2 radio to confirm our suspicions
that it was the source of our problem, but we didn't have an Allen wrench
and the shops on the field were all closed. So we called Randall and he sent
Steve's son Ryan in a 172 with a set that turned out to be too short to be
any good. So we climbed in anyway and didn't turn on the #2 on the way home
while Ryan flew back in loose formation with us. When Steve pulled out the
radio after we landed at 47A, it was very apparent from the strong smell
coming out of the box that something had burnt inside. Thankfully, it didn't
develop into anything more serious, whether by luck or turning it off as
quickly as we did.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Wizard of Draws]

On 9/17/05 10:16 PM, in article
, "Wizard of Draws"
> wrote:

> September 17, 2004 1:00 1.3 hrs. (.2 actual)
>
Oops. --> 2005
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[tscottme]

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:BF524628.32285%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
> September 17, 2004 1:00 1.3 hrs. (.2 actual)
>

I'm glad everything worked out so well. Nothing I write is suggesting you
made any sort of error. But I participated in a research study some years
ago that firmly cemented in my mind that one common idea many pilots have is
exactly wrong. Have no fear of declaring an emergency.

Have zero hesitation to declare an emergency to ATC. You don't get mired in
paperwork if your situation is less than a genuine emergency. You don't get
a visit from the Feds who will interogate you for any pretext to yank your
license. In short, declaring an emergency gives you and ATC more room to
get a good outcome. The only likely outcome of declaring an emergency which
ends in a happy outcome is that ATC may request you call them after landing
so they will know things worked out OK. Your info won't be forwarded to OKC
for some official investigation into your competence unless you end up
bending or breaking something important.

You aren't required to land at an undesirable location just because you
declared an emergency. You aren't required to rat on yourself to the Feds
or your insurance company. Making the declaration may keep a worried pilot
from having to answer about not dotting some I or crossing some T. "If in
doubt, shout it out."

--
Scott

[[email protected]]

tscottme wrote:
> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
> news:BF524628.32285%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
>
>>September 17, 2004 1:00 1.3 hrs. (.2 actual)
>>
>
>
> I'm glad everything worked out so well. Nothing I write is suggesting you
> made any sort of error. But I participated in a research study some years
> ago that firmly cemented in my mind that one common idea many pilots have is
> exactly wrong. Have no fear of declaring an emergency.
>
> Have zero hesitation to declare an emergency to ATC. You don't get mired in
> paperwork if your situation is less than a genuine emergency. You don't get
> a visit from the Feds who will interogate you for any pretext to yank your
> license. In short, declaring an emergency gives you and ATC more room to
> get a good outcome. The only likely outcome of declaring an emergency which
> ends in a happy outcome is that ATC may request you call them after landing
> so they will know things worked out OK. Your info won't be forwarded to OKC
> for some official investigation into your competence unless you end up
> bending or breaking something important.
>
> You aren't required to land at an undesirable location just because you
> declared an emergency. You aren't required to rat on yourself to the Feds
> or your insurance company. Making the declaration may keep a worried pilot
> from having to answer about not dotting some I or crossing some T. "If in
> doubt, shout it out."
>
You should always telephone the facility after on the ground to
determine with certainty whether they want a report per 91.123d

[Wizard of Draws]

On 9/18/05 9:45 AM, in article ,
"tscottme" > wrote:

> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
> news:BF524628.32285%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
>> September 17, 2004 1:00 1.3 hrs. (.2 actual)
>>
>
> I'm glad everything worked out so well. Nothing I write is suggesting you
> made any sort of error. But I participated in a research study some years
> ago that firmly cemented in my mind that one common idea many pilots have is
> exactly wrong. Have no fear of declaring an emergency.
>
> Have zero hesitation to declare an emergency to ATC. You don't get mired in
> paperwork if your situation is less than a genuine emergency. You don't get
> a visit from the Feds who will interogate you for any pretext to yank your
> license. In short, declaring an emergency gives you and ATC more room to
> get a good outcome. The only likely outcome of declaring an emergency which
> ends in a happy outcome is that ATC may request you call them after landing
> so they will know things worked out OK. Your info won't be forwarded to OKC
> for some official investigation into your competence unless you end up
> bending or breaking something important.
>
> You aren't required to land at an undesirable location just because you
> declared an emergency. You aren't required to rat on yourself to the Feds
> or your insurance company. Making the declaration may keep a worried pilot
> from having to answer about not dotting some I or crossing some T. "If in
> doubt, shout it out."

I understand. If the situation had deteriorated at all, say the appearance
of smoke, I would have had no qualms about using the E word. But once we
turned off the radio, the smell seemed to fade away noticeably, relieving
our tension a bit in the process.
I have to give credit to the controllers, they were very helpful, quick and
reassuring. I noticed my tone of voice went up a notch and theirs never
varied a bit.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[john smith]

> Then we smelled it. A sharp electrical smell that told us something was
> burning and not quite right. Steve quickly turned off the misbehaving #2
> radio. The smell got stronger, but there was no visible smoke. A moment
> later, when the realization hit home that we might have a serious problem, I
> keyed the mike to tell Atlanta Center that we smelled smoke, may have a
> developing issue with our #2 radio, [snip]

Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect the
circuit breaker from overload.

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-09-18, john smith > wrote:

> Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect the
> circuit breaker from overload.

Circuit breakers are sized to protect the wiring, not the device.

[John T]

Doug Carter wrote:
>
>> Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect
>> the circuit breaker from overload.
>
> Circuit breakers are sized to protect the wiring, not the device.

Read it again with the humor circuit engaged. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-09-19, John T > wrote:
> Doug Carter wrote:
>>
>>> Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect
>>> the circuit breaker from overload.
>>
>> Circuit breakers are sized to protect the wiring, not the device.
>
> Read it again with the humor circuit engaged. :)

Sorry, humor circuit shorted after reading other posts in this newsgroup
(not yours :)

[Everett M. Greene]

john smith > writes:
> > Then we smelled it. A sharp electrical smell that told us something was
> > burning and not quite right. Steve quickly turned off the misbehaving #2
> > radio. The smell got stronger, but there was no visible smoke. A moment
> > later, when the realization hit home that we might have a serious problem, I
> > keyed the mike to tell Atlanta Center that we smelled smoke, may have a
> > developing issue with our #2 radio, [snip]
>
> Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect the
> circuit breaker from overload.

How true! :-)

Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain
why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas
nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails
in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units
designed so close to the components' limits to cause this
failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in
smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver?

[[email protected]]

Everett M. Greene > wrote:
: Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain
: why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas
: nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails
: in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units
: designed so close to the components' limits to cause this
: failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in
: smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver?

I'll take a stab at it... :) Probably a big reason why avionics fail like
that because they're older than most electronics. They're used for a longer period of
time so they can suffer individual component failures. "Normal" electronics tend to
get toss earlier, so their failures are more likely due to construction flaws.

They're also packaged very tightly, and cannot afford much overdesign that
would cause additional weight. Also, the environment they operate in is extremely
harsh... *huge* temperature/humidity swings, ridiculous vibration exposure, etc.

That's why I was singularly unimpressed with the internal build quality of the
Michel slide-in replacement radios. They're built with standard DIPs, through-hole
components, ribbon cables, and general run-of-the-mill consumer components. Minimal
strain relief and anti-chafing assembly. Makes for a less expensive unit, but I'm
sure they're more likely to wear/chafe than a well-built unit.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dan Luke]

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:
>
> Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain
> why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas
> nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails
> in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units
> designed so close to the components' limits to cause this
> failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in
> smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver?

Receivers still contain amplifiers, power regulating transistors, resistors,
diodes, etc. in their circuitry. Failures at the discrete component level
can produce thermal events without increases in main power loads above
circuit breaker limits.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[dlevy]

I had something very similar happen very recently.

On climbout, vfr (squaking 1200), I smelled something burning - a very
strong smell. I turned back to the airport and just a quickly as it came
the smell went away. No obvious panel problems - no breaker tripped - and
the smell stopped. I turned around again and continued on. As I got within
radar contact of home base, approach couldn't pick me up. The narco
transponder appeared to be working fine. A resister in the transponder
burned up.

Adding to the adrenalin rush was the fact that there was so much traffic at
the class D airport I couldn't even get a chance to let the tower know I had
smoke in the cockpit. This was in Houma, LA which is the closest open
airport to New Orleans. There were airplanes *everywhere*.



"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:BF524628.32285%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
> September 17, 2004 1:00 1.3 hrs. (.2 actual)
>
> It was an overcast morning that cleared somewhat to scattered clouds
> around
> 5 and 6 thousand. Steve M. and I had plans to get a little actual on the
> way
> to Thompson-Mcduffie (KHQU), and possibly log an approach or two. After I
> filed and pre-flighted, we hopped in and contacted Atlanta Approach to
> open
> our flight plan while we sat on the ground. As we sat there, Steve
> discovered that we had power to our #2 radio, but no display. Not a flight
> ending squawk, but annoying.
>
> After getting our clearance direct HQU at 3000, expect 5000 after 10
> minutes, void if not off in 10, we went wheels up from 22 and departed the
> pattern from midfield on course 120. As soon as we reached 3000 they
> cleared
> us to 5000, where we began to run into the clouds. After I leveled off and
> setup for cruise, we had a few minutes to enjoy looking at the inside of
> the
> clouds. When we reached the middle of Lake Lanier, the clouds gave way and
> we had a pretty hazy view in front of us.
>
> Then we smelled it. A sharp electrical smell that told us something was
> burning and not quite right. Steve quickly turned off the misbehaving #2
> radio. The smell got stronger, but there was no visible smoke. A moment
> later, when the realization hit home that we might have a serious problem,
> I
> keyed the mike to tell Atlanta Center that we smelled smoke, may have a
> developing issue with our #2 radio, and that we wanted to divert to Athens
> as a precaution. He answered immediately that Gainesville was our nearest
> airport, and asked if we were declaring an emergency, can we maintain our
> current altitude. I replied affirmative on the altitude but we didn't have
> an emergency yet, so we just wanted vectors to Gainesville. "OK, turn left
> heading 050, and it will be 11 miles at your 12 o'clock." Then he gave us
> the pertinent airport info and handed us off to Atlanta Center on 134.8,
> telling us that they were aware of our situation. They instructed us to
> descend and maintain 3700. Shortly after we arrived there, he cleared us
> to
> land on the runway of our choice.
>
> By now we were directly over the airport, so we canceled IFR, alerted GVL
> UNICOM of our situation and dropped into the pattern where another plane
> on
> base leg terminated his approach to get out of our way. A pretty gusty
> crosswind made for a roller coaster style approach, but we made it down
> without bending any metal.
>
> After we parked, we tried to pull the #2 radio to confirm our suspicions
> that it was the source of our problem, but we didn't have an Allen wrench
> and the shops on the field were all closed. So we called Randall and he
> sent
> Steve's son Ryan in a 172 with a set that turned out to be too short to be
> any good. So we climbed in anyway and didn't turn on the #2 on the way
> home
> while Ryan flew back in loose formation with us. When Steve pulled out the
> radio after we landed at 47A, it was very apparent from the strong smell
> coming out of the box that something had burnt inside. Thankfully, it
> didn't
> develop into anything more serious, whether by luck or turning it off as
> quickly as we did.
> --
> Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
>
> Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
> http://www.wizardofdraws.com
>
> More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
> http://www.cartoonclipart.com
>

[Peter R.]

dlevy > wrote:

> Adding to the adrenalin rush was the fact that there was so much traffic at
> the class D airport I couldn't even get a chance to let the tower know I had
> smoke in the cockpit.

I would imagine that a few "Maydays," regardless of the fact that when you
begin you might step on someone else's broadcast, will get you a quiet
frequency.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Marco Leon]

Hmmm, maybe they're on to something. When was the last time you had a
"general run-of-the-mill" consumer product start smoking on you?? ;-)

Seriously, another question for you EE folks: are more modern components of
a better quality in that they don't need a robust surrounding support
structure to prevent catastrophic failures?

Marco Leon


> wrote in message
...
> Everett M. Greene > wrote:
> : Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain
> : why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas
> : nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails
> : in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units
> : designed so close to the components' limits to cause this
> : failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in
> : smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver?
>
> I'll take a stab at it... :) Probably a big reason why avionics fail like
> that because they're older than most electronics. They're used for a
longer period of
> time so they can suffer individual component failures. "Normal"
electronics tend to
> get toss earlier, so their failures are more likely due to construction
flaws.
>
> They're also packaged very tightly, and cannot afford much overdesign that
> would cause additional weight. Also, the environment they operate in is
extremely
> harsh... *huge* temperature/humidity swings, ridiculous vibration
exposure, etc.
>
> That's why I was singularly unimpressed with the internal build quality of
the
> Michel slide-in replacement radios. They're built with standard DIPs,
through-hole
> components, ribbon cables, and general run-of-the-mill consumer
components. Minimal
> strain relief and anti-chafing assembly. Makes for a less expensive unit,
but I'm
> sure they're more likely to wear/chafe than a well-built unit.
>
> -Cory
>
> --
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss *
> * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Wizard of Draws]

On 9/19/05 1:40 PM, in article ,
"dlevy" > wrote:

> I had something very similar happen very recently.
>
> On climbout, vfr (squaking 1200), I smelled something burning - a very
> strong smell. I turned back to the airport and just a quickly as it came
> the smell went away. No obvious panel problems - no breaker tripped - and
> the smell stopped. I turned around again and continued on. As I got within
> radar contact of home base, approach couldn't pick me up. The narco
> transponder appeared to be working fine. A resister in the transponder
> burned up.
>
> Adding to the adrenalin rush was the fact that there was so much traffic at
> the class D airport I couldn't even get a chance to let the tower know I had
> smoke in the cockpit. This was in Houma, LA which is the closest open
> airport to New Orleans. There were airplanes *everywhere*.
>

I wouldn't have continued on if I were you. Obviously it worked out for you,
but we know that something had to create that smell, and it might have been
the first link in the chain of events that led to an unhappy ending.
Breaking that chain may not be possible after you've had that first chance.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[David Cartwright]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Hmmm, maybe they're on to something. When was the last time you had a
> "general run-of-the-mill" consumer product start smoking on you?? ;-)

Oh, I've had a couple recently. My dad bought an electric light that
contained a transformer, which did the blue smoke thing, and the CD-ROM
drive in my sister's PC did the same the other week (I've had them fail, but
never in a combusting kind of way!). And I've lost count of the number of
power supplies in computer equipment that have exuded smoke over the years.

D.

[Everett M. Greene]

"David Cartwright" > writes:
> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote
> > Hmmm, maybe they're on to something. When was the last time you had a
> > "general run-of-the-mill" consumer product start smoking on you?? ;-)
>
> Oh, I've had a couple recently. My dad bought an electric light that
> contained a transformer, which did the blue smoke thing, and the CD-ROM
> drive in my sister's PC did the same the other week (I've had them fail, but
> never in a combusting kind of way!). And I've lost count of the number of
> power supplies in computer equipment that have exuded smoke over the years.

I've had numerous power supply failures in (ground-based)
devices over the years and have never had any smoke from
any of them. They just quit working...

There is a difference between linear and switching power
supplies. The latter are most likely going to fail
quietly whereas the former can very well smoke something
when they fail.

A thought occurs to me regarding avionics failures: The
confined environment of small airplane cabins and the
close proximity to the avionics devices may cause the
even a miniscule amount of odor to be noticed whereas
on the ground nobody may be close at the time of failure
and any odor goes unnoticed.

[Rob]

Wizard of Draws wrote:
> "dlevy" > wrote:
> > I had something very similar happen very recently.
> I wouldn't have continued on if I were you. Obviously it worked out for you,
> but we know that something had to create that smell, and it might have been
> the first link in the chain of events that led to an unhappy ending.
> Breaking that chain may not be possible after you've had that first chance.

Not meant to criticize, but isn't dlevy's story the same as yours? You
continued flying your aircraft without finding the allen wrench
necessary to verify the source of your similar problem, right?

-R

[Rob]

Everett M. Greene wrote:
> Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain
> why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas
> nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails
> in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units
> designed so close to the components' limits to cause this
> failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in
> smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver?

I'm an EE. In my day job I design guitar amplifiers. Let me tell you,
I've made a LOT of unintentional smoke at my workbench. :) When I was
in school a fellow student explained to me that the smoke contained
inside those little electronic components is what makes them work.
It's magic smoke. If you let out the magic smoke, the electrons stop
doing whatever it is they're designed to do.

Seriously though, maybe the propensity of aircraft radios to fail in
this manner has to do with the fact that on average they're pretty old,
and constructed mostly of discrete components. Modern electronics are
more highly integrated into power- and space- miserly "chips", or ICs
(integrated circuits). ICs also allow for more circuitry in a smaller
space, so thermal protection, over-current protection, and other
similar support circuitry can be incorporated into a design without the
weight and space penalties that made them impractical for aircraft
radios "back in the day". It's a theory, anyway.

-R

[[email protected]]

I wasn't going to say anything, but I was thinking the same thing.