A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 31st 10, 11:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

This article is strongly slanted in favor of new stability-augmentation
gadgets for light aircraft:

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going...-your-airplane

Not surprisingly, Cirrus is installing the gadget first, and Garmin is writing
the poorly-tested software for it.

Apparently the author does not understand the distinction between flying for
fun and flying for transportation. The pilot who flies for fun is unlikely to
want a computer to fly for him, no matter how well the computer does it or how
safe the computer can make things. A pilot who flies for transportation might
welcome more computer control. But putting gadgets like this on every light
aircraft makes no sense. Sure, it might improve safety, but so would
automating the entire flight, giving the pilot no control at all--and yet
complete automation of flights would defeat the purpose of flying for many
hobby pilots.
  #2  
Old July 31st 10, 05:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

Mxsmanic wrote:
This article is strongly slanted in favor of new stability-augmentation
gadgets for light aircraft:

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going...-your-airplane

Not surprisingly, Cirrus is installing the gadget first, and Garmin is writing
the poorly-tested software for it.


And you know the software is "poorly-tested" how?

Apparently the author does not understand the distinction between flying for
fun and flying for transportation. The pilot who flies for fun is unlikely to
want a computer to fly for him, no matter how well the computer does it or how
safe the computer can make things. A pilot who flies for transportation might
welcome more computer control. But putting gadgets like this on every light
aircraft makes no sense. Sure, it might improve safety, but so would
automating the entire flight, giving the pilot no control at all--and yet
complete automation of flights would defeat the purpose of flying for many
hobby pilots.


Apparently if you read the article but you didn't understand it.

The system does not fly the airplane and is not an autopilot.

It "senses that the pilot has lost control" and recovers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #3  
Old July 31st 10, 08:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
a[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 562
Default Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

On Jul 31, 12:44*pm, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
This article is strongly slanted in favor of new stability-augmentation
gadgets for light aircraft:


http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going...trol-your-airp...


Not surprisingly, Cirrus is installing the gadget first, and Garmin is writing
the poorly-tested software for it.


And you know the software is "poorly-tested" how?

Apparently the author does not understand the distinction between flying for
fun and flying for transportation. The pilot who flies for fun is unlikely to
want a computer to fly for him, no matter how well the computer does it or how
safe the computer can make things. A pilot who flies for transportation might
welcome more computer control. But putting gadgets like this on every light
aircraft makes no sense. Sure, it might improve safety, but so would
automating the entire flight, giving the pilot no control at all--and yet
complete automation of flights would defeat the purpose of flying for many
hobby pilots.


Apparently if you read the article but you didn't understand it.

The system does not fly the airplane and is not an autopilot.

It "senses that the pilot has lost control" and recovers.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


The early Mooneys had a vacuum operated wing leveler, don't know if it
was required for airworthiness. It could be disabled with a button on
the yoke, that was handy when turning, the wing leveler really
stiffened the controls. Wing levelers, manual gear retraction,
manually pumped down flaps -- those Mooney Rangers were fun to fly.
  #6  
Old July 31st 10, 10:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

writes:

It could be handy under certain circumstances.


Such as? For a hobby pilot, remember.
  #8  
Old August 1st 10, 12:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

writes:

Define "hobby pilot".


Someone who doesn't fly for a living.
  #9  
Old August 1st 10, 12:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Brian Whatcott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 915
Default Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

On 7/31/2010 2:49 PM, a wrote:

The early Mooneys had a vacuum operated wing leveler, don't know if it
was required for airworthiness. It could be disabled with a button on
the yoke, that was handy when turning, the wing leveler really
stiffened the controls. Wing levelers, manual gear retraction,
manually pumped down flaps -- those Mooney Rangers were fun to fly.


I bought a pilots manual for the C-150 off eBay the other day.
It was in fact, a digitized scan of a manual.
So it could not be cut to size and stapled like the original. Ah well...
Anyway, one of the options (apparently) was a pneumatic wing leveler
driven by the pump.

I never ever saw one with trhat fitted.

Brian W
  #10  
Old August 1st 10, 12:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Define "hobby pilot".


Someone who doesn't fly for a living.


OK, then single pilot in real IMC.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Promises to be a good show this year! PLMerite Aviation Photos 0 May 3rd 08 12:43 PM
Stability variation WingFlaps Piloting 2 April 28th 08 03:45 AM
Towing stability studies Dan G Soaring 27 February 21st 08 09:38 PM
Tow vehicle -- electronic stability control Greg Arnold Soaring 4 June 8th 06 12:31 PM
Atmospheric stability and lapse rate Andrew Sarangan Piloting 39 February 11th 05 06:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.