![]() |
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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am in the midst of an instrument panel refit on a Standard Cirrus that will include a PowerFLARM core. The mount of the FLARM antennas is always a lifely subject here on RAS. I have read and absorbed the very instructive FLARM antenna placement application note.
Anyway, someone mentioned to me years ago that it is a bad idea to mount things on the canopy or canopy rails (PDA, Camera, etc) as it could prevent full ejection of the canopy and leave it tethered to the fuselage by a power or control cable. This could make a bad situation worse (take that statement for what it is worth). Truth or myth? Assuming for the moment that the above is true, then same logic leads me to the bad idea of mounting things onto a glare screen that is attached to the canopy like with a Standard Cirrus. If mounting things on the canopy is bad, then mounting things on a canopy attached glare screen is also bad. This finally leads me to how to mount FLARM antennas. Often FLARM antennas are mounted onto the glare screen. But two FLARM antenna coaxes would definitely be stong enoght to tether the canopy, back to bad again. An optional placement of the antenna would be below, but not attached to, the glare screen. However this might impact coverage. What are your wise opinions? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Great question and one that many pilots are in denial about.
Your Standard Cirrus probably has no carbon fiber in the cockpit. I have an LS-8 and mounted both Flarm antennas under the glare shield. They work perfectly. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 5:04:33 PM UTC-5, Six-Seven Romeo wrote:
I am in the midst of an instrument panel refit on a Standard Cirrus that will include a PowerFLARM core. Good for you! Glad to see the turds posting mis-information on RAS ignored ;-) The mount of the FLARM antennas is always a lifely subject here on RAS. I have read and absorbed the very instructive FLARM antenna placement application note. Anyway, someone mentioned to me years ago that it is a bad idea to mount things on the canopy or canopy rails (PDA, Camera, etc) as it could prevent full ejection of the canopy and leave it tethered to the fuselage by a power or control cable. This could make a bad situation worse (take that statement for what it is worth). Truth or myth? Truth, implicated in at least one fatality (PDA mount prevented canopy jettison). Assuming for the moment that the above is true, then same logic leads me to the bad idea of mounting things onto a glare screen that is attached to the canopy like with a Standard Cirrus. Yes, but: you can cut a hole in the glare shield and mount the antenna on a light-weight support below, poking through the hole. Presto, canopy can jettison freely, and you can easily remove canopy without deranging antenna. IIRC there are examples in the FLARM note. Hope that helps, Best Regards, Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave, wow - what timing!
On 2/10/2016 3:32 PM, Dave Nadler wrote: Snip... Anyway, someone mentioned to me years ago that it is a bad idea to mount things on the canopy or canopy rails (PDA, Camera, etc) as it could prevent full ejection of the canopy and leave it tethered to the fuselage by a power or control cable. This could make a bad situation worse (take that statement for what it is worth). Truth or myth? Truth, implicated in at least one fatality (PDA mount prevented canopy jettison). Having just spent most of the day extracting info related to every 2000-2015 glider-based fatality from the NTSB database (and, yeah, I'm pretty familiar with how much crunch-related info can manage to never make it into their reports and conclusions), I'm curious as to year and country of the above fatality. It doesn't seem to ring a mental bell from my day's work. Thanks! Bob W. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:27:09 -0700, BobW wrote:
Dave, wow - what timing! On 2/10/2016 3:32 PM, Dave Nadler wrote: Snip... Anyway, someone mentioned to me years ago that it is a bad idea to mount things on the canopy or canopy rails (PDA, Camera, etc) as it could prevent full ejection of the canopy and leave it tethered to the fuselage by a power or control cable. This could make a bad situation worse (take that statement for what it is worth). Truth or myth? Truth, implicated in at least one fatality (PDA mount prevented canopy jettison). Having just spent most of the day extracting info related to every 2000-2015 glider-based fatality from the NTSB database (and, yeah, I'm pretty familiar with how much crunch-related info can manage to never make it into their reports and conclusions), I'm curious as to year and country of the above fatality. It doesn't seem to ring a mental bell from my day's work. There was a mid-air in the UK (Yorkshire) in 2006. One pilot got out, the other didn't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6158561.stm The AAIB report said that latter had electronics mounted on his glare shield and canopy frame, cables secured with cable ties. The ASW-19B, hit the ground with part of the canopy still attached. The front jettison lock had been released, rear locking pins still locked. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2/10/2016 5:07 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:27:09 -0700, BobW wrote: Dave, wow - what timing! On 2/10/2016 3:32 PM, Dave Nadler wrote: Snip... Anyway, someone mentioned to me years ago that it is a bad idea to mount things on the canopy or canopy rails (PDA, Camera, etc) as it could prevent full ejection of the canopy and leave it tethered to the fuselage by a power or control cable. This could make a bad situation worse (take that statement for what it is worth). Truth or myth? Truth, implicated in at least one fatality (PDA mount prevented canopy jettison). Having just spent most of the day extracting info related to every 2000-2015 glider-based fatality from the NTSB database (and, yeah, I'm pretty familiar with how much crunch-related info can manage to never make it into their reports and conclusions), I'm curious as to year and country of the above fatality. It doesn't seem to ring a mental bell from my day's work. There was a mid-air in the UK (Yorkshire) in 2006. One pilot got out, the other didn't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6158561.stm The AAIB report said that latter had electronics mounted on his glare shield and canopy frame, cables secured with cable ties. The ASW-19B, hit the ground with part of the canopy still attached. The front jettison lock had been released, rear locking pins still locked. Ah, so - that would appear to qualify in my book. Thanks, Martin. If : 1) the Beeb is accurate, and 2) I've understood them correctly, it would appear the (rear-raising via strut under normal conditions?) canopy had its front/emergency release pulled, but not the rear, *and* the front end was restrained to "some extent" by cabling? (That's not to wonder if the pilot simply ran out of time - for whatever reason - to operate the aft latch[es?].) I got the bit about the AAIB speculation, though what, precisely, I should infer is unclear. Would it have been 100% necessary to "go through the canopy" due to the degree of front-end restraint, or would the degree "only" have hindered the amount the front end could raise before coming up against the wiring, thus (possibly) resulting in a partially-raised canopy, if the strut could overcome airloading? In any event, any degree of hard-cabling between airframe/instruments and ejection-desired-canopy certainly seems a bad idea to me! As always, the devil is in the details... Bob W. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 7:10:55 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:27:09 -0700, BobW wrote: Dave, wow - what timing! On 2/10/2016 3:32 PM, Dave Nadler wrote: Snip... Anyway, someone mentioned to me years ago that it is a bad idea to mount things on the canopy or canopy rails (PDA, Camera, etc) as it could prevent full ejection of the canopy and leave it tethered to the fuselage by a power or control cable. This could make a bad situation worse (take that statement for what it is worth). Truth or myth? Truth, implicated in at least one fatality (PDA mount prevented canopy jettison). Having just spent most of the day extracting info related to every 2000-2015 glider-based fatality from the NTSB database (and, yeah, I'm pretty familiar with how much crunch-related info can manage to never make it into their reports and conclusions), I'm curious as to year and country of the above fatality. It doesn't seem to ring a mental bell from my day's work. There was a mid-air in the UK (Yorkshire) in 2006. One pilot got out, the other didn't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6158561.stm The AAIB report said that latter had electronics mounted on his glare shield and canopy frame, cables secured with cable ties. The ASW-19B, hit the ground with part of the canopy still attached. The front jettison lock had been released, rear locking pins still locked. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | Thanks Martin, that's the accident I was remembering but I didn't have the detail at hand... Best Regards, Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I noticed on page 4 of the aforementioned PowerFLARM Antenna Application Note (lots of great pictures of how to do, and not do, things) the following;
"Ensure that the installation does not conflict with any operation of the aircraft e.g. Canopy emergency release. No, the coaxial antenna cable will not 'just rip'..." Which implies that they too know that mounting stuff on the canopy is bad. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This finally leads me to how to mount FLARM antennas. Often FLARM antennas are mounted onto the glare screen. But two FLARM antenna coaxes would definitely be stong enoght to tether the canopy, back to bad again. An optional placement of the antenna would be below, but not attached to, the glare screen. However this might impact coverage.
What are your wise opinions? As Guy suggests, if your Std Cirrus is anything like ours (#446) there is no carbon anywhere, so all of our antennas (GPS, FLARM, transponder) are mounted underneath the glare shield. GPS patch antennas are simply strapped on top of convenient instrument cases, the FLARM antennas have a quick and dirty plywood mount that is attached to the rear of the transponder (the deepest of the instrument cases), if I remember correctly. All work fine. Marc |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reducing canopy glare caused by instrument face reflections. | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | November 11th 13 09:22 PM |
PowerFlarm mounting question, and an idea for mounting devices | brianDG303[_2_] | Soaring | 2 | October 23rd 11 06:51 PM |
be safe | Raymond Staton | Piloting | 0 | October 9th 09 06:22 PM |
anti-glare PDA screen protectors | Gary Emerson | Soaring | 4 | May 7th 08 03:19 PM |
Canopy glare and UV protection? | Kevin R. Anderson | Soaring | 1 | May 10th 04 01:09 AM |