Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by AuntPeggy, Aug 5, 2013.
I thought it would be a good idea to stop hijacking another thread and create one for this thought.
[Rant on] Do all of the above and then go further. Demand that the FAA let you make your aircraft and your flying safer.
A few years ago they decided to "loosen" the standards for seat belts. It is now possible to use seat belts that meet NASCAR safety standards. Before, you had to abide by the the less safe FAA standards.
The GPS in your new car has more safety features and is 1/10th the cost of the one in your airplane. Why? Because of FAA mandated standards.
Can you put your child's auto car seat into your aircraft legally? Probably not. Why? Because the car seat manufacturer has not applied to the FAA to let you do it.
Can you get ADDS-B in without getting ADDS-B out? No. Why? Because the FAA wants to limit who can get life saving information about traffic surrounding them.
How accurate is your fuel gauge? Why?
Hundreds of improvements to your aircraft are available to those who are home builders, but not to you.
In my opinion, many of the accidents that occur today that are "pilot error" are also "FAA error" because those pilot errors could be mitigated or eliminated if improved aircraft safety were cheaper and allowed. [Rant off]
Features you can get on your auto GPS that you should get (or afford) on your certificated plane's panel-mounted GPS. In some cases, the plane uses a similar, not exactly matching feature.
Speed limit display: Right there on the screen, display all the limits that the pilot needs to know such as airspeed and altitude. Display in red if not in compliance.
Junction view: For auto, a picture of the exit that shows the lane to be in and the name. For airplanes, an approach view including attitude for landing that helps you to identify the airport and its surrounding vicinity.
Lane assist: For auto, GPS shows what lanes you need to be in for an exit or even surface streets. For airplanes, the correct approach to arrive at the downwind on a 45* with or without crossing over the airport. Display correct downwind placement so you can adjust for crosswind and get perfectly lined up.
Wide screen: For planes, a larger display mounted in the panel.
High resolution graphics
Lifetime map updates
Popup TFR alerts
Easy detour or rerouting.
Are they available for a cost similar to the cost in a family car?
Well, there are 2 sides to speed limits. In an aircraft, going too slow is more of a safety hazard than going too fast. Nevertheless, for airspeed we have one indicator, with markings from the earliest days of aviation to indicate VNE (red line) and VNO (maneuvering speed).
I tried to explain how that might apply to aviation. "For airplanes, an approach view including attitude for landing that helps you to identify the airport and its surrounding vicinity." "For airplanes, the correct approach to arrive at the downwind on a 45* with or without crossing over the airport. Display correct downwind placement so you can adjust for crosswind and get perfectly lined up."
Understood. I would not mind being able to pull out my ADF and substituting the type of display I could get on a tablet.
How about reasonable cost? How about automatic?
My panel mounted GPS is integrated into my comm radio. How hard would it be to integrate voice recognition so that I can do my Captain Kirk simulation, "Computer, change flight plan to include the route change from ATC."
How much did all of that cost you? Is it certified IFR?
Certainly, if you are satisfied with the safety allowed by the FAA through both regulatory denial or financial denial, then you are as safe as you want to be. The FAA does not need to change and any errors are yours alone.
However, my contention is that many of the pilot errors we see today could be mitigated by using the types of technology currently available to car drivers today if only they were allowed and affordable.
Just the other day, I saw an advertisement on TV for a system you can put on a car that alerts the driver if s/he is impaired and needs to stop and get some sleep. How many lives could that save in aircraft? Would it be legal to install on a plane?
My first question is how could the accident have been prevented without simply pointing blame at the pilot? What could have been done to make the pilot's job easier or the situation safer?
Let's think about auto safety, which has made phenomenal gains over the last several years. Here are the areas that are being processed now. Are these convenience factors or safety factors? Are the equivalent being worked on for aircraft?
Forward collision avoidance and mitigation: safety technologies that provide a warning of an impending forward collision and/or automatically brake or slow the vehicle.
Vehicle Communications: vehicle-to-vehicle communications and infrastructure to get your vehicle talking with the traffic and environment around it.
Distraction: framing the issue, safety consequences, goals, research initiatives including both technological and behavioral approaches.
Vehicle based alcohol detection
Child restraints and booster seats
Stability control for larger vehicles
Fuel economy standards and alternative fuels
Safety risks of batteries
Rear seat occupant protection
Let's look at that last one, head restraints. I have a mid-1970s C-172. One of the first things I noticed about it was that there were no headrests. This was brought home to me when I was on a jury for a whiplash victim and the extent of injury was seen in x-rays and physical pain. So, I asked about getting head rests. There were holes in the top of our standard seats that appeared to be made for slip-in of the mid-70s auto headrests. It would be a simple matter of finding some in an auto junkyard and slipping them in. Would that make the aircraft safer in a crash? Possibly. Would it be OK? Well, of course not. That would make the aircraft unairworthy.
Have you had a discussion lately about the advisability of replacing your old filament landing light and taxi light with new LED lights? After you get through talking about all the great features such as longer life, greater illumination, smaller voltage draw, then you have to go on to discussing whether you can just replace your existing bulbs with the new safer ones or whether you have to jump through expensive paperwork hoops to stay legal.
I am not suggesting that vigilant and well-trained pilots will ever need any safety equipment that is not there already. Nor am I suggesting that vigilant and well-trained drivers need them either. What I am saying is that FAA regulations actively discourage new and innovative safety features that will aid those who might become "pilot error" statistics. What is allowed at all is incredibly expensive.
I'm not so sure all the groovy cheap electronics homebuilders get increase safety. Increase convenience, coolness, perception of safety maybe.
You see, there is my point. Look at the lunacy we go through to work around outdated rules.
How is a yoke mounted iPad that throws off the balance of my primary control safer than screwing the thing to the panel? How is it safer to stick it to a window, obscuring view out that window, and potentially falling off once we climb high enough to reduce airpressure against the partial vacuum holding it on?
Why not just put it on the panel? or in the panel? Because the FAA won't allow it.
And you want all this in your LSA, right?
Maybe yes, maybe no. It should be my decision. If adding to my workload increases risk, it follows that decreasing workload decreases risk. If adding convenience decreases workload, then it also decreases risk.
Cupholders: If I have a drink handy before landing, I don't have to worry about dehydration. If I don't have to worry about my drink spilling all over the upholstery or me, I don't have to worry about dehydration. Dehydration leads to risk.
I want this for all of us.
There's nothing above.
Why don't you just put it in the panel? http://www.airgizmos.com/
Yeah. I just copied the entire post from another thread. Sorry for the confusion.
Yep I have to agree with this poster. If I am calling him correctly. Sorry if I am not.
But I installed some things on my EAB airplane over the winter more for the, wow how cool part then anything. I have yet to put one hr on my airplane since last summer but I did have some pilots look at my airplane and said..wow how cool...So it worked...lol
One was a TAS system. It looks cool, not sure it will do much but looks cool.
So does installing a cupholder where it may interfere with a flight control.
I stopped at the Gizmo booth to ask about iPad mounts. They don't make a panel mount for the iPad, only the mini. Full-size tablet is lap mount only.
How 'bout cuz most airplanes don't have the panel real estate to fit an iPad.
What is the thingy in the AOPA sweeps debbie?
Wow. I did not know that anything like that is available for certified aircraft. Thanks.
Making a LOT of assumptions AP...
You do know that there are inspectors who immediately default to "you can't" and then those say "maybe let me research that"?
The AOPA Sweeps Debonair has a panel mounted iPad.
I've seen many jets with COTS galley equipment (consumer over the counter electronics) such as microwaves, coffee makers, CD players, iPad & iPhone docks etc. I've also seen engineering data packages that approve them. So just because someone says "can't" I'm inclinde to say they are FOS.
It's all relative.....if FAA rules for installing technology in your airplane for part 91 ops annoy you, it's a darn good thing you don't work for an airline or the military. It would blow your mind.
That isn't why. I would make the real estate available. The reason is because the FAA doesn't allow it.
But, maybe I'm wrong about that. Do they allow it for IFR certified aircraft?
That doesn't make it ok.
Note that there are inspectors who immediately default to "you can't". That is the mindset that needs to be overcome.
At what cost can we go ahead and use our own intelligence to decide to have something or where it place it?
You are missing the purpose of the rules - they are intended to protect stoopid people from themselves....unfortunately, all must pay for it.
It is kind of like the stupid warning labels on lawnmowers that tell you not to use them as hedge trimmers....because at least one idiot actually thought it was a good idea and didn't see the potential danger.
When many of the rules (and the sentiment of countless more) were written in blood, it doesn't make them wrong either. Just makes them a pain in the arse for those of us with brains.
The Beechcraft Debonair AOPA is giving away this year.
The one thing I don't like about it, is they took an otherwise beautiful panel and mounted an iPad in it. Blasphemy.
My understanding is that if it's removable, then it's not really installed. So the mini iPad mount you see allows for easy removal of the iPad mini.
The rules don't reinforce their intent. The rules prevent us from improving the safety of flight for ourselves and others.
Look at the statistics on safety of light, recreational GA. It just stays on a flat line. Look at the statistics on safety of autos. Been getting better every year since the 70s.
I have also seen a letter from the Atlanta ACO (Aircraft Certification Office) in response to a query for putting a non STC'ed non PMA'ed not FAA approved in any sense of the term, angle of attack indicator into a Cessna 206U. The ONLY demand the ACO had was;
"The installation instructions require indicator to be placarded “NOT TO BE USED AS A PRIMARY FLIGHT INSTRUMENT”."
I'm not necessarily in agreement with you on the avionics tangent. i don't see very many electronics in experimentals that I want but cannot put in my rig.
IMHO, where we're bogged down in regulations is firewall forward.
My child's car seat has a sticker on it that says "This child restraint is certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft", along with an airplane symbol. We used her car seat when we flew to Germany last year to visit relatives. It worked great, and she slept nearly the entire flight. I realize you are talking about GA airplanes, but I will use her car seat for that also. I think lap babies just are not safe at all.
Absolutely correct. Are those carseats hard to find? I have not found any and will soon need to buy a few for my grandchildren.
I'm behind you there.
Open your eyes and look at the picture. Then your very closed off mind would be a plus too.
Yes and no....problem is that the intent of the rules for installing new technology is to insert the requirement that some 'expert' (ie not Jim Bob down the street, self-proclaimed 'expert of the interwebz') has reviewed the install to insure that it can and is done in such a way to prevent the added safety from killing you in some other way.
Same intent behind a PMA'd part versus going to Auto Zone to buy your repair parts. The PMA part has been through a process to determine that it is indeed acceptable to use in the airplane in question. Whereas the part that appears identical that you find at the car parts place may or may not be manufactured to the same standard.
Apples and oranges.
No amount of technology is going to stop pilots from pushing the limits, running their airplanes out of gas, stalling and spinning it in on base to final, losing control of a twin after engine failure.
Things you don't have to worry about in cars.
These days, it is hard to find a car seat that is NOT FAA approved.