Cessna Horn too quiet

The only problem I see with increasing the noise level, is even if it is the
loudest thing you ever hear in the cockpit, pilots will sometimes tend to block
the sound out.
Just ask most of those who made an unintentional gear up landing.
When I was flying retracts (up to 15 flights a day), I would check to make sure
the gear was down and locked no less than 3 times before I touched down.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

wrote in message . ..
I'm a member of a club that has a Cessna 177RG.
I just got checked out in it today , and the gear horn is waaaay too quiet.

Paul,

My first thought, before visions of modifications dance in
your head, is to make sure the durn thing is actually working
up to spec.

The maint. manual may provide specifications, someone in the club
may be able to borrow a dosimeter (noise meter) or the specification
may be an electrical output.

If the maint. manual doesn't provide specifications, the Cessna
type club almost certainly can.

It seems like there are a bunch of maint. issues in small airplanes
which become common and get "accepted" (clogged primers = don't
prime; Cessna nosewheel shimmy etc) instead of being properly repaired.

FWIW,
Sydney

ost (Ditch) wrote in message ...
The only problem I see with increasing the noise level, is even if it is the
loudest thing you ever hear in the cockpit, pilots will sometimes tend to block
the sound out.
Just ask most of those who made an unintentional gear up landing.
When I was flying retracts (up to 15 flights a day), I would check to make sure
the gear was down and locked no less than 3 times before I touched down.



Was it here I saw this GUMP check?

G - Gear
U - Undercarraige
M - Make sure the gear's down
P - PUT THE DAMN GEAR DOWN!


Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

G - Gear
U - Undercarraige
M - Make sure the gear's down
P - PUT THE DAMN GEAR DOWN!

There ya go!

In the AT-6 when downwind abeam the numbers after the break, it would start
with:
1. Landing Gear Down
2. Flaps down
3. Trims set (elevator and rudder)
4. Mixture Forward
5. Prop to go (we would wait until the prop RPM dropped after slowing down to
go easy on the governor)

On our modified base leg, we would run thru everything again and then short
final run thru it once more and this time bring the prop to full forward.

It was a quick flow that took only a couple of seconds each time we did it.
It's been over a year since the last time I flew the T-6, but I still wake up
in the morning with that checklist running thru my head!


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
Cycling the gear doesn't use up hydraulic fluid. It's stored back
in

snip
Lots of bad things can happen to your airplane is something is broken.
But that doesn't mean you should avoid doing otherwise reasonable
things with your airplane, just because it *could* be broken.



But why not understand that you trouble *single points of failure* as
little as possible.




Do you avoid extending the flaps, just because the flap motor could
fail?

No But I can make a safe no flap landing. The plane is made to fly.


Do you avoid using carb heat, just because the cable could
break?

Do you avoid adjusting the mixture, just because the cable
could break?

No because I can make a safe no power landing. Planes made to fly.


Do you avoid making turns, just because the ailerons
could get stuck?

No because I can still turn the airplane with rudder. Planes made to
fly.


No, of course not. Those are all things that are done as a normal
pilot input during any various part of a flight. Likewise, if there's
call to lower or raise the gear, the pilot should do that, rather than
worrying that the act of using some installed equipment on the plane
might break that equipment.



So with all your examples having pretty well defined backups and
emergency procedures while remaining relatively safe...

Why would I over use a human made and maintained, piece of machinery?
that if fails I have but one option that has me hitting the ground in
the most awkard of positions.


If you are really that worried that you'll break something on the
plane, then you should rethink whether that plane is one you really
ought to be flying in.

Pete


Pete... im worried that everyday Ill crash my truck and its called
caution. Dosen't stop you from doing anything ,it teaches you to
respect the options you have.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
But why not understand that you trouble *single points of failure* as
little as possible.

If you want to avoid single points of failure, fly a twin. The 172RG has
numerous single points of failure.

Do you avoid extending the flaps, just because the flap motor could
fail?

No But I can make a safe no flap landing. The plane is made to fly.

Even in a split flap failure conditions?

Do you avoid using carb heat, just because the cable could
break?

Do you avoid adjusting the mixture, just because the cable
could break?

No because I can make a safe no power landing. Planes made to fly.

An on-airport gear-up landing is no more hazardous than an off-airport
gear-down landing. It might even be safer.

Do you avoid making turns, just because the ailerons
could get stuck?

No because I can still turn the airplane with rudder. Planes made to
fly.

Even if the ailerons get stuck in a deflected position?

So with all your examples having pretty well defined backups and
emergency procedures while remaining relatively safe...

No, they don't have "pretty well defined backups and emergency procedures"
nor are do they remain "relatively safe". Furthermore, they are simply a
few examples. There are plenty of other examples that would produce at
least as unsafe a condition as a hydraulic failure in the 172RG.

Why would I over use a human made and maintained, piece of machinery?

What's "over use"? Presumably, one is using it exactly as many times as is
necessary. No more, but certainly also no less.

that if fails I have but one option that has me hitting the ground in
the most awkard of positions.

"The most awkard [sic] of positions"? Gear-up landings are incredibly safe
events, at least compared to other abnormal flight conditions.

Pete... im worried that everyday Ill crash my truck and its called
caution. Dosen't stop you from doing anything ,it teaches you to
respect the options you have.

Respecting the options you have includes availing yourself of them. If the
right thing to do is to change the gear position, then you do it. You don't
worry that the hydraulic system will lose all its fluid.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:



Ok you win... Im not gonna try to argue your points when you just change
the points after they are all defeated.

Sounds likke you have full faith and confidence in the no-gear landing and
you even consider it safe. (certainly necessary at unfortunate times but
not safe)..how can you debate someone with that thought process, sorry I
cannot...

So cycle your retractable gear, in the pattern, over and over again.. hell
make a game out of it... see if who among your friends can cycle it the
most amount of times, its only a machine... Take care and let out a big
WHOOOOOO WHoOOt when landing so I can be sure to stay clear.

idiot

-Doug

"Doug" wrote in message
...
[...]
idiot

Your opinion of me doesn't matter one bit. However, by expressing it that
way, you have certainly proved once and for all just what kind of person YOU
really are.