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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: And you know the software is "poorly-tested" how? Decades of software engineering. Thorough testing is a mathematical impossibility (or, more specifically, it is "computationally infeasible"). Bull****. You haven't a clue what goes on inside any particular company. The system does not fly the airplane and is not an autopilot. It "senses that the pilot has lost control" and recovers. Do you want an airplane that "senses" that you've "lost control" and "recovers"? It could be handy under certain circumstances. You might want a bus with an automatic system to keep it from drifting into opposing traffic, but would you want a sports car that tries to keep you in your lane whenever it "senses" that you might be moving out of it? What's the point of operating a vehicle for fun if it's going to watch over your shoulder and try to take over every time you exercise your freedom to drive as you see fit? And yet once again the point sails right over the top of your clueless head. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: It could be handy under certain circumstances. Such as? For a hobby pilot, remember. Define "hobby pilot". I've heard of recreational, light sport, private, and commercial pilots, but never "hobby pilots". Is this a pilot class in France? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:38 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 05:34 AM |