>Bob,
>I've followed this thread with interest and learned a lot from it. Thanks.
>Last night I was having a discussion with an A&P who suggested what might be
>an exception to the "fuses are better than breakers" theory. A big jet over
>Seattle was having trouble getting the gear down. Selecting gear down would
>throw the breaker every time. Apparantly the pilot got the gear to go down,
>by holding the breaker in. Perhaps a breaker would be better for the gear.
>On the other hand, perhaps the emergency gear handle (in our case a trusty
>sears socket wrench) is better than the fire risk.
>Any thoughts?
Better late than never . . . found this item languishing in
one of my to-do boxes.
I think this story is bogus. Breakers for airplanes cannot be
"held in" to keep the circuit closed. They might be repeatedly
reset with each action getting more and more gear out into
the breeze . . . given all of the redundancy built into air-
liners, I'd bet there are a lot of better ways to get the
gear down than to risk fire or other damage by poking breakers.
I have an article wherein I suggest that the pumps and motors
are the "seconday gear extension system" with lots of features
that makes it more convenient to use. The socket wrench or other
stone simple technology should be considered the "primary gear
extension system" where low parts count and independence from
all other systems on the airplane makes it the most likely to
work when you need it most.
Bob . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com
|