This is an interesting discussion.
If the aircraft wiring has been well designed and installed and if the
correctly rated breaker (or fuse) has been installed to protect the
desired equipment, then it is surely reasonable to suppose that the
only time the breaker would pop, or the fuse blow, is if something has
failed. No amount of in-flight fiddling is going to repair a shorted or
broken wire, nor replace a failed capacitor, resistor or semiconductor
(dare I mention Rotax/Ducati Regulator? ..... best not perhaps).
Re-setting a popped breaker without identifying why it popped is surely
asking for trouble. Do you wait for the first signs of smoke before
finally getting the message?
The only thing a pilot can do is recognise that a particular service has
gone down and, depending on flight criticality, divert or continue.
The only time to investigate the problem will be when you are safely
down as the cause will almost invariably be in an inaccessible place.
Popped breakers are easy to spot, but fuses are not immediately obvious
- unless you have chosen the ones that Rowland has used which
incorporate a "failure" LED.
This does of course require them to be mounted where you can see them
.......which brings us back to the OP.
Nigel
On 07/04/2014 13:42, David Joyce wrote:
> <davidjoyce@doctors.org.uk>
>
> Rowland, I don't dispute the electrical safety. It is just the
> distraction of having to dig around to make a diagnosis and alter any
> circuitry rather than having it plain obvious, right under your nose.
> I am strongly of the opinion that anything that increases the
> workload/distraction factor in an emergency is a thoroughly bad thing
> and leads to a lot of stall/spin deaths.
> Regards, David
>
>
> Rowland Carson <rowlandcarson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <rowlandcarson@gmail.com>
>>
>> On 7 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Brian Davies wrote:
>>
>>> You make a very good point. The only electrical incident I have
>>> experienced on my aircraft was a generator overvolt trip just after
>>> coasting out over the Channel. After a careful check and a reset of
>>> the circuit breaker I was able to proceed without any drama. The
>>> alternative, with a fuse not readily accessible, would have been a
>>> turn back to the airfield/refiling flight plan, revised GAR arrival
>>> time etc. etc.
>>>
>>> The safety aspects are even more important..
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
>>> Joyce
>>> Sent: 07 April 2014 10:16
>>> To: europa-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Europa-List: Parcel Shelf tray door access for fuses, CBS
>>>
>>> Tony & Rowland, I have a slightly different philosophical approach
>>> to this question. A fuse may well go as part of some in air failure
>>> just possibly accompanied by fire or smoke. Time spent working out
>>> what is happening threatens your safety. As with an engine failure
>>> serious distraction and stress can lead to speed decay and a
>>> stall/spin accident. So I prefer my fusing system to be out where it
>>> is immediately obvious what has blown and for this reason I
>>> recommend switchable circuit breakers, all labelled and readily
>>> visible. They have the added benefit of readily allowing switching
>>> off of circuits to deal with emergencies such as regulator failure.
>>> Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
>>
>> David, Brian - thanks for your comments. I've tried to do simple
>> Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (FMEA) on both types of circuit
>> protection remembering that I'll be trying to fly the aeroplane at
>> the same time. My planned "mission profile" is such that a failure of
>> any single electrical item should not compromise flight safety, and
>> in this I agree with Bob Nucknolls, who has a lot more experience
>> than me in aircraft electrics. (With 32 years' professional
>> experience in electronic research I feel I also know a bit about the
>> "electrics" aspect if not the "aircraft" aspect.) See the following
>> postings:
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fuseorcb.html
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fusvsbkr.html
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/fusvbkr2.html
>>
>> You'll see there are strong arguments (& feelings!) on both sides. I
>> can only say in the light of my own knowledge that I took time over
>> my choice and feel comfortable with it.
>>
>> in friendship
>>
>> Rowland
>>
>> | Rowland Carson ... that's Rowland with a 'w' ...
>> | <rowlandcarson@gmail.com> http://www.rowlandcarson.org.uk
>> | Skype, Twitter: rowland_carson Facebook: Rowland Carson
>> | pictures: http://picasaweb.google.com/rowlandcarson
>>
>>
>>
>> Un/Subscription,
>> Forums!
>> Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|