I think one could argue that a conventional carb is flawed or equally that a system that requires a pump and a backup pump to replace the unfailing force of gravity is flawed. Choice is a surely good thing, especially given different aircraft configurations and operating environments.
My experience would clearly not be typical in wet climates, but FWIW I have never experienced carb ice on either of my aircraft in the air, and just once during taxi.
It’s interesting how a flawed design becomes the accepted standard and then mandates all subsequent designs to include the same flaw. That’s progress! Hoorah!
That’s putting words into my mouth. I didn’t say all aircraft should have carbs, just that if a person wants to buy an aircraft with carb heat, that option shouldn’t be legislated out.
That doesn’t make sense. It just argues for differences training.
There seems to be a lot of things that don’t make sense in training: for instance the huge resistance to flying more than one type during your PPL training. I’m hardly super pilot but I flew three different types during my PPL training (C152, C172, Beech Musketeer – the latter was the 200hp fuel injected version) and I think it made me a better pilot by the time I took my checkride.
My flying school declined to get aircraft without carb heat control, as they considered it would be setting up pilots – most of whom will fly legacy types – to fail.
That doesn’t make sense. It just argues for differences training.
I understand where Jason is coming from but if its a local shool where most pilots will stay local and not be heading off to the airlines, them it is counter productive to train on a fuel injected Arrow because thats what the school likes, than a regular carburetted Archer (or their equivelants in the Cessna world) that they are more likely to fly post PPL. Fair enough if your post-ppl machine will be an Arrow or a SR22 etc.
4) AoA as mandatory instrument
bq. You mean, like a stall warner? I’m not sure there’s otherwise a good evidence base for AoA indicators in light aircraft.
To be honest I dont fully understand this either. I have seen the little gizmo that you can stick on your cockpit panel, but in a light aircraft in VMC to require a devide to beep at you, you have a) been ignoring the ASI b) the altimeter c) the VSI d) the sounds of the engine as the RPM reduces e) the fact there is more sky and less horizon f) the feeling of going upwards g) the sounds of a stall warner. In IMC, a,b,c,d,g still apply, but add e) prolonged lack of any instrument scan at all f) too much reliance on the A/P maybe.
I can appreciate that for a long IFR flight things may be a little relaxed and you arent doing a constant scan, particuarly if you have a very capable IFR aircraft with decent A/P and systems monitoring, but I still dont really get the need for an AofA meter.
The Stormberg on my C90-8F is quite a good ice maker. However the Fuel injected, FIKI, multi engine Seneca has around twenty times plus kinetic energy to dissipate than the SC, with a precarious looking shoulder strap – I will take my chances at 35 mph with a four point harness and good quality steel tubing if, and when, I can’t find a hundred yards of field to make a precautionary landing into.
In the outback where duct tape and spanners help you home, a carburettor is generally preferred.
Assuming the majority of forumites are ‘middle aged’ our respective mortality tables already dominate, statistically speaking, the risks of GA, driving a car that is not a passive battering ram, or commuting to work in London on a push bike. Although my risk appetite has become a bit more conservative as I no longer ski.
It never ceases to amaze me how pilots and owners themselves propose legislation which would again reduce GA by a significant amount of people.
1) design must not be subject to carb ice
Means in practice only injected engines. Grounds half of the current fleet or more.
2) whatever Icon seemed to have achieved with their un spin able wing
Would in practice end acrobatics.
3) mandatory terrain awareness in certified gps
Wondeful. So 80% of todays GPS installations become illegal and need to be upgraded to something new and expensive. 20k+ per airframe and GPS.
4) AoA as mandatory instrument
I suppose this could be done at a halfways affordable cost.
5) DI must read correct heading (always)
Another bombshell. This means a slaved gyro is mandiatory for all airplanes. Lovely.
Installation cost plus equipment cost start at 30k $ to be conservative. Basically this means to declare the Aspen PFD or similar mandiatory equipment.
6) fuel tanks inside protected structure
For what purpose? I am much more concerned about fusellage tanks than about wing tanks. If a wing tank leaks, it wil vent overboard, in the fusellage it turns it into a bomb
7) new autopilots fitted should have envelope protection – should not stall whilst ap flying.
That means there is ONE autopilot design available for retrofit which has preciously few STS´s so far.
8) engine failure statistics must be published !!
Why not yea. Apart from fodder for journalists who will call us all crazy to fly with such dangerous airplanes (as they do after every bent prop) it would probably prove how reliable those engines really are.
Most mods which you propose here would outcost the hull value 3 – 4 times over for older airplanes. Or were you going to ground them all for safety reasons up front?
We all are groaning about senseless regulation and then there we go and invent some market killers ourselfs…
…but what if the regulators got out of the way… the mods could be cheap. For example, Garmin G3X or Dynon Skyview are so much safer than the crap we’re forced to fly with but are banned. This is the problem.
I agree with the point about the regulators, there seems to be some very good and much cheaper non-certified equipment that could be used quite safely I reckon.
Though beware of the pilot who goes too far and attaches one of these to his instrument panel with a bit of blu-tack
http://www.desirethis.com/1849/garmin-d2-pilot-watch
It never ceases to amaze me how pilots and owners themselves propose legislation which would again reduce GA by a significant amount of people.
Differences in perception maybe ? Some have the idea that the ultimate flying experience is a high tech, brand new and shiny thing that brings you safely across the skies with the push of a “start” button. Then lands by pushing a “land” button. A fool proof concept where every safety aspect is handled by automatic triple redundant systems.
Others have the idea that the ultimate flying experience is a vintage Cub or a homebuilt or similar, a microlight where stick and rudder is the only thing needed and hand propping is just an added experience. The word safety does not exist, airmanship is all that counts.
Although the first scenario certainly is possible today, it would increase the costs by several orders of magnitude, and this won’t change anytime soon. And since most of us actually prefer the second scenario, this is where GA is headed.
Differences in perception maybe ? Some have the idea that the ultimate flying experience is a high tech, brand new and shiny thing that brings you safely across the skies with the push of a “start” button. Then lands by pushing a “land” button. A fool proof concept where every safety aspect is handled by automatic triple redundant systems.
I have a suspicion that within my lifetime most general aviation will be exactly that – you log on to Baidu maps, touch where you want to go and read a book whilst the autonomous vehicle takes you there in spectacular safety with no further input required.
Would any of us here actually be interested in flying a vehicle like that? Using it, sure. But flying, I doubt it. I just hope there will be some room for us in these future skies.
