Which Ipad mini 2 yoke mount.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which Ipad mini 2 yoke mount.
Hi,
Just after some feed back on which Ipad mini 2 yoke mount to buy, the two units currently being considered are the RAM or the MY GO FLIGHT unit.
The RAM is an older but is approx $100 less than the FLIGHT item.
Any feed back would be great. Thanks.
PV
Just after some feed back on which Ipad mini 2 yoke mount to buy, the two units currently being considered are the RAM or the MY GO FLIGHT unit.
The RAM is an older but is approx $100 less than the FLIGHT item.
Any feed back would be great. Thanks.
PV
RAM
If you want to be able to have a removable yoke mount the MY GO FLIGHT won't do it. You really want to get it as close to the yoke as possible. mm's count.
Some of the MY GO FLIGHT glareshield mounts, etc look good. But RAM has the most flexible system.
You can get a lot of the RAM stuff from Johnny Appleseed which saves waiting from the US.
If you want to be able to have a removable yoke mount the MY GO FLIGHT won't do it. You really want to get it as close to the yoke as possible. mm's count.
Some of the MY GO FLIGHT glareshield mounts, etc look good. But RAM has the most flexible system.
You can get a lot of the RAM stuff from Johnny Appleseed which saves waiting from the US.
From CAAP 233-1 Electronic Flight Bags
7.4.2 All EFB mounts attached to the aircraft structure will require airworthiness approval (Subpart 21.M of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998). An unsafe condition must not be created when attaching any EFB control yoke attachment/mechanism or mounting device. For example, the weight of the EFB and mounting bracket combination may affect flight control system dynamics, even though the mount alone may be considered light.
7.4.2 All EFB mounts attached to the aircraft structure will require airworthiness approval (Subpart 21.M of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998). An unsafe condition must not be created when attaching any EFB control yoke attachment/mechanism or mounting device. For example, the weight of the EFB and mounting bracket combination may affect flight control system dynamics, even though the mount alone may be considered light.
I reckon your quotes MIHC encapsulate a lot of what is wrong with CASA.
1. CASA try and regulate via CAAP's which have no legal standing.
2. CASA essentially require a yoke mounted clipboard for paper charts (try passing an MECIR test without one). They are behind the play and showing a double standard between electronic & paper media.
3. If the beanhead that wrote this really thinks an iPad mini mounted to a yoke
then he / her simply fails to have enough flying experience to be competent in his / her role.
4. CASR 21.M? Really? Find me a structural part of the aeroplane within the required field of view of an approach chart. I reckon 9 times out of 10 if you fix an ipad mount to the cockpit its going to be to a non structural part of the instrument panel of an interior trim garnish or interior trim mounting tab. The reference to 21.M amounts to little more than scare tactics.
For most people, I think an iPad mount will be:
a) via a removable clamp on the control column ala the ubiquitous approach plate clips. After trying a few things, I like the RAM clamp & spider skeleton iPad mount best.
b) via something like a RAM ball mount on a removable instrument blanking cover.
c) via something like a RAM ball mount affixed to the side interior trim (once again non-structural).
I recently attended a Jeppesen chart clinic webcast. The presenter foreshadowed that Jeppesen will be out of paper based information completely within 5 years. You'd think CASA's role in promoting safety would lead to them assisting us transitioning to iPads, not putting impediments in the way instead of pretending that we still fly like it was the sixties. The future is inexorably moving toward us.
1. CASA try and regulate via CAAP's which have no legal standing.
2. CASA essentially require a yoke mounted clipboard for paper charts (try passing an MECIR test without one). They are behind the play and showing a double standard between electronic & paper media.
3. If the beanhead that wrote this really thinks an iPad mini mounted to a yoke
may affect flight control system dynamics
4. CASR 21.M? Really? Find me a structural part of the aeroplane within the required field of view of an approach chart. I reckon 9 times out of 10 if you fix an ipad mount to the cockpit its going to be to a non structural part of the instrument panel of an interior trim garnish or interior trim mounting tab. The reference to 21.M amounts to little more than scare tactics.
For most people, I think an iPad mount will be:
a) via a removable clamp on the control column ala the ubiquitous approach plate clips. After trying a few things, I like the RAM clamp & spider skeleton iPad mount best.
b) via something like a RAM ball mount on a removable instrument blanking cover.
c) via something like a RAM ball mount affixed to the side interior trim (once again non-structural).
I recently attended a Jeppesen chart clinic webcast. The presenter foreshadowed that Jeppesen will be out of paper based information completely within 5 years. You'd think CASA's role in promoting safety would lead to them assisting us transitioning to iPads, not putting impediments in the way instead of pretending that we still fly like it was the sixties. The future is inexorably moving toward us.
1. CASA try and regulate via CAAP's which have no legal standing.
.......
3. If the beanhead that wrote this really thinks an iPad mini mounted to a yoke
Quote:
may affect flight control system dynamics
then he / her simply fails to have enough flying experience to be competent in his / her role.
.......
3. If the beanhead that wrote this really thinks an iPad mini mounted to a yoke
Quote:
may affect flight control system dynamics
then he / her simply fails to have enough flying experience to be competent in his / her role.
As for the effect on flight system dynamics - I will show you one example where the EFB I saw provides the down elevator stop and I can point to one aircraft type where you'd have to do some fancy engineering to convince me that it is insignificant as a control system bobweight PRIMARY FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS
4. CASR 21.M? Really? Find me a structural part of the aeroplane within the required field of view of an approach chart. I reckon 9 times out of 10 if you fix an ipad mount to the cockpit its going to be to a non structural part of the instrument panel of an interior trim garnish or interior trim mounting tab. The reference to 21.M amounts to little more than scare tactics.
You'd think CASA's role in promoting safety would lead to them assisting us transitioning to iPads, not putting impediments in the way instead of pretending that we still fly like it was the sixties. The future is inexorably moving toward us.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Djpil,
Completely correct.
Old Akro,
Mechanical flight control systems (particularly those that have geared effects or tab controls) are very susceptible to bob weight. In normal conditions with an increased weight at the end of the lever arm, which is what the control column is, maybe nothing will happen. Get into a situation where large control inputs are required or inputed (e.g: aircraft upset; moderate to severe turbulence; pilot induced oscillations etc) then the force actuated at the elevator in particular could cause catastrophic airframe breakup.
I am not saying it will happen, all I am saying is that prudence and professional advice seems to me to be the way to go.
Completely correct.
Old Akro,
Mechanical flight control systems (particularly those that have geared effects or tab controls) are very susceptible to bob weight. In normal conditions with an increased weight at the end of the lever arm, which is what the control column is, maybe nothing will happen. Get into a situation where large control inputs are required or inputed (e.g: aircraft upset; moderate to severe turbulence; pilot induced oscillations etc) then the force actuated at the elevator in particular could cause catastrophic airframe breakup.
I am not saying it will happen, all I am saying is that prudence and professional advice seems to me to be the way to go.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok AU-501,
In uneducated test pilot speak, the effect of additional weight on the control wheel/ control column is to change the stick force per G.
In other words, the aircraft will feel like it has more longitudinal stability (stick free margin) but in reality, it will not. In systems that actually use a true 'bob weight', control force reversal has not been unknown.
So in systems that employ a 'weight', there becomes an incremental increase in the total control surface effect. H(mech)+H(aerody)+...
For light aircraft that generally do not have mass balanced elevators (CG of the surface behind the control surface hinge- obvious if this is the case with a light aircraft by the fact that the elevator droops down when the aircraft is at rest on the ground), the cumulation of these moments can vastly change the aircraft feel leading to a propensity to over control by some pilots in some situations.
I hope this helps you.
Oh, I forgot to add that years ago, from memory, Beech went out and did the stick force curves (and you can do this with a simple spring balance) again for the B33/35/36 series when they decided to put a stopwatch in the middle of the control yoke. So we are not talking about much additional weight here. Do not even start with these issues for an ultralight!
In uneducated test pilot speak, the effect of additional weight on the control wheel/ control column is to change the stick force per G.
In other words, the aircraft will feel like it has more longitudinal stability (stick free margin) but in reality, it will not. In systems that actually use a true 'bob weight', control force reversal has not been unknown.
So in systems that employ a 'weight', there becomes an incremental increase in the total control surface effect. H(mech)+H(aerody)+...
For light aircraft that generally do not have mass balanced elevators (CG of the surface behind the control surface hinge- obvious if this is the case with a light aircraft by the fact that the elevator droops down when the aircraft is at rest on the ground), the cumulation of these moments can vastly change the aircraft feel leading to a propensity to over control by some pilots in some situations.
I hope this helps you.
Oh, I forgot to add that years ago, from memory, Beech went out and did the stick force curves (and you can do this with a simple spring balance) again for the B33/35/36 series when they decided to put a stopwatch in the middle of the control yoke. So we are not talking about much additional weight here. Do not even start with these issues for an ultralight!
Last edited by actus reus; 8th May 2016 at 02:27.
So riddle me this.
Most of the Beechcraft Bonanza and Baron series of aircraft have the capacity to operate with dual control yokes as well as a single, 'throw-over' control yoke, some of which yokes have no built-in chronometer, some of which have an electronic built-in chronometer, and some of which have a mechanical built-in chronometer.
All of the weight of the chronometer (or lack of it) sits at a position in the centre of the control yoke, either at one end of a single 'throw-over' control arm, or at both ends of a dual arm for dual controls.
Those Mathey-Tissot Type 12 chronometers used to weigh quite a bit. A yoke without any chronometer obviously did not have that weight sitting at that position.
If all of those different configurations are 'safe', how could it be 'unsafe' to mount an iPad mini with a combined weight equivalent to a Mathey-Tissot Type 12 chronometer at the same position (assuming the mount arrangement is secure)? There are thousands of Beechcraft flying around in the USA with various configurations of electronic devices mounted to control yokes, without engineering approval.
I'm not saying it's risk free. I just don't understand why the presumption appears to be that pilots in Australia are stupid.
Most of the Beechcraft Bonanza and Baron series of aircraft have the capacity to operate with dual control yokes as well as a single, 'throw-over' control yoke, some of which yokes have no built-in chronometer, some of which have an electronic built-in chronometer, and some of which have a mechanical built-in chronometer.
All of the weight of the chronometer (or lack of it) sits at a position in the centre of the control yoke, either at one end of a single 'throw-over' control arm, or at both ends of a dual arm for dual controls.
Those Mathey-Tissot Type 12 chronometers used to weigh quite a bit. A yoke without any chronometer obviously did not have that weight sitting at that position.
If all of those different configurations are 'safe', how could it be 'unsafe' to mount an iPad mini with a combined weight equivalent to a Mathey-Tissot Type 12 chronometer at the same position (assuming the mount arrangement is secure)? There are thousands of Beechcraft flying around in the USA with various configurations of electronic devices mounted to control yokes, without engineering approval.
I'm not saying it's risk free. I just don't understand why the presumption appears to be that pilots in Australia are stupid.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume that Beech looked at both 'worse case' scenarios and deemed that both were acceptable and fitted within the criteria of forces that an average pilot was prepared to accept for a period of time, i.e. during manoeuvring, and that the force per G involved did not present an unacceptable risk of PIO etc.
You have a range of acceptable forces just as you have a range of CG positions.
The point here is that they 'knew' by test: for other aircraft how do you know but merely guess if the work has not been done?
Presumably there will be a SB relating to the fitment of those various configs? It would be back in the early sixties I suppose.
For light aircraft, particularly Ultra light aircraft, the aerodynamic authority of the flight controls easily overpowers the very small inertia power of the same surfaces.
Go higher (less air density; the 'squared / cubed rule'); go faster (flutter?) and stick force per G becomes very important.
As I have said, it may be fine for P.V's aircraft (whatever type it is) but prudence and some professional advice would not go astray.
I do not recall saying anyone was stupid by the way.
You have a range of acceptable forces just as you have a range of CG positions.
The point here is that they 'knew' by test: for other aircraft how do you know but merely guess if the work has not been done?
Presumably there will be a SB relating to the fitment of those various configs? It would be back in the early sixties I suppose.
For light aircraft, particularly Ultra light aircraft, the aerodynamic authority of the flight controls easily overpowers the very small inertia power of the same surfaces.
Go higher (less air density; the 'squared / cubed rule'); go faster (flutter?) and stick force per G becomes very important.
As I have said, it may be fine for P.V's aircraft (whatever type it is) but prudence and some professional advice would not go astray.
I do not recall saying anyone was stupid by the way.
I'm not going to challenge DJPil. He's forgotten more than I know.
But my point was kind of that CASA have never cared what clipboards, charts, notebooks, timers, reading lights, checklists, push to talk switches, pencil hoders, pencils, etc get attached to control columns. In fact, I would suggest that you would be in trouble for an MECIR review without a control mounted chart clipboard.
Its a bit precious now to get bent out of shape about 298g for an iPad mini plus 100gm for a RAM x-grip, 100 gram for an extention and 135g for a yoke mount = 633g.
If its unsafe to add this weight of iPad, its also unsafe to add this weight of paper, pens & checklists. CASA are using the introduction of new technology as a power grab.
And for the guy talking about Beech & throwover columns. Have you ever seen the stuff they make to attach to them???? It stops just short of a coffee machine.
But my point was kind of that CASA have never cared what clipboards, charts, notebooks, timers, reading lights, checklists, push to talk switches, pencil hoders, pencils, etc get attached to control columns. In fact, I would suggest that you would be in trouble for an MECIR review without a control mounted chart clipboard.
Its a bit precious now to get bent out of shape about 298g for an iPad mini plus 100gm for a RAM x-grip, 100 gram for an extention and 135g for a yoke mount = 633g.
If its unsafe to add this weight of iPad, its also unsafe to add this weight of paper, pens & checklists. CASA are using the introduction of new technology as a power grab.
And for the guy talking about Beech & throwover columns. Have you ever seen the stuff they make to attach to them???? It stops just short of a coffee machine.
Here is the corresponding FAA document:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...C%2020-173.pdf
The FAA do not require the airworthiness that the CASA CAAP does. Its a more balanced, insightful document. We deserve better from CASA. The CASA CAAP was published about 2 years after the FAA AC.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...C%2020-173.pdf
The FAA do not require the airworthiness that the CASA CAAP does. Its a more balanced, insightful document. We deserve better from CASA. The CASA CAAP was published about 2 years after the FAA AC.
The FAA do not require the airworthiness that the CASA CAAP does. Its a more balanced, insightful document.
Seems that some pilots here can sensibly determine that an EFB would have diddly squat effect and hopefully, would also sensibly determine when it might not be a good idea. The thing is that in Australia a pilot is not allowed to make that determination, neither is a LAME.
We deserve better from CASA.
