Mark Willis wrote:

> Part of my bias is that, having done Search flying here in Washington
> State, I know how few and far between the good safe landing sites are
> when up in the Cascades;  It'd be a lot less critical in some states <G>

Many years ago, I did search & rescue flying in the Mississippi delta on and off
for about 17 years, mostly in a J-3.  We have a LOT more landing sites than you
do.  In fact, at typical cruising altitude, we are generally within gliding range
of at least 2 airports, sometimes more.  Even so, I still have more landings and
takeoffs off-airport than I do on.  We were usually looking for floaters rather
than downed pilots.  Re mods for general aviation, I am a strong believer in the
STC process and have one under review by the FAA at the moment, with more in the
mill.  My point is that these STC'd systems are not that undependable.  But it
sounds like you're more bothered by goofy pilots than by the hardware problem.
Luckily,  I've not run into as many goofs as you have.

> My impression from Tony's post was that he didn't think that his circuit
> / software, was ready for flight-critical use at all - Look into what it
> takes to test things to flight-critical status, if you don't already
> know -

I know.  Don't really agree with you about the average difficulty though.

> Probably a lot easier to put such on a
> Sport/Experimental aircraft than a general aviation A/C...

Much easier, but not impossible.  Or you can simply put the GA craft into
experimental category for test purposes.  One of my friends has done just that,
making it far easier to do flight testing. Even then, the paper work is noticible,
but not monumental.

> I'd bet a LOT that STC has reams of documents that the FAA's reviewed
> (as do Slick and Bendix) to check the safety of those systems - Testing
> on a GroundProx system is pretty thorough, I know from doing it;  If
> Tony's system fails on a car, he'd pull over, park, and fix it - He
> doesn't need a Skyhook, unlike when flying a light aircraft.

Well, actually around here, if you have an engine failure you just land the plane,
walk to a road, hitchhike to a phone, and if there's no damage, call someone to
come fix the sucker and log it (helps if you notify the FAA and the sheriff too,
but isn't required if neither the plane nor any people or property are damaged).
There's something to be said for living in flat, open states.  But engines don't
quit all that often.  It's happened to me only twice in 35 years.  As an aside, in
J-3's the fuel gage is a wire running through a hole in the gas cap that sits on
the cowl boot in front of the windshield.  The wire has a hook on the top and a
cork on the bottom and the amount of fuel remaining is indicated by how far the
hook is sticking up in the air.  That little wire is a world-class dew collector,
running it right down into the fuel tank. So with a cub, first flight of the
morning you drain the sump, pick the tail up above your head, shake it (the tail,
not your head), set it down, and drain the sump again.  If you're paranoid (I am)
you do that a couple of times.