Timeline for Why not have Pitot Heat always on?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2023 at 19:13 | answer | added | Sam Jarvis Jr. | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 24, 2020 at 17:43 | comment | added | Trenton | @SnakeDoc - that's one more component to fail, which could disable the heating element | |
| S Jan 19, 2017 at 18:32 | history | bounty ended | SnakeDoc | ||
| S Jan 19, 2017 at 18:32 | history | notice removed | SnakeDoc | ||
| Jan 19, 2017 at 18:32 | vote | accept | SnakeDoc | ||
| Jan 13, 2017 at 21:55 | comment | added | Frank | @Ralph J - I think one thing we often forget about with questions like this are human factors. Even if we assume there is some sort of perfectly ideal pitot probe that won't oxidize, won't fail after so many hours, etc... There is still the issue that people will tend to just leave the switch "ON" all the time. After all, the question is asking, "Why not always have it on?" This could cause serious injury to personnel who inadvertently touch the pitot probe on the ground, and it could also cause damage to the probe if you attempt to put pitot covers on it. That's at least one reason why. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 8:06 | answer | added | Gianni Alessandro | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 3:42 | answer | added | Frank | timeline score: 16 | |
| S Jan 12, 2017 at 19:09 | history | bounty started | SnakeDoc | ||
| S Jan 12, 2017 at 19:09 | history | notice added | SnakeDoc | Draw attention | |
| Jan 11, 2017 at 4:32 | comment | added | jamesqf | @SnakeDoc: But remember that a lot of GA planes where built when diodes were a kind of vacuum tube. And personally, I don't intend to be flying in conditions where it might be needed :-) | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 23:58 | comment | added | SnakeDoc | Not to mention, a simple 30 cent temperature diode could measure temperature of the element, allowing the system to cycle heat on/off automatically, ensuring it never overheats. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 20:48 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAviation/status/818922580782514176 | ||
| Jan 10, 2017 at 19:45 | answer | added | Romeo_4808N | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 19:37 | comment | added | kevin | @DanPichelman I've seen pitot tubes that are hot enough to change the metal's color on a B747 during maintenance. The engineer told us they were testing it, so apparently they don't burn out very quickly, as least the ones on airliners. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 19:29 | comment | added | Dan Pichelman | @kevin - true, but SportsRacer's answer looks like it may come close - "On the ground, without airflow over the pitot tube to cool it, it will burn out very quickly. By operating something like this when it's not needed you risk not having it available when you need it." | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 19:25 | comment | added | kevin | I agree, the linked question is the same, but apparently none of the answers exactly address it. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 19:16 | comment | added | Ralph J♦ | @DanPichelman That question talks about somewhat the same thing, but never really gives a definitive answer. On an airliner, we have the system on from the time we push back until shortly before approaching the jetbridge (don't want to risk fabric from the curtain on the jetbridge melting onto a hot pitot tube), so WE essentially always have it on. For aircraft that operate otherwise, I'd be interested to know definitive reasons why. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 18:51 | comment | added | Dan Pichelman | related: Why turn off pitot tube heating? | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 18:49 | history | edited | SnakeDoc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 18:40 | history | asked | SnakeDoc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |