REFLECTOR: Odyssey Battery

[lawrence epstein]

As someone who flies IFR regularly, I would consider an alternator failure 
an emergency and likely declare  it so and land at the first REASONABLE 
opportunity. That having been said, the more juice in the battery means more 
time with all the goodies that make that flying reasonably safe, functioning 
normally and therefore the more "reasonable" landing opportunites you will 
have. I would not pass over an airport (with emergency facilities if 
necessary) that had a precision approach and was above minimums or the 
opportunity to get to VFR conditons, but as said earlier, those conditions 
may be quite a distance away.

Larry E.

>From: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb at alejandra.net>
>Reply-To: Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list <reflector at tvbf.org>
>To: "'Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list'" <reflector at tvbf.org>
>Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: Odyssey Battery
>Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 05:32:30 -0700
>
>This is a good discussion and one I've been pondering. I like Bob Nuckolls
>idea of having more electrons available in the battery than fuel in the
>tanks, it leaves you with the most options. When you're out of gas you're
>definitely going to have to land somewhere soon, but...I'm not sure I'd 
>make
>the conscious decision to carry on to my planned destination on battery
>power alone and possibly passing potential landing sites along the way, I
>think I'd look to land at the first available airport to find and fix
>whatever has broken. Am I being too conservative here? Just asking for a
>sanity check, no criticism intended for others who might make a different
>decision.
>
>Tony
>