Cirrus BRS deployment

[Dan Luke]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L10433EF7

[Dennis O'Connor]

Just reported on Aero News Net: Another Cirrus deployed it's chute when ALL
OF THE ELECTRONICS went out leaving the pilot stranded above an overcast...
The article cites recent maintenance of some sort... The issue here is
having all your eggs in one basket... I betcha the factory will say that it
is impossible for everything to fail at once - apparently they never met
Bubba the Mechanic... <and just wait till you have your FADEC go poop on
take off...>

Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies, life
is a bitch... Do not bet your life with a GA airplane that has a total
electronic panel... You still need a few steam gauges, and a spare
nav/com/ils on the back up battery, and at least one vacuum gyro...

denny

[Dan Luke]

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote:
> Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip
> thingies, life is a bitch... Do not bet your life with a GA
> airplane that has a total electronic panel... You still need a
> few steam gauges, and a spare nav/com/ils on the back up
> battery, and at least one vacuum gyro...

Don't Cirruses have backups to the PFD?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[mike regish]

Sounds like maybe this guy popped the chute because of turbulence?!

I really hope there's more to it than that.

mike regish

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L10433EF7
>
>

[ISLIP]

yes they do, in the bolster just below the PFD

John

[Dan Luke]

"mike regish" wrote:
> Sounds like maybe this guy popped the chute because
> of turbulence?!
>
> I really hope there's more to it than that.

Hard to say from the article what the problem really was. But, yeah, it
does kind of sound like he might have panicked.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[C J Campbell]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> Just reported on Aero News Net:

ANN is the National Enquirer of aviation news. The pilot of this particular
Cirrus radioed for help, so his electrical system did not fail.

Might come as a bit of a shock to you, but Cirrus has backup instruments. So
do the new Cessnas.

[Dan Luke]

This from another report:

"Pilot Albert Kolk used his radio to call for help.
He reported that the fuel was not burning equally from the fuel tanks,

causing the aircraft to spin."

[Maule Driver]

Hard to know what to think except that the chute did work and did save some
lives.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L10433EF7
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Dennis,

You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an accident
causes.

> Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies, life
> is a bitch...
>

Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It doesn't
matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else. There's
nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
everybody had that mindset.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tony Cox]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It doesn't
> matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else. There's
> nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
> reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
> everybody had that mindset.

We have backup trees in the front yard which we can
climb into if the house becomes uninhabitable for some
reason.

[Bill Denton]

Assume you are in an automobile, boat, or locomotive with a glass cockpit,
and you have a total failure of the glass cockpit.

You close the throttle and/or apply the brakes and come to a stop. No big
deal.

But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
have a major problem.

Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam gauges:
a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they will
fail and what the failure points will probably be.

But with a glass cockpit, the only failure information we have is
computer-projected, we don't really know much about what their in-service
failure history will be.

Prudence would dictate not only that you back up an unproved system, but
that you back it up with a proved system.

Five years or so down the road, when we have some realistic, real-world
failure data, you will probably see pilots becoming more receptive to glass
cockpits. But until more service data is built up, a healthy dose of caution
is in order...





"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis,
>
> You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an accident
> causes.
>
> > Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies,
life
> > is a bitch...
> >
>
> Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It doesn't
> matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else. There's
> nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
> reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
> everybody had that mindset.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

Unless you're completely immersed in IMC, even a "total failure" of a glass
cockpit should be more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. And if
you're talking about those IMC conditions, then you already have some
complex systems in use that you rely on which could just as easily fail as
the glass versions.


"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Assume you are in an automobile, boat, or locomotive with a glass cockpit,
> and you have a total failure of the glass cockpit.
>
> You close the throttle and/or apply the brakes and come to a stop. No big
> deal.
>
> But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
> have a major problem.
>
> Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam
gauges:
> a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they
will
> fail and what the failure points will probably be.
>
> But with a glass cockpit, the only failure information we have is
> computer-projected, we don't really know much about what their in-service
> failure history will be.
>
> Prudence would dictate not only that you back up an unproved system, but
> that you back it up with a proved system.
>
> Five years or so down the road, when we have some realistic, real-world
> failure data, you will probably see pilots becoming more receptive to
glass
> cockpits. But until more service data is built up, a healthy dose of
caution
> is in order...
>
>
>
>
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dennis,
> >
> > You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an accident
> > causes.
> >
> > > Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies,
> life
> > > is a bitch...
> > >
> >
> > Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It
doesn't
> > matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else. There's
> > nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
> > reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
> > everybody had that mindset.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >
>
>

[Jim Fisher]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
Do not bet your life with a GA airplane that has a total
> electronic panel... You still need a few steam gauges, and a spare
> nav/com/ils on the back up battery, and at least one vacuum gyro...

A nice pic of the gauges included with all SR's:

http://www.wvfc.org/craft/508dk.html

There's plenty of steam gauges to go around in those newfangled things. The
glass cockpit simply paints a prettier picture of all of them.

--
Jim Fisher

[Peter Gottlieb]

Ouch, $210 per hour


"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> Do not bet your life with a GA airplane that has a total
> > electronic panel... You still need a few steam gauges, and a spare
> > nav/com/ils on the back up battery, and at least one vacuum gyro...
>
> A nice pic of the gauges included with all SR's:
>
> http://www.wvfc.org/craft/508dk.html
>
> There's plenty of steam gauges to go around in those newfangled things.
The
> glass cockpit simply paints a prettier picture of all of them.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Bill,

> But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
> have a major problem.
>

No, you don't. You use the back-up that is there by FAA regulation.

> Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam gauges:
> a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they will
> fail and what the failure points will probably be.

Uh, ever fly the airlines? They have years of experience with glass cockpits.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bill Denton]

My mistake: I failed to mention that this was a "no backup" scenario.

My intent was to illustrate the relative dangers of using a new technology
in varying applications, and to touch on the failure rates of mature vs. new
technology.

Sorry for my poor communications...



"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
> Unless you're completely immersed in IMC, even a "total failure" of a
glass
> cockpit should be more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. And if
> you're talking about those IMC conditions, then you already have some
> complex systems in use that you rely on which could just as easily fail as
> the glass versions.
>
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Assume you are in an automobile, boat, or locomotive with a glass
cockpit,
> > and you have a total failure of the glass cockpit.
> >
> > You close the throttle and/or apply the brakes and come to a stop. No
big
> > deal.
> >
> > But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
> > have a major problem.
> >
> > Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam
> gauges:
> > a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they
> will
> > fail and what the failure points will probably be.
> >
> > But with a glass cockpit, the only failure information we have is
> > computer-projected, we don't really know much about what their
in-service
> > failure history will be.
> >
> > Prudence would dictate not only that you back up an unproved system, but
> > that you back it up with a proved system.
> >
> > Five years or so down the road, when we have some realistic, real-world
> > failure data, you will probably see pilots becoming more receptive to
> glass
> > cockpits. But until more service data is built up, a healthy dose of
> caution
> > is in order...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dennis,
> > >
> > > You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an accident
> > > causes.
> > >
> > > > Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip
thingies,
> > life
> > > > is a bitch...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It
> doesn't
> > > matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else.
There's
> > > nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
> > > reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
> > > everybody had that mindset.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

The engine doesn't need avionics to run though, that was my point.


"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> My mistake: I failed to mention that this was a "no backup" scenario.
>
> My intent was to illustrate the relative dangers of using a new technology
> in varying applications, and to touch on the failure rates of mature vs.
new
> technology.
>
> Sorry for my poor communications...
>
>
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> t...
> > Unless you're completely immersed in IMC, even a "total failure" of a
> glass
> > cockpit should be more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. And if
> > you're talking about those IMC conditions, then you already have some
> > complex systems in use that you rely on which could just as easily fail
as
> > the glass versions.
> >
> >
> > "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Assume you are in an automobile, boat, or locomotive with a glass
> cockpit,
> > > and you have a total failure of the glass cockpit.
> > >
> > > You close the throttle and/or apply the brakes and come to a stop. No
> big
> > > deal.
> > >
> > > But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure
you
> > > have a major problem.
> > >
> > > Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam
> > gauges:
> > > a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when
they
> > will
> > > fail and what the failure points will probably be.
> > >
> > > But with a glass cockpit, the only failure information we have is
> > > computer-projected, we don't really know much about what their
> in-service
> > > failure history will be.
> > >
> > > Prudence would dictate not only that you back up an unproved system,
but
> > > that you back it up with a proved system.
> > >
> > > Five years or so down the road, when we have some realistic,
real-world
> > > failure data, you will probably see pilots becoming more receptive to
> > glass
> > > cockpits. But until more service data is built up, a healthy dose of
> > caution
> > > is in order...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Dennis,
> > > >
> > > > You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an
accident
> > > > causes.
> > > >
> > > > > Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip
> thingies,
> > > life
> > > > > is a bitch...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It
> > doesn't
> > > > matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else.
> There's
> > > > nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
> > > > reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
> > > > everybody had that mindset.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dave Katz]

For what it's worth, the SR22 that went down today was *not* PFD
equipped; it was an early steam gauge model.

[Bill Denton]

No, an airline will have years of experience with A glass cockpit, or
perhaps maybe two or three.

But I seriously doubt if any of them have any experience with a Garmin
G1000. And this is the rub: one vacuum instrument is pretty much identical
to the same instrument from another manufacturer in design, construction,
and materials. But it is quite unlikely that a Garmin glass cockpit will
bear any resemblance to an Avidyne or Bendix/King unit in design, or any
other under-the-hood feature.

I don't see this as being a problem, but we don't yet have any failure
statistics or any other sort of history for glass cockpits, and until we do,
some people will be resistant to the change. It's human nature.

Personally, FedEx me a medical and a half million bucks and see how fast I
end up with a Mooney Ovation with the Garmin G1000 in my backyard....


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Bill,
>
> > But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
> > have a major problem.
> >
>
> No, you don't. You use the back-up that is there by FAA regulation.
>
> > Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam
gauges:
> > a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they
will
> > fail and what the failure points will probably be.
>
> Uh, ever fly the airlines? They have years of experience with glass
cockpits.
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Peter R.]

Jim Fisher wrote:

> A nice pic of the gauges included with all SR's:
>
> http://www.wvfc.org/craft/508dk.html
>
> There's plenty of steam gauges to go around in those newfangled things. The
> glass cockpit simply paints a prettier picture of all of them

That's not Cirrus' new glass cockpit. The new one looks like this
(third row down, second picture):

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/gallery/


--
Peter

[Dave]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
> Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies, life
> is a bitch... Do not bet your life with a GA airplane that has a total
> electronic panel... You still need a few steam gauges, and a spare
> nav/com/ils on the back up battery, and at least one vacuum gyro...
>

I guess all the new Boeings, Airbuses and bizjets should still be
exclusively using steam guages too, then, huh?

The old timers have to get with it. The last 10 years have shown more
leaps and bounds in aviation technology than the previous 40.
Technology is good when used appropriately. The parachute is a
perfect example.

[ISLIP]

>That's not Cirrus' new glass cockpit. The new one looks like this
>(third row down, second picture):

Right. It shows airspeed, artifrical horizon & altitude. That, plus a radio,
should be enough for a reasonalby competent pilot.
So, what's the bias against PFD'S?

John

[C J Campbell]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
m...
> Hard to know what to think except that the chute did work and did save
some
> lives.

Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. Hard to tell if any lives were in danger
in the first place.

[Thomas Borchert]

Islip,

> So, what's the bias against PFD'S?
>

It's imaginary.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cub Driver]

>ANN is the National Enquirer of aviation news. The pilot of this particular
>Cirrus radioed for help, so his electrical system did not fail.

Nor did the Propwash say it did! See my post under another title,
quoting from the article.

The instruments failed "one by one", not the electrical system.

I enjoy the heck out of Propwash, and read it every morning in the
form of an email newsletter. (Skip through it, I should say; there's
too much to read.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

>Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam gauges:
>a history.

Amen. I don't even particularly care for the digital stuff in my Honda
Accord. I don't fully trust an odometer that goes blank every time I
shut off the key.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

>The engine doesn't need avionics to run though, that was my point.

He couldn't see the mountains.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Ash Wyllie]

Dave opined

>"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
>...
>> Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies, life
>> is a bitch... Do not bet your life with a GA airplane that has a total
>> electronic panel... You still need a few steam gauges, and a spare
>> nav/com/ils on the back up battery, and at least one vacuum gyro...
>>

>I guess all the new Boeings, Airbuses and bizjets should still be
>exclusively using steam guages too, then, huh?

One suspects that they have 2 pilots, 4 or more displays, a bunch of airdata
computers and several independent pitot-static systems. Just a little more
redundency than your typical GA aircraft.

>The old timers have to get with it. The last 10 years have shown more
>leaps and bounds in aviation technology than the previous 40.
>Technology is good when used appropriately. The parachute is a
>perfect example.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Thomas Borchert]

Cub,

> I don't even particularly care for the digital stuff in my Honda
> Accord.
>

so why do you drive one, and not a 58 Chevy?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Fisher]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
> Cthulhu for President!
> Why vote for a lesser evil?

Snicker!

--
Jim Fisher

[[email protected]]

On 11 Apr 2004 18:35:29 -0700, (Dave) wrote:

>"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
>> Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies, life
>> is a bitch... Do not bet your life with a GA airplane that has a total
>> electronic panel... You still need a few steam gauges, and a spare
>> nav/com/ils on the back up battery, and at least one vacuum gyro...
>>
>
>I guess all the new Boeings, Airbuses and bizjets should still be
>exclusively using steam guages too, then, huh?

I seriously doubt if a Cirrus (or any other "GA airplane") could leave
the ground hauling around the hardware needed to keep all the glass
lit in a "new Boeings, Airbuses", not to mention the hardware required
to drive the multiple bus electrical system, or the redundant power
sources.

Speaking from personal experience with "new" "bizjets", it ain't gonna
happen either.

>The old timers have to get with it. The last 10 years have shown more
>leaps and bounds in aviation technology than the previous 40.
>Technology is good when used appropriately. The parachute is a
>perfect example.

In proven EFIS primary instrumentation/avionics, the "last 10 years"
has been spent improving upon working knowledge derived from the
"previous 40" years. The number of giant leaps has truly been a series
of tens of thousands of baby steps, with repeated set-backs and
failures.

Talk to any major avionics company's service engineering staff that
has been involved with integrating a proven, working system into a
new/different/modified airframe. Read the trade rags about how
avionics integration has held up certification of "new" aircraft
designs.

I do agree that "technology is good when used appropriately", and I
have all the respect in the world for the companies involved in
pioneering GA "glass" technology.

But I seriously doubt that these companies have the depth of
real-world millions-of-hours-in-the-air experience that a Honeywell or
a Rockwell Collins (just for example) does.

Or staying strictly in GA, Cirrus's answer to the redundant electrical
system w/battery back-up vs. the hours spent flying behind essentially
single bus electrical systems (also with limited battery back-up)
co-existing along with instrument vacuum/pressure systems.

I am not saying it is "bad", I am simply saying that it is un-proven
in the real in-the-air world.

TC

[[email protected]]

Well duh, you have to switch tanks in the Cirrus periodically - this is
my only major beef about the airplane, in terms of unnecessary workload.

If he was waiting for the L & R gas gauges to equal out, he would've
waited a long long time.

Dave Blevins


On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:58:59 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>This from another report:
>
>"Pilot Albert Kolk used his radio to call for help.
>He reported that the fuel was not burning equally from the fuel tanks,
>
> causing the aircraft to spin."
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Ash Wyllie wrote:
> One suspects that they have 2 pilots, 4 or more displays, a bunch of airdata
> computers and several independent pitot-static systems. Just a little more
> redundency than your typical GA aircraft.

But if you look at the screensh^W photographs of the Cirrus panel,
you'll see not only the glass, but underneath, a normal AI gyro,
mechanical altimeter and airspeed.

That's more redundancy than most IFR-equipped steam gauge GA aircraft
have. Most steam gauge IFR-equipped GA aircraft also put the most useful
gyros (AI and DI) on a very unreliable vacuum pump, leaving the TC as
the more reliably-powered unit. (Anecdotally, more pilots seem to have
experienced a vacuum failure than an electrical failure, and personal
experience seems to bear this out).

Personally, I feel lust over that Cirrus panel. If I had the money, a
Cirrus would definitely be in the running in aircraft I'd be looking at.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Peter R.]

Dylan Smith ) wrote:

> Personally, I feel lust over that Cirrus panel. If I had the money, a
> Cirrus would definitely be in the running in aircraft I'd be looking at.

The Garmin G1000 glass panel, found in the new C182s, C206s, and now in the
upper-end Mooney models, is actually a more feature-rich glass cockpit that
allows the AI to be reset while the aircraft is in motion, unlike the
Avidine in the Cirrus that needs the aircraft to sit stationary on the
ground for three minutes. The G1000 also has the GPS incorporated into
its system, unlike the Avidine that requires a separately installed GPS.

I have read that Avidine has risen to the competition, though, and is about
to release their next generation glass cockpit where the AI will also be
able to be reset in the air.

Nevertheless, I lust after the G1000. :)

--
Peter

[David Reinhart]

I believe the Avidyne system was just upgraded to allow in-motion resets of the
ADHRS system. I don't know if earlier versions can be upgraded or not.

Dave Reinhart


"Peter R." wrote:

> Dylan Smith ) wrote:
>
> > Personally, I feel lust over that Cirrus panel. If I had the money, a
> > Cirrus would definitely be in the running in aircraft I'd be looking at.
>
> The Garmin G1000 glass panel, found in the new C182s, C206s, and now in the
> upper-end Mooney models, is actually a more feature-rich glass cockpit that
> allows the AI to be reset while the aircraft is in motion, unlike the
> Avidine in the Cirrus that needs the aircraft to sit stationary on the
> ground for three minutes. The G1000 also has the GPS incorporated into
> its system, unlike the Avidine that requires a separately installed GPS.
>
> I have read that Avidine has risen to the competition, though, and is about
> to release their next generation glass cockpit where the AI will also be
> able to be reset in the air.
>
> Nevertheless, I lust after the G1000. :)
>
> --
> Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> allows the AI to be reset while the aircraft is in motion, unlike the
> Avidine in the Cirrus that needs the aircraft to sit stationary on the
> ground for three minutes.
>

Not anymore. Latest version of the Avidyne allows motion during
alignment.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

Thomas Borchert ) wrote:

> Not anymore. Latest version of the Avidyne allows motion during
> alignment.

Didn't make it to the next paragraph in my post, eh? ;-)


--
Peter