Glass Panel Failure Rate?

[Eric Rood]

This is an interesting statement contained in the NTSB prliminary
accident report of the SR22 that crashed in Florida this past January.

"According to maintenance records, the PFD had been replaced on June 4,
2004, at 12.2 hours, on September 14, 2004, at 55.2 hours, and on
December 20, 2004, at 80.6 hours."

[Thomas Borchert]

Eric,

> "According to maintenance records, the PFD had been replaced on June 4,
> 2004, at 12.2 hours, on September 14, 2004, at 55.2 hours, and on
> December 20, 2004, at 80.6 hours."
>

It would be way more interesting if they said why.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Helen Woods]

Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where
all the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't
ever delaminate no matter what color I paint them...

Helen

[Morgans]

"Helen Woods" > wrote in message
...
> Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
> flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where
> all the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't
> ever delaminate no matter what color I paint them...
>
> Helen

But you will get into a single engine airplane, where there is a single
point of failure, called an engine? Your statement is not logical.

You should be wary of getting into an airplane made of a structure that does
not have a set of failure modes that are completely understood. Fiberglass
airplanes do have a failure mode of weakening from overheating due to paint
color, which is understood. No need to be afraid, there. Aluminum has a
metal fatigue problem. Afraid to get in them? Nope, cause the failure
modes are understood.

You should be wary of getting into an airplane that does not have redundancy
in the electrical system, when the instruments are all electric. The glass
panel is not a problem, if it has a long period between failures that has
been demonstrated. I would say, after the second failure, all of the
electrical system, and all of the sensors should have been replaced, as it
was not the display with the problem. This assumes that the display has
already demonstrated a long time between failures, which I am quite sure has
been done.

Risk assessment, and mitigation, is the name of the game.
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Helen Woods" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
> > flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where
> > all the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't
> > ever delaminate no matter what color I paint them...
> >
> > Helen
>
> But you will get into a single engine airplane, where there is a single
> point of failure, called an engine? Your statement is not logical.

Sure it is. Her tactic is called risk-minimization.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Don Hammer]

Still have revisionary modes on the other display(s) and a set of iron
gages for backup. Heard this same silly stuff years ago when we went
from G-III to G-IV. The reality is when the juice goes away all you
are looking at on the iron gages is flags anyway and you are back to
standbys with their own power supply. What's the diff?

Gliders have been using very long and thin wings made of glass and
carbon for at least 25 years. Never heard of one having a wing
failure. In that time, how many Bonanza's and Malibu's have rained
out of the clouds? Virtually all new aircraft such as Gulfstreams'
G-550 have carbon flight controls and fairings. They've put an
arbitrary service life on them because the government says you have
to, but they don't work harden, so they haven't been able to wear them
out on a test stand. BTW - you can paint them any color you want
because they use high temp pre-pregs that are cured with heat in an
autoclave.

[Roger]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:18:05 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Eric,
>
>> "According to maintenance records, the PFD had been replaced on June 4,
>> 2004, at 12.2 hours, on September 14, 2004, at 55.2 hours, and on
>> December 20, 2004, at 80.6 hours."
>>
>
>It would be way more interesting if they said why.

Couldn't see through the foot print in the middle of the screen?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:44:15 -0500, Helen Woods
> wrote:

>Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
>flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where
>all the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't
>ever delaminate no matter what color I paint them...

I love plastic airplanes and glass panels...Can't afford either so
that's why I'm building the G-III.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Helen

[Roger]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:51:21 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>
>
>Morgans wrote:
>>
>> "Helen Woods" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
>> > flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where
>> > all the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't
>> > ever delaminate no matter what color I paint them...
>> >
>> > Helen
>>
>> But you will get into a single engine airplane, where there is a single
>> point of failure, called an engine? Your statement is not logical.
>
>Sure it is. Her tactic is called risk-minimization.

I would agree if you said risk-minimization rationalization.
As the failure modes are known with none showing as being more prone
to failure, it has to come down to *either* personal preference, or
rationalization.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Happy Dog]

"Helen Woods" > wrote in message

> Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
> flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where all
> the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't ever
> delaminate no matter what color I paint them...

OK You're old fashioned. Your reference to "a "plastic" airplane" suggests
that you're uneducated as well. As for "glass panel" avionics, the future
will leave you behind. I assume you never fly in newer commercial
airliners.

moo

[Blueskies]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message .. .
> "Helen Woods" > wrote in message
>
>> Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something
>> about flying a bird where all the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't ever delaminate no
>> matter what color I paint them...
>
> OK You're old fashioned. Your reference to "a "plastic" airplane" suggests that you're uneducated as well. As for
> "glass panel" avionics, the future will leave you behind. I assume you never fly in newer commercial airliners.
>
> moo
>

It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved...

[Morgans]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message

> It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved...

I'm not in the mood to back up my statements with cites, or links, but I do
believe you are incorrect.
--
Jim in NC

[Kyle Boatright]

"Helen Woods" > wrote in message
...
> Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
> flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where all
> the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't ever
> delaminate no matter what color I paint them...
>
> Helen

Nothing wrong with composites, IMO, but multi function glass panels are not
<yet> my cup of tea.

Why?

Too many eggs in one basket. If any of those things go bad, you've gotta
pull out the whole thing and send it back to the factory. Depending on the
repair backlog, there is no telling how long the airplane will be grounded.

With steam gauges, there are quite a few in my panel that I could legally
fly without. Also, I could get a replacement for any steam gauge in my
panel 24 hours, which means I'm not going to be grounded for days or weeks
waiting on replacement parts.

KB

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>
>> It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved...
>
> I'm not in the mood to back up my statements with cites, or links, but I do
> believe you are incorrect.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
>

You always have to have 'conventional' ground based navigation equipment on board and operational and at least one
'conventional' approach available at your alternate airport. You still cannot go 'only GPS'.

[Happy Dog]

"Blueskies" <

> It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved...

It is interesting that IFR without GPS is approved.

moo

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:13:38 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved..

Your statement is out of date since the implementation of WAAS and boxes
certified under TSO146a.

"...installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have
other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown."




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Roger]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:46:18 -0500, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:

>"Helen Woods" > wrote in message
>
>> Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
>> flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where all
>> the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't ever
>> delaminate no matter what color I paint them...
>
>OK You're old fashioned. Your reference to "a "plastic" airplane" suggests
>that you're uneducated as well. As for "glass panel" avionics, the future

Probably half of us who fly or are building them call them "plastic".
It just has a nice ring. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>will leave you behind. I assume you never fly in newer commercial
>airliners.
>
>moo
>

[Thomas Borchert]

George,

> Her tactic is called risk-minimization.
>

Well, it might be a try at that. But I can't see where she is examining
and judging the risks in a rational manner. So I'd call it acting on
prejudice.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Blueskies,

> It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved...
>

No, it's logical in terms of risk-minimization. Avoidong glass panels
isn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
om...

>
> You always have to have 'conventional' ground based navigation equipment
on board and operational and at least one
> 'conventional' approach available at your alternate airport. You still
cannot go 'only GPS'.
>

That waasn't true since WAAS waas approved under 146a!

Okay...GROAN!!
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[C J Campbell]

"Helen Woods" > wrote in message
...
> Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
> flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where
> all the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't
> ever delaminate no matter what color I paint them...

All the instruments do not rely on one type of system in a glass panel.
Pilots should know better by now. Knowledge of how glass cockpits work is
now a requirement for both the knowledge and practical tests -- IOW, if you
still think that they work on one type of system then the FAA thinks you
should not be a pilot.

[C J Campbell]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Helen Woods" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
> > flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where
all
> > the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't
ever
> > delaminate no matter what color I paint them...
> >
> > Helen
>
> Nothing wrong with composites, IMO, but multi function glass panels are
not
> <yet> my cup of tea.
>
> Why?
>
> Too many eggs in one basket. If any of those things go bad, you've gotta
> pull out the whole thing and send it back to the factory. Depending on
the
> repair backlog, there is no telling how long the airplane will be
grounded.
>

Completely untrue. If any of those things go wrong, you pull out the
malfunctioning module. To the contrary, you fly with all your eggs in one
basket now. I would not be surprised that you are flying a plane with only
one vacuum pump, no backup electrical system, and only one pitot static
system. Most glass cockpit planes have two vacuum pumps, backup electrical,
and backup static ports.

> With steam gauges, there are quite a few in my panel that I could legally
> fly without. Also, I could get a replacement for any steam gauge in my
> panel 24 hours, which means I'm not going to be grounded for days or weeks
> waiting on replacement parts.

It would be interesting to know what gauges you think you can legally fly
without.

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Eric,
>
> > "According to maintenance records, the PFD had been replaced on June 4,
> > 2004, at 12.2 hours, on September 14, 2004, at 55.2 hours, and on
> > December 20, 2004, at 80.6 hours."
> >
>
> It would be way more interesting if they said why.
>

I agree. The replacements that I have seen have been mostly for cosmetic
reasons.

[C J Campbell]

"Eric Rood" > wrote in message
...
> This is an interesting statement contained in the NTSB prliminary
> accident report of the SR22 that crashed in Florida this past January.
>
> "According to maintenance records, the PFD had been replaced on June 4,
> 2004, at 12.2 hours, on September 14, 2004, at 55.2 hours, and on
> December 20, 2004, at 80.6 hours."

It is about as interesting as if the NTSB report noted that the oil had been
changed.

[C J Campbell]

"Eric Rood" > wrote in message
...
> This is an interesting statement contained in the NTSB prliminary
> accident report of the SR22 that crashed in Florida this past January.
>
> "According to maintenance records, the PFD had been replaced on June 4,
> 2004, at 12.2 hours, on September 14, 2004, at 55.2 hours, and on
> December 20, 2004, at 80.6 hours."

It is about as interesting as if the NTSB had noted that the oil had been
changed.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > With steam gauges, there are quite a few in my panel that I could
legally
> > > fly without. Also, I could get a replacement for any steam gauge in
my
> > > panel 24 hours, which means I'm not going to be grounded for days or
weeks
> > > waiting on replacement parts.
> >
> > It would be interesting to know what gauges you think you can legally
fly
> > without.
> >
> >
>
> Attitude indicator (VFR), Directional Gyro (you CAN fly legally with
> only a mag compass), anything that needs electrical power to work
> (many aircraft do not have an electrical system) for starters.
>
> So what's your point?

I was wondering what he thought would fail on a glass panel that he could
not legally fly without. After all, you will still have backup gauges for
all the VFR required stuff.

[jsmith]

Not after you read the full narrative and learn about the multiple
altitude and heading deviations in a short period of time.

> "Eric Rood" > wrote in message
>>This is an interesting statement contained in the NTSB prliminary
>>accident report of the SR22 that crashed in Florida this past January.
>>
>>"According to maintenance records, the PFD had been replaced on June 4,
>>2004, at 12.2 hours, on September 14, 2004, at 55.2 hours, and on
>>December 20, 2004, at 80.6 hours."

C J Campbell wrote:
> It is about as interesting as if the NTSB had noted that the oil had been
> changed.

[Happy Dog]

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
>> "Eric Rood" > wrote in message
>>>This is an interesting statement contained in the NTSB prliminary
>>>accident report of the SR22 that crashed in Florida this past January.
>>>
>>>"According to maintenance records, the PFD had been replaced on June 4,
>>>2004, at 12.2 hours, on September 14, 2004, at 55.2 hours, and on
>>>December 20, 2004, at 80.6 hours."
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> It is about as interesting as if the NTSB had noted that the oil had been
>> changed.

> Not after you read the full narrative and learn about the multiple
> altitude and heading deviations in a short period of time.

So post it. It had better be interesting.

moo

[jsmith]

Go to the NTSB website and read it yourself.

Happy Dog wrote:
> So post it. It had better be interesting.

[Ash Wyllie]

C J Campbell opined

>>
>> Attitude indicator (VFR), Directional Gyro (you CAN fly legally with
>> only a mag compass), anything that needs electrical power to work
>> (many aircraft do not have an electrical system) for starters.
>>
>> So what's your point?

>I was wondering what he thought would fail on a glass panel that he could
>not legally fly without. After all, you will still have backup gauges for
>all the VFR required stuff.

What about the glass engine gauges?



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Blueskies]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>
>> You always have to have 'conventional' ground based navigation equipment
> on board and operational and at least one
>> 'conventional' approach available at your alternate airport. You still
> cannot go 'only GPS'.
>>
>
> That waasn't true since WAAS waas approved under 146a!
>
> Okay...GROAN!!
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>

Gotta have WAAS, not straight GPS. That WAAS what I waas saying. Interesting how they use the geostationary satellite to
relay the information...

[Blueskies]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:13:38 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>
>>It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved..
>
> Your statement is out of date since the implementation of WAAS and boxes
> certified under TSO146a.
>
> "...installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have
> other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown."
>
>
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It has to have the additional WAAS avionics goodies. Simple GPS needs the backup.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:59:29 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:13:38 GMT, "Blueskies"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved..
>>
>> Your statement is out of date since the implementation of WAAS and boxes
>> certified under TSO146a.
>>
>> "...installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have
>> other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>It has to have the additional WAAS avionics goodies. Simple GPS needs the backup.
>

Nice back-pedaling.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Morgans]

"Blueskies" > wrote
>
> It has to have the additional WAAS avionics goodies. Simple GPS needs the
backup.
>

You are picking nits. WASS *IS* GPS, MAN!

You said you could not use GPS alone for IFR. Yes you can, GPS with the
WAAS is STILL GPS!
--
Jim in NC

[Happy Dog]

"jsmith" >

> Happy Dog wrote:
>> So post it. It had better be interesting.

> Go to the NTSB website and read it yourself.

I did. It isn't. What is your point? You have made the claim that there's
something telling there (unless you're hopelessly obtuse) about the MFD.
There isn't. The OP correctly commented that the information about the MFD
replacement is as interesting as a note about oil changes. The pilot
reported avionics problems while losing control. (Note that this is the
subject of the thread. Since you're a relentless top-poster, I thought you
might need a course correction.) The plane was equipped with an altimeter,
attitude gyro and ASI. If they'd been replaced, would that be
"interesting"?

moo

[jsmith]

moo, look again at the title of this thread.
It says nothing about loss of control and crashing.
It has to do with the reliability and dependability of glass panel
instruments now being installed in light GA aircraft.
In this instance, the MFD was replaced three times within 80 hours of
flight.
I am sure they are under warranty, but isn't it a hassle to fly to the
avionics shop every 30-40 hours?
My question is, "What's killing them?" (the MFD's)
I suspect heat, lack of ventilation.
Look at the King stacks in the new Cessna's. A checklist item is to turn
the Avionics Master on and listen for the fan to make certain it is working.

>>Go to the NTSB website and read it yourself.

Happy Dog wrote:
> I did. It isn't. What is your point? You have made the claim that there's
> something telling there (unless you're hopelessly obtuse) about the MFD.
> There isn't. The OP correctly commented that the information about the MFD
> replacement is as interesting as a note about oil changes. The pilot
> reported avionics problems while losing control. (Note that this is the
> subject of the thread. Since you're a relentless top-poster, I thought you
> might need a course correction.) The plane was equipped with an altimeter,
> attitude gyro and ASI. If they'd been replaced, would that be
> "interesting"?

[Happy Dog]

"jsmith" > wrote in message
>>>Go to the NTSB website and read it yourself.
>
> Happy Dog wrote:
>> I did. It isn't. What is your point? You have made the claim that
>> there's something telling there (unless you're hopelessly obtuse) about
>> the MFD. There isn't. The OP correctly commented that the information
>> about the MFD replacement is as interesting as a note about oil changes.
>> The pilot reported avionics problems while losing control. (Note that
>> this is the subject of the thread. Since you're a relentless top-poster,
>> I thought you might need a course correction.) The plane was equipped
>> with an altimeter, attitude gyro and ASI. If they'd been replaced, would
>> that be "interesting"?

> moo, look again at the title of this thread.
> It says nothing about loss of control and crashing.
> It has to do with the reliability and dependability of glass panel
> instruments now being installed in light GA aircraft.

Now you're just being obtuse. You clearly connected the crash to a failure
of the MFD. WRT to the previous replacement of the MFD, you said:

"learn about the multiple altitude and heading deviations in a short period
of time"

Do you have an argument that the "altitude and heading deviations" were MFD
failure related? Well? What makes them "interesting" WRT MFD failure?

> In this instance, the MFD was replaced three times within 80 hours of
> flight.
> I am sure they are under warranty, but isn't it a hassle to fly to the
> avionics shop every 30-40 hours?

The above wordsmithing is known as "false dilemma". You enumerate negative
instances and then build an argument around it. Your posting history shows
a bias against MFDs. But you might want to stick to honest discussion
tactics if you don't want to ba called an idiot.

> My question is, "What's killing them?" (the MFDs)
> I suspect heat, lack of ventilation.

Of course you do. Got any evidence? Please don't ask other posters to
"look it up" for themselves.

> Look at the King stacks in the new Cessna's. A checklist item is to turn
> the Avionics Master on and listen for the fan to make certain it is
> working.

God I hope you're not a lawyer.

moo

[Montblack]

("jsmith" wrote)
> My question is, "What's killing them?" (the MFD's)
> I suspect heat, lack of ventilation.


This one ended up being the ground.


Montblack

[jsmith]

Well... that's one obvious failure mode.

> ("jsmith" wrote)
>> My question is, "What's killing them?" (the MFD's)
>> I suspect heat, lack of ventilation.

Montblack wrote:
> This one ended up being the ground.

[jsmith]

Happy Dog wrote:
> Now you're just being obtuse. You clearly connected the crash to a failure
> of the MFD. WRT to the previous replacement of the MFD, you said:
> "learn about the multiple altitude and heading deviations in a short period
> of time"
> Do you have an argument that the "altitude and heading deviations" were MFD
> failure related? Well? What makes them "interesting" WRT MFD failure?

So what do you want me to say, he wasn't proficient at partial panel?

>>In this instance, the MFD was replaced three times within 80 hours of
>>flight.
>>I am sure they are under warranty, but isn't it a hassle to fly to the
>>avionics shop every 30-40 hours?

> The above wordsmithing is known as "false dilemma". You enumerate negative
> instances and then build an argument around it. Your posting history shows
> a bias against MFDs. But you might want to stick to honest discussion
> tactics if you don't want to ba called an idiot.

Not at all, I'm all for them. I just don't accept that all the
installation bugs are worked out of them.

>>My question is, "What's killing them?" (the MFDs)
>>I suspect heat, lack of ventilation.
> Of course you do. Got any evidence? Please don't ask other posters to
> "look it up" for themselves.

Look at a manual and read the thermal operating specifications. Usually
stated as something like "-20 to +120 degrees F".

>>Look at the King stacks in the new Cessna's. A checklist item is to turn
>>the Avionics Master on and listen for the fan to make certain it is
>>working.

> God I hope you're not a lawyer.

So do I.

[Happy Dog]

"jsmith" > wrote in message

>> Now you're just being obtuse. You clearly connected the crash to a
>> failure of the MFD. WRT to the previous replacement of the MFD, you
>> said:
>> "learn about the multiple altitude and heading deviations in a short
>> period of time"
>> Do you have an argument that the "altitude and heading deviations" were
>> MFD failure related? Well? What makes them "interesting" WRT MFD
>> failure?
>
> So what do you want me to say, he wasn't proficient at partial panel?

No. Why don't you insinuate that the pilot was intoxicated? I want you to
explain your reason for intimating that an MFD failure was responsible. I
think you're blowing smoke.
>
>>>In this instance, the MFD was replaced three times within 80 hours of
>>>flight.
>>>I am sure they are under warranty, but isn't it a hassle to fly to the
>>>avionics shop every 30-40 hours?
>
>> The above wordsmithing is known as "false dilemma". You enumerate
>> negative instances and then build an argument around it. Your posting
>> history shows a bias against MFDs. But you might want to stick to honest
>> discussion tactics if you don't want to ba called an idiot.
>
> Not at all, I'm all for them. I just don't accept that all the
> installation bugs are worked out of them.

You don't need to "accept" it because NOBODY has said or intimated or
hinted, or likely even *thought* that they are. Strawman argument.
>
>>>My question is, "What's killing them?" (the MFDs)
>>>I suspect heat, lack of ventilation.
>> Of course you do. Got any evidence? Please don't ask other posters to
>> "look it up" for themselves.
>
> Look at a manual and read the thermal operating specifications. Usually
> stated as something like "-20 to +120 degrees F".

In Florida in January? Anyway, the manual probably says that about the
whole plane. Have you read a POH for a Cessna.
>
>>>Look at the King stacks in the new Cessna's. A checklist item is to turn
>>>the Avionics Master on and listen for the fan to make certain it is
>>>working.
>
>> God I hope you're not a lawyer.
>
> So do I.

At least you're getting a fam flight on logical fallacies. ;)

moo

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:34:17 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Blueskies" > wrote
>>
>> It has to have the additional WAAS avionics goodies. Simple GPS needs the
>backup.
>>
>
>You are picking nits. WASS *IS* GPS, MAN!
>
> You said you could not use GPS alone for IFR. Yes you can, GPS with the
>WAAS is STILL GPS!

I really don't want to get into the middle of this discussion, but
what do you think the ratio of installed WAAS nav systems to
enroute/approach GPS/RNAV systems is currently? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1
in 1000?

Do you need WAAS to fly a stand-alone GPS approach? Do you need
"conventional" nav gear present to fly a stand-alone GPS/RNAV
approach? For that matter, how does one determine if installed
equipment meets the requirements for a stand-alone GPS/RNAV approach?

TC

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:34:17 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Blueskies" > wrote
>>>
>>> It has to have the additional WAAS avionics goodies. Simple GPS needs
>>> the
>>backup.
>>>
>>
>>You are picking nits. WASS *IS* GPS, MAN!
>>
>> You said you could not use GPS alone for IFR. Yes you can, GPS with the
>>WAAS is STILL GPS!
>
> I really don't want to get into the middle of this discussion, but
> what do you think the ratio of installed WAAS nav systems to
> enroute/approach GPS/RNAV systems is currently? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1
> in 1000?
>
> Do you need WAAS to fly a stand-alone GPS approach? Do you need
> "conventional" nav gear present to fly a stand-alone GPS/RNAV
> approach? For that matter, how does one determine if installed
> equipment meets the requirements for a stand-alone GPS/RNAV approach?
>
> TC

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf

Down the right-hand column, they break down percentages of who has what
installed.

Not certain how current the info is...

Jay B

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote
>>
>> It has to have the additional WAAS avionics goodies. Simple GPS needs the
> backup.
>>
>
> You are picking nits. WASS *IS* GPS, MAN!
>
> You said you could not use GPS alone for IFR. Yes you can, GPS with the
> WAAS is STILL GPS!
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

What is GPS without WAAS enhanced avionics then? WAAS does not do anything by itself, but GPS does. It is the additional
error checking that WAAS uplinks to the avionics etc that makes it redundant and therefore capable of stand alone
operation... good discussion

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:17:58 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

snip
>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf
>
>Down the right-hand column, they break down percentages of who has what
>installed.
>
>Not certain how current the info is...
>
>Jay B

Kewl chart, plus it sorta indicates what I am thinking. They don't
even have a listing for GPS/precision approach equipment.

There are GPS RNAV/LNAV systems in service, and even a few GPS
RNAV/LNAV/VNAV systems in service, but currently not a lot of WAAS
systems.

TC

[Hilton]

Don Hammer wrote:
> Gliders have been using very long and thin wings made of glass and
> carbon for at least 25 years. Never heard of one having a wing
> failure.

There was a 'high profile' accidnet in Minden a few years ago. Two
well-known pilots I believe. I'm sure a quick search on ntsb.gov will show
it.

Hilton

[Dylan Smith]

In article . net>,
Hilton wrote:
> Don Hammer wrote:
>> Gliders have been using very long and thin wings made of glass and
>> carbon for at least 25 years. Never heard of one having a wing
>> failure.
>
> There was a 'high profile' accidnet in Minden a few years ago. Two
> well-known pilots I believe. I'm sure a quick search on ntsb.gov will show
> it.

It's still pretty rare though - we don't hear of glass gliders falling
out of the sky all the time. There are the occasional failures of
"traditionally" constructed (wooden) gliders too, last year a Ka-7 in
England broke up in level flight at 1000' AGL.

The only glass glider I've heard of breaking up got struck by lightning.

--
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"

[John Clear]

In article . net>,
Hilton > wrote:
>Don Hammer wrote:
>> Gliders have been using very long and thin wings made of glass and
>> carbon for at least 25 years. Never heard of one having a wing
>> failure.
>
>There was a 'high profile' accidnet in Minden a few years ago. Two
>well-known pilots I believe. I'm sure a quick search on ntsb.gov will show
>it.

Here it the NTSB report on that one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19310&key=1

The basic summary is the pilots over controlled recovering from a
spin. One of the pilots was the head of the National Air and Space
Museum and a high time fighter pilot.

We happened to have some USAF pilots visiting our CAP squadron soon
after this accident, and there was an interesting discussion between
a local glider CFI and the USAF guys. The amount of control movement
needed in a glider is much less then in a fighter, and the CFI
speculated at the time that the pilot over controlled it, causing
the structural failure. That is pretty much what the NTSB found.

The material the wing was made of made no difference in this accident.
The aircraft exceeded design loads, and failed.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/