NW_Pilot's Trans-Atlantic Flight -- All the scary details...

[Roy Smith]

"Doug" > wrote:
> Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
> this was the auxilary fuel tank! It created a condition that the Garmin
> unit could not handle.

I do write software for a living. From what (little) information is
available to us, it sounds like the G1000 got an unexpected sensor reading
and that caused a total system crash. That should never happen. No
external input to a program (especially one where human lives depend on it)
should ever crash because of bad input.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I know it could have gone the opposite
> direction really fast

.... and nobody would ever have known why.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> But the stock Cessna setup would never create
> this condition!

That statement is laughable. All it takes is a stuck gauge.

In this case the stuck gauge was caused (I'm of course Monday morning
quarterbacking) by the overpressure in the fuel tank, which was caused
by the aux fuel system. HOWEVER, there are many other sources of stuck
gauges, and to say that "it will never fail" is ludicrous.

Aviation systems are supposed to be =robust=, which means fault
tolerant. Even =many= fault tolerant.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[houstondan]

well, actually, the way i understand it the only reason he got out of
this alive was that he had a back-up handheld gps that pointed him to
an airport. it really looks like if he would have only had what garmin
and cessna put in that plane he very well may not have made it.

dan


Doug wrote:

(((( SNIP)))


There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
> very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
> and they are WORKING!
>
> Also keep in mind that the backup systems did work here. He was able to
> fly the aircraft on the instruments he had.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 Oct 2006 03:09:48 -0700, "Doug" >
wrote in . com>:

>Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
>this was the auxilary fuel tank!

First, let me say, that I am a fan of Garmin products; I'm
particularly impressed with their logical user interface.

I would characterize the aux tanks role as only _precipitating_ the
Garmin equipment failure.

>It created a condition that the Garmin unit could not handle.

Lacking evidence to the contrary at this time, there is little doubt
in my mind, that the Garmin design, with it's lack of redundancy and
over integration of systems, when faced with an out of range sensor
input took out all navigation, communications, and other systems
functionality. Such design strategy is gravely flawed, and borders on
criminal negligence.

>But the stock Cessna setup would never create this condition!

How did you reach that questionable conclusion?

>I think the real blame here has to be on the auxilary fuel design.

While the aux fuel tank system design has its shortcomings, for a
one-time use mission, it is acceptable, IMO. The true culprits are
the flawed instructions for its use, and the incompetence of the staff
who were responsible for its installation, as well as the FAA
personnel who certified it.

>There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
>very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
>and they are WORKING!

Be that as it may, they are a ticking time bomb, IMO.

>Also keep in mind that the backup systems did work here. He was able to
>fly the aircraft on the instruments he had.

That was a result of Mr. Rhine's foresight in equipping his flight
with portable devices to supplement the Garmin equipment, and the helo
that guided him through the instrument approach. Without that help
and equipment, it is very unlikely the outcome would have been the
same.

If you disagree, please explain how you'd have navigate 200 miles in
IMC, and execute an instrument approach with only compass, airspeed,
altimeter and attitude indicator.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:51:19 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>In this case the stuck gauge was caused (I'm of course Monday morning
>quarterbacking) by the overpressure in the fuel tank, which was caused
>by the aux fuel system.

I find it difficult to believe that the pressure in the wing tank(s)
was significant, but if it were, imagine what might have happened if
the fuel bladder(s) had ruptured, worse yet, if the hydraulic pressure
of the fuel against the wing structure had started popping rivets!

[Emily]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:04:27 -0500, Emily wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eh, as a CFI, I really don't care where I sit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well...you've a solution, then. You can be in a relationship with a
>>> pilot as long as he is not a CFI. You get right, he gets left, nothing
>>> remains open for discussion.
>>>
>>> I know several single male non-CFI pilots, if you're interested in an
>>> introduction. However, I can provide no guarantees that any would never
>>> achieve a CFI (which is a flaw in my little scheme, I admit).
>>>
>>> rec.aviation.piloting.matches anyone?
>>>
>>> <Laugh>
>>
>>
>> You guys are too funny.
>>
>> Within 100nm of DAL, please.
>
>
> So, you are a Texan?
>
Transplanted, at least.

[houstondan]

emily, emily, emily...yer 'sposed to say "no, is wasn't born here but i
got here as fast as i could". it's in the state constitution right
next to the recipe for jalapeno peanut butter!

dan


Emily wrote:((( snip )))

> > So, you are a Texan?
> >
> Transplanted, at least.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Doug" > writes:

> Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
> this was the auxilary fuel tank! It created a condition that the Garmin
> unit could not handle. But the stock Cessna setup would never create
> this condition! [...]

Given that the fuel vapor return line goes to the left tank, I wonder
what happens on these newfangled 172s if one flies off of the right
tank for quite some time.

- FChE

[Doug[_1_]]

The Garmin unit can handle a stuck guage. THAT has been tested and
accounted for.

Jose wrote:
> > But the stock Cessna setup would never create
> > this condition!
>
> That statement is laughable. All it takes is a stuck gauge.
>
> In this case the stuck gauge was caused (I'm of course Monday morning
> quarterbacking) by the overpressure in the fuel tank, which was caused
> by the aux fuel system. HOWEVER, there are many other sources of stuck
> gauges, and to say that "it will never fail" is ludicrous.
>
> Aviation systems are supposed to be =robust=, which means fault
> tolerant. Even =many= fault tolerant.
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily]

houstondan wrote:
> emily, emily, emily...yer 'sposed to say "no, is wasn't born here but i
> got here as fast as i could". it's in the state constitution right
> next to the recipe for jalapeno peanut butter!

Well, I'm still a born Southerner, so...

(who hates peanut butter)

[Jim Logajan]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:02:31 GMT, Judah > wrote in
> >:
>
>>"Montblack" > wrote in
:
>
>>> ("Judah" wrote)
>>>> Are you aware that the Jews have the monopoly on answering a
>>>> question with a question?
>
>>> You don't say?
>
>>> Montblack
>>> 5 of 7
>
>>Did you think that making a statement and putting a question mark at
>>the end counts as a question?
>
> Are we really playing the question game here on r.a.p.?

What kind of rhetorical question is that?

;-)

[news.charter.net]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon writes:
>
>> Good point. But diversity still helps, lest a design flaw in the one
>> sensor design triggers a design flaw in the one instrument design.
>
> Software requires diversity rather than redundancy. In practice this
> means having two or three or more software packages that perform
> exactly the same functions, but are written in different ways by
> different development teams. It's unlikely that they will all fail in
> the same way at the same time, because they are completely different
> internally. This helps make the system more robust.
>

A Man with one watch knows what time it is,
a man with two is never sure...

Al G

[Jose[_1_]]

> I find it difficult to believe that the pressure in the wing tank(s)
> was significant,

Ok, "overpressure" is the wrong word, but it pumped gas into an overfull
tank causing the fuel to go overboard and read "more than full".

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:01:50 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>
>> I find it difficult to believe that the pressure in the wing tank(s)
>> was significant,
>
>Ok, "overpressure" is the wrong word,

That is how the pilot described it, so I'm not so sure of exactly what
the situation actually was.

>but it pumped gas into an overfull
>tank causing the fuel to go overboard and read "more than full".

While the wing tank did lose fuel through its drain system, I believe
it stopped "reading" all together. Where did Mr. Rhine indicate in
his narrative, that it was "reading" more than full?


After switching to the aircraft fuel (from the ferry tank) strange
things started happening. The 100-gallon ferry tank went dry
after only 7 hours, burning 8 to 9 gallons per hour! Something
just did not add up...
[...]


Then, the G1000 started to go nuts, with the fuel indicators
displaying red X's. Next, I received a CO2 detector failure, then
GPS-1 failure!
[...]


When the G1000 got done rebooting, I found myself missing my
airspeed indicator and fuel gauges -- and it was now displaying a
bunch of other errors. Assessing my situation, I figured that I
had no fuel gauges, the G1000 is continually rebooting, possible
CO2 in the cabin, AND an apparent fuel leak!
[...]


As I grind closer and closer to Narsarsuaq, at about 60 miles out
they send up a rescue chopper, locate me, and guide me in, since
I am unable to make the NDB approach with the G1000 rebooting
itself. (The ADF display is tied to the G1000's HSI.)
[...]


[Day 3]
We finally figured out that the instructions for the ferry tank
were not correct, and really need to be changed before the company
installing the tank kills someone.


The problem was the ferry tank's fuel return line was over
pressurizing the aircraft tanks, causing fuel to vent overboard.
To prevent this, what needed to be done was to FIRST run the
aircraft's left tank down till it was almost empty, THEN turn on
the ferry tank.


The instructions with the ferry tank said only to "Climb to
altitude, then switch to the ferry tank and turn off the aircraft
fuel", then run it till the fuel level hits a mark on the ferry
tank's fuel level indicator. These instructions turned out to be
totally incorrect!


Even Cessna engineering was surprised that the FAA had approved
the instructions for the ferry tank setup, because it also caused
the G1000 to go nuts. Apparently the added pressure in the fuel
tanks pushed the floats in the fuel tank up, which got the Garmin
confused, causing an error that made it reboot. The loss of the
airspeed indicator was caused by fuel vapors entering the pitot
tube -- which also caused the CO2 detector failure!
[...]


[Day 11]
Then the tach started being erratic, saying that my RPMs were 4000
-- yeah, right! Then it went Red X. OK, Garmin & Cessna, you
need to have better quality control. After everything else that
has happened, this makes me not want to every own a newer model
Cessna, or anything with a G1000.

It's difficult to understand how fuel got into the pitot system, given
the placement of the fuel vent and the pitot mast. If the new
Skyhawks don't have fuel balders any longer, perhaps the pitot
plumbing was routed through the wing tank, and the increased pressure
was adequate to cause fuel to seep past the plumbing fittings.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:46:44 -0700, news.charter.net wrote:

> A Man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two is never
> sure...

That's why we need three: for total and utter confusion.

- Andrew

[Mxsmanic]

news.charter.net writes:

> A Man with one watch knows what time it is,
> a man with two is never sure...

Which is why some configurations have three separate systems.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug writes:

> Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
> this was the auxilary fuel tank!

No. What caused it was a design flaw in the G1000.

> It created a condition that the Garmin unit could not handle.

Because of defective design in the Garmin unit.

> There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
> very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
> and they are WORKING!

They are not working if they reboot, and apparently Garmin knows of
anomalies.

How such a mess got certified for anything is a mystery to me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:58:54 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

>> So when the Garmin system went down, other than HF Communications
>> provided by a portable transceiver, and the flight controls, the only
>> other functional instruments and operable systems you had were the OAT
>> thermometer, EGT, magnetic compass, attitude indicator, altimeter,
>> intermittent tachometer and airspeed indicator? No navigation
>> equipment, auto pilot, VHF communications, fuel gages, engine oil
>> pressure nor temperature gages? Have I finally got it right?
>>
>
>When the system went down the only things I had was My Portable GPS, HF Com,
>Portable VHF Com, Steam Attitude Indicator, Steam Airspeed Indicator, Steam
>Altimeter, Whiskey Compass! Every thing else was tied to the G1000 and was
>useless or not to be trusted as accurate in that situation. They don't even
>have a slip/skid ball in the thing when the G1000 goes blink that's
>intergraded also!

Thanks for the information.

Can you tell me more about the overpressure in the wing tank(s), and
the fuel entering the pitot-static system causing the loss of the
airspeed indicator? Here's all I have:

Apparently the added pressure in the fuel
tanks pushed the floats in the fuel tank up, which got the Garmin
confused, causing an error that made it reboot. The loss of the
airspeed indicator was caused by fuel vapors entering the pitot
tube -- which also caused the CO2 detector failure!

Has anyone figured out what happened to cause fuel to enter the
pitot-static system? Have you any idea of the magnitude of the added
pressure you mentioned? Where there rubber bladders in the wing
tanks?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:23:21 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote in >:

>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:02:31 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>"Montblack" > wrote in
:
>>
>>>> ("Judah" wrote)
>>>>> Are you aware that the Jews have the monopoly on answering a
>>>>> question with a question?
>>
>>>> You don't say?
>>
>>>> Montblack
>>>> 5 of 7
>>
>>>Did you think that making a statement and putting a question mark at
>>>the end counts as a question?
>>
>> Are we really playing the question game here on r.a.p.?
>
>What kind of rhetorical question is that?

What right do you have to question my question?

(Does the question game come from Roar of the
Greasepaint, Smell of the Crowd? Or am I
misremembering it entirely?)

Marty

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Doug writes:
>
>> Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
>> this was the auxilary fuel tank!
>
> No. What caused it was a design flaw in the G1000.
>
>> It created a condition that the Garmin unit could not handle.
>
> Because of defective design in the Garmin unit.
>
>> There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
>> very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
>> and they are WORKING!
>
> They are not working if they reboot, and apparently Garmin knows of
> anomalies.
>
> How such a mess got certified for anything is a mystery to me.
>
It would appear that applies to all aviation for you, it's a mystery,

[Jose[_1_]]

>>but it pumped gas into an overfull
>>tank causing the fuel to go overboard and read "more than full".
> While the wing tank did lose fuel through its drain system, I believe
> it stopped "reading" all together. Where did Mr. Rhine indicate in
> his narrative, that it was "reading" more than full?

He didn't - that was speculation as to the cause later on. With the
fuel "more than full", the sensors would be reading "more than full" and
sending that info to the Garmin.

The Garmin went nuts.

OF course, cause and effect has not been determined, but it's a
reasonable starting point for Usenet quarterbacking.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:
>>> Judah > wrote:
>>>> "Montblack" > wrote:
>>>>> "Judah" wrote:

>>>>>> Are you aware that the Jews have the monopoly on answering a
>>>>>> question with a question?

>>>>> You don't say?

>>>> Did you think that making a statement and putting a question mark at
>>>> the end counts as a question?

>>> Are we really playing the question game here on r.a.p.?

>> What kind of rhetorical question is that?

> What right do you have to question my question?

Who do you think you are that you can question my question of your
question? (Did I get that right?)

> (Does the question game come from Roar of the
> Greasepaint, Smell of the Crowd? Or am I
> misremembering it entirely?)

How would I know?

Didn't the TV show "Whose Line is it Anyway?" have a game called "Questions
Only" where the participants could only act out a scene using questions?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>>> but it pumped gas into an overfull
>>> tank causing the fuel to go overboard and read "more than full".
>> While the wing tank did lose fuel through its drain system, I believe
>> it stopped "reading" all together. Where did Mr. Rhine indicate in
>> his narrative, that it was "reading" more than full?
>
> He didn't - that was speculation as to the cause later on. With the
> fuel "more than full", the sensors would be reading "more than full"
> and sending that info to the Garmin.
>
> The Garmin went nuts.
>
> OF course, cause and effect has not been determined, but it's a
> reasonable starting point for Usenet quarterbacking.
>
What I find interesting in all this Usenet quartebacking is ignoring the
shoddy installation job of other panel-mounted devices:

NW_Pilot
"The chances of myself refering or using this company for tanking is slim
I
did not pick this company the customer did and the customer was not happy
with their services anyway they did a **** poor job at cutting the panel
when they installed the ADF and PS eng. entertainment system. (I could
have
done a better job with a hack saw and a drill) and the painting on the
Horton kit they installed looked like orange peal!"

I think its reasonable to think that some of the G1000's wiring or the
unit itself was damaged during this hack. Even attaching the power to the
ADF or entertainment system in a way that caused the power to the G1000 to
be flaky or intermittent could account for the drastic failure modes he
experienced.

Neil

[NW_Pilot]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug" > wrote:
>> Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
>> this was the auxilary fuel tank! It created a condition that the Garmin
>> unit could not handle.
>
> I do write software for a living. From what (little) information is
> available to us, it sounds like the G1000 got an unexpected sensor reading
> and that caused a total system crash. That should never happen. No
> external input to a program (especially one where human lives depend on
> it)
> should ever crash because of bad input.

I agree!

[NW_Pilot]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>
>> I'd prefer redundancy at both the sensor and instrument level if I was
>> flying IFR across the pond.
>
> It was a *ferry flight* in an airplane which was not supposed to ever fly
> over water again. You want full redundancy installed for one ferry flight?
> Ok, just don't ferry fly then.
>
> Stefan


Look where the plane went! I assure you that it is going to over fly water
again in IMC conditions!

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 5 Oct 2006 03:09:48 -0700, "Doug" >
> wrote in . com>:
>
>>Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
>>this was the auxilary fuel tank!
>
> First, let me say, that I am a fan of Garmin products; I'm
> particularly impressed with their logical user interface.
>
> I would characterize the aux tanks role as only _precipitating_ the
> Garmin equipment failure.
>
>>It created a condition that the Garmin unit could not handle.
>
> Lacking evidence to the contrary at this time, there is little doubt
> in my mind, that the Garmin design, with it's lack of redundancy and
> over integration of systems, when faced with an out of range sensor
> input took out all navigation, communications, and other systems
> functionality. Such design strategy is gravely flawed, and borders on
> criminal negligence.
>
>>But the stock Cessna setup would never create this condition!
>
> How did you reach that questionable conclusion?
>
>>I think the real blame here has to be on the auxilary fuel design.
>
> While the aux fuel tank system design has its shortcomings, for a
> one-time use mission, it is acceptable, IMO. The true culprits are
> the flawed instructions for its use, and the incompetence of the staff
> who were responsible for its installation, as well as the FAA
> personnel who certified it.
>
>>There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
>>very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
>>and they are WORKING!
>
> Be that as it may, they are a ticking time bomb, IMO.
>
>>Also keep in mind that the backup systems did work here. He was able to
>>fly the aircraft on the instruments he had.
>
> That was a result of Mr. Rhine's foresight in equipping his flight
> with portable devices to supplement the Garmin equipment, and the helo
> that guided him through the instrument approach. Without that help
> and equipment, it is very unlikely the outcome would have been the
> same.
>
> If you disagree, please explain how you'd have navigate 200 miles in
> IMC, and execute an instrument approach with only compass, airspeed,
> altimeter and attitude indicator.


The, Airport was not IMC just a thin layer About 2,000' thick around 10,000'
If you read it Was a spiraling decent to land the helo just kept me away
form the rather large mountains and gave me a visual fix to spiral around!
If it would have been bad weather an instrument conditions an instrument
approach would have been almost impossible.

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:

> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>
>> I'd prefer redundancy at both the sensor and instrument level if I was
>> flying IFR across the pond.
>
>
> It was a *ferry flight* in an airplane which was not supposed to ever
> fly over water again. You want full redundancy installed for one ferry
> flight? Ok, just don't ferry fly then.

I'd prefer it for all flights given the importance of fuel supply in an
airplane and given the fairly high rate of fuel exhaustion incidents. I
especially want redundancy with a system as fragile as the G1000 appears
to be.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Doug wrote:

> Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
> this was the auxilary fuel tank! It created a condition that the Garmin
> unit could not handle. But the stock Cessna setup would never create
> this condition! I think the real blame here has to be on the auxilary
> fuel design. There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
> very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
> and they are WORKING!

If an out of range sensor reading can cause the system to fail, that is
a design flaw pure and simple. The fact that it is never supposed to
happen is no excuse. Same thing happened to the Ariane rocket (Ariane 5
if memory serves) although the outcome was a little more severe.


Matt

[Doug[_1_]]

Yeah, and I'll bet that handheld was a Garmin....

houstondan wrote:
> well, actually, the way i understand it the only reason he got out of
> this alive was that he had a back-up handheld gps that pointed him to
> an airport. it really looks like if he would have only had what garmin
> and cessna put in that plane he very well may not have made it.
>
> dan
>
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> (((( SNIP)))
>
>
> There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
> > very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
> > and they are WORKING!
> >
> > Also keep in mind that the backup systems did work here. He was able to
> > fly the aircraft on the instruments he had.
> >

[Stefan]

NW_Pilot schrieb:

> Look where the plane went! I assure you that it is going to over fly water
> again in IMC conditions!

In the Arab desert? Ok, there's a lot more about Arabia than just
desert, I know.

But this is beside the point anyway. The point is, the buyer of a new
plane decides what instruments he wants to be fitted. If the buyer
decides he wants just the basics as a backup, then this is the buyers
decision and neither Cessna's nor Garmin's. And I do perfectly
understand if this buyer doesn't want to spend a couple of thousand for
instruments which might be useful just for the ferry flight. After all,
you knew this acted accordingly: You had an independant radio and an
independant GPS as backup with you.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting schrieb:

> I'd prefer it for all flights given the importance of fuel supply in an
> airplane and given the fairly high rate of fuel exhaustion incidents. I
> especially want redundancy with a system as fragile as the G1000 appears
> to be.

Ok, so you want the FAA jump in and require full redundancy on all
instruments for all privately operated light singles to be considered
airworthy? I'm not sure you really want this.

(Heck, I fly routinely with T&B, ASI, Altimeter and whisky compass in
clouds, with no Garmin whatsoever in the first place. Granted, not 200
miles over water and on no other mission than for the fun of it.)

Stefan

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:19:46 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote in >:

>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:
>>>> Judah > wrote:
>>>>> "Montblack" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Judah" wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Are you aware that the Jews have the monopoly on answering a
>>>>>>> question with a question?
>
>>>>>> You don't say?
>
>>>>> Did you think that making a statement and putting a question mark at
>>>>> the end counts as a question?
>
>>>> Are we really playing the question game here on r.a.p.?
>
>>> What kind of rhetorical question is that?
>
>> What right do you have to question my question?
>
>Who do you think you are that you can question my question of your
>question? (Did I get that right?)

Would I be stupid enough to fall into that trap?

>> (Does the question game come from Roar of the
>> Greasepaint, Smell of the Crowd? Or am I
>> misremembering it entirely?)

>How would I know?

>Didn't the TV show "Whose Line is it Anyway?" have a game called "Questions
>Only" where the participants could only act out a scene using questions?

Would http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2772527 be a link to
that very scene?

Marty

[NW_Pilot]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot schrieb:
>
>> Look where the plane went! I assure you that it is going to over fly
>> water again in IMC conditions!
>
> In the Arab desert? Ok, there's a lot more about Arabia than just desert,
> I know.

Wow look at a map dude!!!! Beirut, Lebanon is not just desert there is a lot
of water along it's west coast! Saudi was the alternate landing point but
they got me permission to land in Beirut, Lebanon that was it's destination!

Oh!!! That's another feeling in it's self landing in a place where you know
some surface to ground firepower is aimed at you by someone with an itchy
trigger finger :-)

[NW_Pilot]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Yeah, and I'll bet that handheld was a Garmin....


Nope, Not a Garmin!!

[Jose[_1_]]

> I think its reasonable to think that some of the G1000's wiring or the
> unit itself was damaged during this hack. Even attaching the power to the
> ADF or entertainment system in a way that caused the power to the G1000 to
> be flaky or intermittent could account for the drastic failure modes he
> experienced.

Good point.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Didn't the TV show "Whose Line is it Anyway?" have a game called "Questions
> Only" where the participants could only act out a scene using questions?

Did you enjoy it?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[houstondan]

NW_Pilot wrote:

> Oh!!! That's another feeling in it's self landing in a place where you know
> some surface to ground firepower is aimed at you by someone with an itchy
> trigger finger :-)


and you know that this nice shiny new american airplane is owned by
american evangelical christians and wondering who else might know that.


dan

[NW_Pilot]

"houstondan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>
>> Oh!!! That's another feeling in it's self landing in a place where you
>> know
>> some surface to ground firepower is aimed at you by someone with an itchy
>> trigger finger :-)
>
>
> and you know that this nice shiny new american airplane is owned by
> american evangelical christians and wondering who else might know that.
>
>
> dan
>

No the owner of that airplane was Muslim!

[g1000_eng]

1) All avionics software implements internal isolation to prevent one
part of the system from taking down another part.
2) A faulty fuel reading cannot cause the system to reboot. In addition
to testing every possible faulty fuel value, I've tested every
combination of faulty sensor readings related to this thread and am
unable to get anything out of the ordinary to happen. The picture of
the fuel sensor with the red X is correct behavior when a gauge is
fauly or giving erroneous data.
3) When the system reboots due to a software error, a very obvious
message with a very obvious color is displayed on the screen prior to
the reboot. Was this seen? I have seen no mention of it.
4) FYI to a few: the CO message is indicating an error in the detector,
not CO in the cabin.

What was going on with the second display?
Was the "Initializing System" message being displayed each time it
'rebooted'?
During the 15minute intervals between reboots, how operational was the
system?

I won't delve into the actual debate issues of whether to go glass,
realtime reliability vs. features demanded, benefits vs. risk of
various situational awareness methods, or anything like that. I'm just
trying to get the facts straight. No software engineer would claim a
flawless system, but the facts so far do not allow for a simple answer
such as the fuel gauge or airspeed indication being the only cause.
Something very strange had to be going with where that escaping fuel
was going. If it was affecting three gauges (airspeed, co detector,
fuel) in a measurable way, who knows what it could have been doing to
less obvious internal wirings of the aircraft. I've never heard of a
report of a continuously rebooting system, and there are a lot out
there. The somewhat drastic customizations and the newness of the
aircraft add to suspicion. That said, there's no excuse for a failure,
wherever in the aircraft that failure is determined to be.

PS: I appreciate the balanced feedback and analysis of most of this
group. Don't feed the 20% trolls.

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> Ok, so you want the FAA jump in and require full redundancy on all
> instruments for all privately operated light singles to be considered
> airworthy? I'm not sure you really want this.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for computer equipment, but it's not enough.
It would be necessary to require not only redundant systems, but
systems with independently-developed software, so that failure modes
of one system don't match failure modes of the back-ups.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> I think its reasonable to think that some of the G1000's wiring or the
> unit itself was damaged during this hack.

That would not generally cause software reboots.

It's much more realistic to think that there are fundamental defects
in the G1000.

> Even attaching the power to the
> ADF or entertainment system in a way that caused the power to the G1000 to
> be flaky or intermittent could account for the drastic failure modes he
> experienced.

There should be no drastic failure modes at all, under any conditions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> It would appear that applies to all aviation for you, it's a mystery,

But computers are not. And with what I know about them, I would not
entrust my life to a completely computerized cockpit.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[NW_Pilot]

"g1000_eng" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 1) All avionics software implements internal isolation to prevent one
> part of the system from taking down another part.
> 2) A faulty fuel reading cannot cause the system to reboot. In addition
> to testing every possible faulty fuel value, I've tested every
> combination of faulty sensor readings related to this thread and am
> unable to get anything out of the ordinary to happen. The picture of
> the fuel sensor with the red X is correct behavior when a gauge is
> fauly or giving erroneous data.
> 3) When the system reboots due to a software error, a very obvious
> message with a very obvious color is displayed on the screen prior to
> the reboot. Was this seen? I have seen no mention of it.
> 4) FYI to a few: the CO message is indicating an error in the detector,
> not CO in the cabin.
>
> What was going on with the second display?
> Was the "Initializing System" message being displayed each time it
> 'rebooted'?
> During the 15minute intervals between reboots, how operational was the
> system?
>
> I won't delve into the actual debate issues of whether to go glass,
> realtime reliability vs. features demanded, benefits vs. risk of
> various situational awareness methods, or anything like that. I'm just
> trying to get the facts straight. No software engineer would claim a
> flawless system, but the facts so far do not allow for a simple answer
> such as the fuel gauge or airspeed indication being the only cause.
> Something very strange had to be going with where that escaping fuel
> was going. If it was affecting three gauges (airspeed, co detector,
> fuel) in a measurable way, who knows what it could have been doing to
> less obvious internal wirings of the aircraft. I've never heard of a
> report of a continuously rebooting system, and there are a lot out
> there. The somewhat drastic customizations and the newness of the
> aircraft add to suspicion. That said, there's no excuse for a failure,
> wherever in the aircraft that failure is determined to be.
>
> PS: I appreciate the balanced feedback and analysis of most of this
> group. Don't feed the 20% trolls.
>

Do you expect me to believe you are a Garmin Engineer using a hotmail e-mail
addy and a 1 time poster under this username :-)

It's kind of funny once the aircraft was on the ground for 24 hours and
there was no further fuel venting and every thing dried up the G1000 worked
flawlessly until the tach failed some hours later during the flight because
of a Bad Sensor "not confirmed yet just an educated guess" There was no
alert about the reboot it was like some one just cut the power to the
displays then restored power the system did a standard reboot things started
to fail then it would reboot again. I will be talking with the customer
again upon delivery of future aircraft and will report the avionics tech's
findings on that airplane that is if they have anyone that is certified and
has the knowledge to work on and diagnose the G1000 over there!

[Jim Logajan]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote:
> "g1000_eng" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> 1) All avionics software implements internal isolation to prevent one
>> part of the system from taking down another part.
>> 2) A faulty fuel reading cannot cause the system to reboot. In
>> addition to testing every possible faulty fuel value, I've tested
>> every combination of faulty sensor readings related to this thread
>> and am unable to get anything out of the ordinary to happen. The
>> picture of the fuel sensor with the red X is correct behavior when a
>> gauge is fauly or giving erroneous data.
[ ... ]
>
> Do you expect me to believe you are a Garmin Engineer using a hotmail
> e-mail addy and a 1 time poster under this username :-)

Just FYI, the poster used Google Groups, which tacks on a header indicating
the IP address of the poster; in this case that header is:

Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.247.168.62;
posting-account=YoF8rQ0AAABFBsk62Tpp2wBJ_FD_CVG_

I used the "dig" utility on one of my Linux machines to see what host name(s)
might be associated with that 69.247.168.62 address. It came up with this:

c-69-247-168-62.hsd1.ks.comcast.net.

Looks like a Comcast account in Kansas, based on my understanding of how ISPs
like Comcast assign host names to IP addresses. Garmin is headquartered in
Kansas. So the possibility can't be immediately ruled out based on where the
poster is posting from.

[John Theune]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "NW_Pilot" > wrote:
>> "g1000_eng" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> 1) All avionics software implements internal isolation to prevent one
>>> part of the system from taking down another part.
>>> 2) A faulty fuel reading cannot cause the system to reboot. In
>>> addition to testing every possible faulty fuel value, I've tested
>>> every combination of faulty sensor readings related to this thread
>>> and am unable to get anything out of the ordinary to happen. The
>>> picture of the fuel sensor with the red X is correct behavior when a
>>> gauge is fauly or giving erroneous data.
> [ ... ]
>> Do you expect me to believe you are a Garmin Engineer using a hotmail
>> e-mail addy and a 1 time poster under this username :-)
>
> Just FYI, the poster used Google Groups, which tacks on a header indicating
> the IP address of the poster; in this case that header is:
>
> Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.247.168.62;
> posting-account=YoF8rQ0AAABFBsk62Tpp2wBJ_FD_CVG_
>
> I used the "dig" utility on one of my Linux machines to see what host name(s)
> might be associated with that 69.247.168.62 address. It came up with this:
>
> c-69-247-168-62.hsd1.ks.comcast.net.
>
> Looks like a Comcast account in Kansas, based on my understanding of how ISPs
> like Comcast assign host names to IP addresses. Garmin is headquartered in
> Kansas. So the possibility can't be immediately ruled out based on where the
> poster is posting from.
And I would not expect a engineer from Garmin to use his real name and
email address because as a engineer I doubt he is authorized to speak
for the company. That does not stop him from commenting in a much more
knowledgeable way then a lot of the posts about this issue.

[NW_Pilot]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "NW_Pilot" > wrote:
>> "g1000_eng" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> 1) All avionics software implements internal isolation to prevent one
>>> part of the system from taking down another part.
>>> 2) A faulty fuel reading cannot cause the system to reboot. In
>>> addition to testing every possible faulty fuel value, I've tested
>>> every combination of faulty sensor readings related to this thread
>>> and am unable to get anything out of the ordinary to happen. The
>>> picture of the fuel sensor with the red X is correct behavior when a
>>> gauge is fauly or giving erroneous data.
> [ ... ]
>>
>> Do you expect me to believe you are a Garmin Engineer using a hotmail
>> e-mail addy and a 1 time poster under this username :-)
>
> Just FYI, the poster used Google Groups, which tacks on a header
> indicating
> the IP address of the poster; in this case that header is:
>
> Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.247.168.62;
> posting-account=YoF8rQ0AAABFBsk62Tpp2wBJ_FD_CVG_
>
> I used the "dig" utility on one of my Linux machines to see what host
> name(s)
> might be associated with that 69.247.168.62 address. It came up with this:
>
> c-69-247-168-62.hsd1.ks.comcast.net.
>
> Looks like a Comcast account in Kansas, based on my understanding of how
> ISPs
> like Comcast assign host names to IP addresses. Garmin is headquartered in
> Kansas. So the possibility can't be immediately ruled out based on where
> the
> poster is posting from.

Well, this is Usenet and I think that if it was really a garmin rep/engineer
why would they hide themselves with a hotmail account!

It will take a lot for Garmin to win my opinion and respect of them and
their products/systems if ever. Due to maybe a software flaw in their system
it could have taken my life or someone else's and probably will take a
someones in the future lets hope it's not mine.

I will still fly the G1000 for customers that hire me me to fly them I will
Just be more cautious of them!

Would I take my family or friends in one IFR conditions no way not ever!!
Not until Garmin/Cessna can prove to me that the G1000 will operate for 100+
hours without some sort of bug or failure!! Asking me to place my family in
one in IFR conditions would be the same as asking me to put a gun to their
heads and play Russian Roulette with them and I take my family in IFR
conditions in my cessna 150!

I have also been in contacted by an aviation publication about my experience
on the G1000 not sure if I want to do the interview or not? I know I should
just to expose that there maybe a potential fatal bug/flaw in the system!

If Garmin would like more info from me I am instructed to tell them to put
it on paper and place the request in the mail!

Now I am done talking about the G1000 and it's problems, Lets all talk about
other aviation related things!

[NW_Pilot]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:M6jVg.8501$pS3.1688@trnddc01...
> Snip < And I would not expect a engineer from Garmin to use his real name
> and email address because as a engineer I doubt he is authorized to speak
> for the company. That does not stop him from commenting in a much more
> knowledgeable way then a lot of the posts about this issue.

As I said in my last message If Garmin would like more info from me I am
instructed to tell them to put
it on paper and place the request in the mail!

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:

> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>
>> I'd prefer it for all flights given the importance of fuel supply in
>> an airplane and given the fairly high rate of fuel exhaustion
>> incidents. I especially want redundancy with a system as fragile as
>> the G1000 appears to be.
>
>
> Ok, so you want the FAA jump in and require full redundancy on all
> instruments for all privately operated light singles to be considered
> airworthy? I'm not sure you really want this.

I never said I wanted the FAA involved. Where'd you fabricate that one
from?

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

> I have also been in contacted by an aviation publication about my experience
> on the G1000 not sure if I want to do the interview or not? I know I should
> just to expose that there maybe a potential fatal bug/flaw in the system!

I think you should. But... be sure it's a respected publication with
even handed coverage, and be sure you have all your facts right as well
as you can, all your speculations identified as such, and all your ducks
in a row.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave S]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-10-02, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>Funny as that may be, Steven *was* very cognizant of how he wrote this
>>story up, for fear of being flamed by certain members of this group.
>
>
> Ever since Steven Ames got flamed to a charbroiled crisp over a loose
> formation flight (with a CFI as the wing man), I've always had to resist
> the temptation to post about the flight of four we did consisting of a
> Cessna 140, Cessna 170, Grumman Tiger and Beech Bonanza. So far I've
> resisted because I think I'd be trolling if I did that :-)
>

Go ahead and post. I can vouch for the credentials of at least 2 of the
wingmen.. I'm tryin to figure out who #4 was...

Dave

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-06, Dave S > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> Ever since Steven Ames got flamed to a charbroiled crisp over a loose
>> formation flight (with a CFI as the wing man), I've always had to resist
>> the temptation to post about the flight of four we did consisting of a
>> Cessna 140, Cessna 170, Grumman Tiger and Beech Bonanza. So far I've
>> resisted because I think I'd be trolling if I did that :-)
>>
>
> Go ahead and post. I can vouch for the credentials of at least 2 of the
> wingmen.. I'm tryin to figure out who #4 was...

I was actually #4 in the Bonanza. We put the slowest plane first :-)
Keiran Smart was in the Tiger. I'm not sure who was in the 170 though!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-06, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> I think its reasonable to think that some of the G1000's wiring or the
>> unit itself was damaged during this hack.
>
> That would not generally cause software reboots.

Unless, of course, it was the power wiring. I suspect a momentary power
interruption could reboot a G1000. There's not much you can do about
that either (short of stuffing a 20 farad supercapacitor in the back of
the device or a fully fledged UPS).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Neil Gould]

Recently, NW_Pilot > posted:
>
> Well, this is Usenet and I think that if it was really a garmin
> rep/engineer why would they hide themselves with a hotmail account!
>
> It will take a lot for Garmin to win my opinion and respect of them
> and their products/systems if ever. Due to maybe a software flaw in
> their system it could have taken my life or someone else's and
> probably will take a someones in the future lets hope it's not mine.
>
Your experience sounds to me more like a hardware problem than software.
For example, the continuous rebooting may be caused by an intermittent
ground connection to the G1000, causing its power to switch on and off.
Given that the panel was "hacked" by the same outfit that made the poorly
kludged aux tank system (a system that clearly does have a major design
flaw) and gave you the bogus operating instructions, I am far more
suspicious of them than Garmin. The G1000 was only the most obvious
indicator of a major problem somewhere in the aircraft.

> I have also been in contacted by an aviation publication about my
> experience on the G1000 not sure if I want to do the interview or
> not? I know I should just to expose that there maybe a potential
> fatal bug/flaw in the system!
>
If it were me, I wouldn't do such an interview, as there is no conclusion
about the real cause of the problems you experienced. To point the finger
on the basis of pure speculation would leave you vulnerable. As can be
seen from the discussion that this has generated, inuendo can go a long
way toward creating a lasting negative impression that has no basis in
fact -- yet.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:17:52 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>Given that the panel was "hacked" by the same outfit that made the poorly
>kludged aux tank system (a system that clearly does have a major design
>flaw) and gave you the bogus operating instructions, I am far more
>suspicious of them than Garmin.

That is reasonable. With the fact that Mr. Rhine was operating
portable equipment on the flight, there is potential for some
interaction there too. And it's reasonable that a small metal shaving
produced during the Garmin installation may have been dancing on a
circuit board someplace.

Clearly we don't have enough facts to reliably diagnose the cause of
the infinite reboot, but I am thankful to be made aware by Mr. Rhine's
experience of the utterly unacceptable situation that is caused when
the Garmin system becomes inoperative.

[Stefan]

NW_Pilot schrieb:

>> In the Arab desert? Ok, there's a lot more about Arabia than just desert,
>> I know.

> Wow look at a map dude!!!!

It was a joke, dude.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

> That is reasonable. With the fact that Mr. Rhine was operating
> portable equipment on the flight, there is potential for some
> interaction there too.

Ah, it all boils down to interference with his cell phone!

Stefan

[Mxsmanic]

g1000_eng writes:

> 1) All avionics software implements internal isolation to prevent one
> part of the system from taking down another part.

Except the G1000, apparently.

> 2) A faulty fuel reading cannot cause the system to reboot. In addition
> to testing every possible faulty fuel value, I've tested every
> combination of faulty sensor readings related to this thread and am
> unable to get anything out of the ordinary to happen.

Since the system did reboot, there is obviously a combination of
circumstances that will cause it to reboot. It should never reboot.

> 3) When the system reboots due to a software error, a very obvious
> message with a very obvious color is displayed on the screen prior to
> the reboot. Was this seen? I have seen no mention of it.

How does an obvious message help?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> And I would not expect a engineer from Garmin to use his real name and
> email address because as a engineer I doubt he is authorized to speak
> for the company.

I wouldn't expect him to use a pseudonym that creates the impression
that he is an engineer, either. Most companies have policies that
prohibit such behavior, because of liability issues.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

NW_Pilot writes:

> I have also been in contacted by an aviation publication about my experience
> on the G1000 not sure if I want to do the interview or not? I know I should
> just to expose that there maybe a potential fatal bug/flaw in the system!

Go for it. There's no better way to keep vendors conscientious than
bad press. And it's the sort of thing that pilots need to know before
they fly with the equipment themselves.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Your experience sounds to me more like a hardware problem than software.
> For example, the continuous rebooting may be caused by an intermittent
> ground connection to the G1000, causing its power to switch on and off.
> Given that the panel was "hacked" by the same outfit that made the poorly
> kludged aux tank system (a system that clearly does have a major design
> flaw) and gave you the bogus operating instructions, I am far more
> suspicious of them than Garmin. The G1000 was only the most obvious
> indicator of a major problem somewhere in the aircraft.

Most reboots are caused by software. If the power were being switched
on and off, it would not be synchronized with the boot process.

> If it were me, I wouldn't do such an interview, as there is no conclusion
> about the real cause of the problems you experienced. To point the finger
> on the basis of pure speculation would leave you vulnerable. As can be
> seen from the discussion that this has generated, inuendo can go a long
> way toward creating a lasting negative impression that has no basis in
> fact -- yet.

On the other hand, it's hard to be too cautious, and publicity has a
way of giving the corporate world more of a conscience.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> And it's reasonable that a small metal shaving
> produced during the Garmin installation may have been dancing on a
> circuit board someplace.

This is rather grasping at straws. The most obvious and common cause
of multiple reboots is bad software design.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> Unless, of course, it was the power wiring. I suspect a momentary power
> interruption could reboot a G1000.

It would not do so in synchronization with the software.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Your experience sounds to me more like a hardware problem than
>> software. For example, the continuous rebooting may be caused by an
>> intermittent ground connection to the G1000, causing its power to
>> switch on and off. Given that the panel was "hacked" by the same
>> outfit that made the poorly kludged aux tank system (a system that
>> clearly does have a major design flaw) and gave you the bogus
>> operating instructions, I am far more suspicious of them than
>> Garmin. The G1000 was only the most obvious indicator of a major
>> problem somewhere in the aircraft.
>
> Most reboots are caused by software. If the power were being switched
> on and off, it would not be synchronized with the boot process.
>
The avionics in the aircraft that I fly reboot when they are powered off
then on. No synchronization required.

Of course, in the sims that you "fly", software is the *only* thing that
can cause a reboot, so it's understandable that you would arrive at that
such an opinion.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> Unless, of course, it was the power wiring. I suspect a momentary
>> power interruption could reboot a G1000.
>
> It would not do so in synchronization with the software.
>
What gives you the impression that there was some "synchronization with
the software"? Nothing NW_Pilot reported would suggest it, and the
frequency and number of reboots implies something completely different.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>>
>>>
>>> After this Issue I think that there should be manual back up gauges and
>>> instruments for the required equipment under FAR 91.205!
>>>
>>
>> If I were flying the kind of flying you are doing I'd invest in a 496. It
>> would give you at lease some level of backup for almost everything in the
>> plane except radio and engine instruments.
>>
>
> I have a portable GPS that worked great! XM weather is almost useless out
> side the U.S.
>

I was thinking more about the nav and GPS derived panel not the XM weather.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Theune writes:
>
>> and as had been pointed out by a number of people, there is no solid
>> evidence that make it clear that the reboots where caused by the out of
>> range sensor.
>
> It doesn't matter what caused the reboots, because only defective
> software reboots in the first place.

No a hardware problem could have also been the cause. An electrical short
caused by the "hacked" wiring sounds like an excellent place to start
looking.

[Doug[_1_]]

The computer in cockpit is not foolproof. I can tell that there is at
least one Citation X where the computer simply shut down one engine
and left no trail of diagnostic data behnind, just empty memory.
Obviously you don't normally expect that sort of behavior from a
corporate jet...

They landed with one engine (no pilot overide) and the Cessna engineers
came out and did a lot of head scratching. I do not know what the final
diagnosis was on that one.

[Larry Dighera]

If indeed you are knowledgeable about Garmin software internals, I
appreciate your courage and your input on this topic.

On 5 Oct 2006 17:57:21 -0700, "g1000_eng" >
wrote in om>:

>I won't delve into the actual debate issues of whether to go glass,
>realtime reliability vs. features demanded, benefits vs. risk of
>various situational awareness methods, or anything like that.

Of course, the real issue is whether it's rational to rely on an
electronic system with a failure mode that is capable of leaving the
pilot with little else than three steam gages (AI, AS, Alt) and
magnetic compass, and taking out all communications, navigation,
engine instrumentation, and autopilot when it goes.

Perhaps you can confirm the loss of autopilot functionality when the
Garmin system goes off-line. If so, perhaps you can explain why the
autopilot is incapable of switching to being driven by the steam-gage
AI, and functioning as a wing leveler in that event. After all, if
the pilot is able to use the autopilot to keep the aircraft right side
up in the event of the Garmin system failure, he will be able to focus
much more of his attention on diagnosing the cause of the failure.

[Dave S]

Dylan Smith wrote:

>>
>>Go ahead and post. I can vouch for the credentials of at least 2 of the
>>wingmen.. I'm tryin to figure out who #4 was...
>
>
> I was actually #4 in the Bonanza. We put the slowest plane first :-)
> Keiran Smart was in the Tiger. I'm not sure who was in the 170 though!
>

I'd forgotten about Kieran.. and I MISS that tiger..

Just so nobody gets their underwear ruffled.. these guys regularly flew
together in dissimilar types and were based out of the same field.. I've
sat in on their briefings in the past. The other two.. we do know who
they are.. but they both fly for a living and dont need the press...

Anyways.. enough of hijacked threads

Dave

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> The avionics in the aircraft that I fly reboot when they are powered off
> then on. No synchronization required.

But when multiple reboots occur, each at the same point after the
previous boot, it's not a power problem, it's a software problem.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug writes:

> They landed with one engine (no pilot overide) and the Cessna engineers
> came out and did a lot of head scratching. I do not know what the final
> diagnosis was on that one.

I'd say the best diagnosis is to replace the jet with the FADEC with a
different jet that lets the pilot control the engines.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> No a hardware problem could have also been the cause.

Not for synchronized reboots. Those come from software.

> An electrical short
> caused by the "hacked" wiring sounds like an excellent place to start
> looking.

A short will either have no effect or it will prevent the system from
operating at all. It will not reboot the system in perfect
synchronization with the software.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> What gives you the impression that there was some "synchronization with
> the software"? Nothing NW_Pilot reported would suggest it, and the
> frequency and number of reboots implies something completely different.

His description suggests that the system booted and went through the
same software process over and over. That is not a hardware problem.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> What gives you the impression that there was some "synchronization with
>> the software"? Nothing NW_Pilot reported would suggest it, and the
>> frequency and number of reboots implies something completely different.
>
> His description suggests that the system booted and went through the
> same software process over and over. That is not a hardware problem.
>

Care to put some money on that conclusion? Many, many years ago we
encountered a similar problem. Every symptom said it was software,
especially when one operating system would not encounter the problem yet
another one did. After several weeks we managed to isolate the exact
channel program sequence which caused the error. The hardware developers
confirmed that the channel program sequence was indeed valid. Further
investigation showed it to be an error in a circuit card supplied with a
field upgrade kit. Since each operating system used a slightly different
channel program to accomplish the same thing, the error only manifested
itself on one system.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Care to put some money on that conclusion?

I have no money to spend on gambling, but I'm confident that the
conclusion is correct.

> Many, many years ago we
> encountered a similar problem. Every symptom said it was software,
> especially when one operating system would not encounter the problem yet
> another one did. After several weeks we managed to isolate the exact
> channel program sequence which caused the error. The hardware developers
> confirmed that the channel program sequence was indeed valid. Further
> investigation showed it to be an error in a circuit card supplied with a
> field upgrade kit. Since each operating system used a slightly different
> channel program to accomplish the same thing, the error only manifested
> itself on one system.

Those are the stories one remembers _because_ they are such remarkable
exceptions to the rule. I think the explanation in this case is much
more mundane: bad code.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> The avionics in the aircraft that I fly reboot when they are powered
>> off then on. No synchronization required.
>
> But when multiple reboots occur, each at the same point after the
> previous boot, it's not a power problem, it's a software problem.
>
There is no evidence that this was the case. In fact, that is not at all
what NW_Pilot reported.

Neil