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

[Jay Honeck]

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm

Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 1 Oct 2006 06:47:05 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in m>:

>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>
>Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!

A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.

[Emily]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>
> Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!

I've got a few hours in a 172 with G1000, but I think that's turned me
off...at least until they get the bugs worked out.

[Jose[_1_]]

From NW_Pilot's adventure:
> 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.

Steam gauges don't get confused like that. While they do sometimes go
bad or give an incorrect indication, the fault is isolated to that one
gauge; it doesn't cause the entire airplane to have an apoplectic fit.
That is left to the pilot. One of the real dangers of glass is that it
usurps the pilot's perogative to panic (or not) by doing so itself.

If there's ever an argument against glass (or "advanced integrated
flight instrumentations and controls"), this is it!

ibid:
> Day 5: Shut down in Iceland with 55 knot headwinds. I make the call "No Go"!!!

NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?

ibid: (spelling note, day 11)
> After everything else that has happened, this makes me not want to every own a newer model Cessna, or anything with a G1000.

....not want to ever own...
(public service, not nitpicking)

(same day)
> Everything else was uneventful, as I went direct KAD and had a small dialogue with the tower about my permission to land.

Anything interesting in that "dialog"?

Anyway, that's quite an adventure! Would you do it again?

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]

i posted a link at a couple of cessna "type" clubs (c.p.a. and c.p.s.).
i noticed someone did that on an earlier edition so i guessed it was ok
to do that.

someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
he did just great. turned around, got it back on the ground, figured it
out, flew on and made the contract. i think he needs to be
congratulated for doing something really big and doing it well. i'm
about finished reading "the flying north" and i expect any of those
guys would have bought steven a beer and listened to his story.

my airplane budget looks at getting a good harness system, fuel and
engine monitors and enough gas to do some real traveling so i don't
have to worry about a G-1000 any time soon. clearly it is a cautionary
tale about putting too many avionics eggs in one glass basket.

again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.


dan


Jay Honeck wrote:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>
> Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron A.[_1_]]

>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
> Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.

Garmin needs to wake up! To have out-of-bounds sensor inputs reboot the
system continuously, especially something as unreliable as fuel sensors, is
horrible system design.

Even Microsoft has awakened to this. They now have fewer browser bugs per
year than Firefox.
What do you want to bet that there is a bunch of other safety critical,
software driven devices that are prone to this?

Think about this for a second. What if there was some unexpected
transmission from a GPS satellite due to an incorrect software load to the
satellite that caused the G1000 to reboot continuously. Now extend that.
Take your Garmin portable GPS out to save your butt and it ALSO includes the
deficient algorithm and continuously reboots. Scary. I would bet the
portables share quite a bit of logic and decision trees with the panel
mounts.

[Jay Honeck]

> again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.

It's been quite an adventure for Steven. His experiences could fill a
book already, and he's only 30!

Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that
dire situation. Stuck in IMC over the North Atlantic, in the dark, no
primary displays, a possible carbon-monoxide leak, a known fuel leak --
I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.

You did a great job keeping everything right-side up, and your head on
straight.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jose > said:
>> Day 5: Shut down in Iceland with 55 knot headwinds. I make the call
>"No Go"!!!
>
>NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?

Why not? 55 knot headwinds cut into your fuel reserve, 55 knot tail winds
help it. I've flown with a 70 knot tail wind, it was great. Except when
I had to descend to land, then it was bumpy as hell.

At one point my GPS was showing a 210 knot ground speed, and I felt like
asking Buffalo Approach what they were showing as my ground speed, just to
brag at what a Cherokee can do. But then I remembered the story about
people doing that just as an SR-71 checked in on the frequency.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Windows, another fine product from the folks who gave us edlin.

[nrp]

Funny - these things never happen to the writers in the aviation
rags...........

[Larry Dighera]

On 1 Oct 2006 08:33:39 -0700, "houstondan" >
wrote in om>:

>someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
>he did just great.

There's no question Mr. Rhine did the right thing in his case.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:20:18 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in >:

>>NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?
>
>Why not? 55 knot headwinds cut into your fuel reserve, 55 knot tail winds
>help it. I've flown with a 70 knot tail wind

Have you ever attempted to taxi a high-wing aircraft in 55 knot winds?

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On 1 Oct 2006 08:56:37 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Stuck in IMC over the North Atlantic, in the dark, no
>primary displays, a possible carbon-monoxide leak, a known fuel leak --
>I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

hmm, the mother-in-law calling on the sat-phone?

#m
--
Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm>

I Am Not A Terrorist <http://itsnotallbad.com/iamnotaterrorist/>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
>On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:20:18 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote in >:
>>>NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?
>>
>>Why not? 55 knot headwinds cut into your fuel reserve, 55 knot tail winds
>>help it. I've flown with a 70 knot tail wind
>
>Have you ever attempted to taxi a high-wing aircraft in 55 knot winds?

I thougth we were talking about winds-aloft, not surface winds?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"If something's expensive to develop, and somebody's not going to get paid, it
won't get developed. So you decide: Do you want software to be written, or
not?" - Bill Gates doesn't foresee the FSF or Linux, 1980.

[John Gaquin]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have

Do you have a machine to pick those nits, or do you do it all by hand?

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message

> I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.

On fire?

But he did a great job, notwithstanding any Monday-morning advice givers.
He evaluated, and made a decision that resulted in the craft and pilot on
the ground safely. What else is there?

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting.

He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! In fact, I'm
scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
think they know better than the book.

Stefan

[.Blueskies.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ps.com...
: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
:
: Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
: --
: Jay Honeck
: Iowa City, IA
: Pathfinder N56993
: www.AlexisParkInn.com
: "Your Aviation Destination"
:

See Jay, another reason to get the instrument rating!

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:20:13 +0200, Stefan >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting.
>
>He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
>supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! In fact, I'm
>scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
>think they know better than the book.
>
>Stefan

What you say is true enough. And so is what I said.

[Eduardo K.[_1_]]

In article >,
..Blueskies. > wrote:
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>:
>: Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
>: --
>: Jay Honeck
>: Iowa City, IA
>: Pathfinder N56993
>: www.AlexisParkInn.com
>: "Your Aviation Destination"
>:
>
>See Jay, another reason to get the instrument rating!
>
>

LOL.

--
Eduardo K. | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://e.nn.cl |
| Yo.

[Emily]

Stefan wrote:
> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting.
>
> He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
> supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! In fact, I'm
> scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
> think they know better than the book.

You're completely right. I'm an A&P, but I'm not going to sit up there
in IMC miles from land and try to diagnose a fuel problem if the other
option is heading for land and landing ASAP.

[Jim Logajan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Stuck in IMC over the North Atlantic, in the dark, no
> primary displays, a possible carbon-monoxide leak, a known fuel leak --
> I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.

Snakes.


;-)

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>
> Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!

There's no excuse for the G1000 to reboot. I guess nobody has to test
safety-of-life systems any more.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron A. writes:

> Garmin needs to wake up! To have out-of-bounds sensor inputs reboot the
> system continuously, especially something as unreliable as fuel sensors, is
> horrible system design.

It implies that the system was designed by desktop programmers,
instead of people with experience building mission-critical computer
systems. I guess people will have to die to get bugs fixed.

There is never any excuse for a safety-of-life computer to reboot,
short of a power interruption.

> What do you want to bet that there is a bunch of other safety critical,
> software driven devices that are prone to this?

Unfortunately, there are probably a great many of them, including
anything built by Garmin.

> Think about this for a second. What if there was some unexpected
> transmission from a GPS satellite due to an incorrect software load to the
> satellite that caused the G1000 to reboot continuously. Now extend that.
> Take your Garmin portable GPS out to save your butt and it ALSO includes the
> deficient algorithm and continuously reboots. Scary. I would bet the
> portables share quite a bit of logic and decision trees with the panel
> mounts.

Probably. And you can bet that nobody is verifying the generated
binaries bit by bit, the way people used to verify safety-of-life
software in the old days. If it compiles without errors, it's ready
to ship!

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

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that dire
> situation.


"If I die out here, I'll never hear the end of it from the gang at
rec.aviation."


Montblack :-)

[C. Massey]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>
> Do you have a machine to pick those nits, or do you do it all by hand?
>


Consider the source...




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0639-4, 09/29/2006
Tested on: 10/1/2006 7:06:48 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting.
>
>
> He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
> supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! In fact, I'm
> scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
> think they know better than the book.

So you think Al Haynes and crew screwed with their DC-10 improvisation?
Personally, I think it is imperative that pilots create their own ad
hoc procedures when the book is wrong or nonexistent. I'm much more
afraid of pilots who keep doing what the book says and are afraid to
think and improvise.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:

> Stefan wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>>
>>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting.
>>
>>
>> He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
>> supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! In fact, I'm
>> scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because
>> they think they know better than the book.
>
>
> You're completely right. I'm an A&P, but I'm not going to sit up there
> in IMC miles from land and try to diagnose a fuel problem if the other
> option is heading for land and landing ASAP.

As an engineer, I'd do both! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

..Blueskies. wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ps.com...
> : http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
> :
> : Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
> : --
> : Jay Honeck
> : Iowa City, IA
> : Pathfinder N56993
> : www.AlexisParkInn.com
> : "Your Aviation Destination"
> :
>
> See Jay, another reason to get the instrument rating!

Yes, Jay, this is very true! You can't scare yourself nearly as well
VFR as IFR!! :-)


Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:40:52 -0500, Emily
> wrote in
>:

>I'm not going to sit up there in IMC miles from
>land and try to diagnose a fuel problem

Right. You'd have studied the fuel system while you were on the
ground.

[Emily]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
>> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>>
>>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting.
>>
>>
>> He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
>> supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! In fact, I'm
>> scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because
>> they think they know better than the book.
>
> So you think Al Haynes and crew screwed with their DC-10 improvisation?

Al Haynes' situation was a little different. He had multiple crew
members and a lot of backup on the ground. A single pilot doesn't
usually have the time to do troubleshooting like the United crew did.

[john smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Stefan wrote:
> > Larry Dighera schrieb:
> >
> >> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
> >> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting.
> >
> >
> > He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
> > supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! In fact, I'm
> > scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
> > think they know better than the book.
>
> So you think Al Haynes and crew screwed with their DC-10 improvisation?
> Personally, I think it is imperative that pilots create their own ad
> hoc procedures when the book is wrong or nonexistent. I'm much more
> afraid of pilots who keep doing what the book says and are afraid to
> think and improvise.

The problem with that statement is that many GA pilots haven't even read
the book to know what it says.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that dire
> > situation.
>
> "If I die out here, I'll never hear the end of it from the gang at
> rec.aviation."

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.

It shames me to think that a man brave enough to do what Steven just
did is scared of screwing up a write-up for this group. And we wonder
why aviation is a shrinking club...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Emily]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that dire
>>> situation.
>> "If I die out here, I'll never hear the end of it from the gang at
>> rec.aviation."
>
> 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.

The fact is, you're always going to get flamed, no matter what you do.
You can't worry about it.

[zatatime]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:23:34 -0500, Emily
> wrote:

>The fact is, you're always going to get flamed, no matter what you do.
>You can't worry about it.


How true is that! Best intentions aside, the nits always get picked.

z

[NW_Pilot]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
> From NW_Pilot's adventure:
>> 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.
>
> Steam gauges don't get confused like that. While they do sometimes go bad
> or give an incorrect indication, the fault is isolated to that one gauge;
> it doesn't cause the entire airplane to have an apoplectic fit. That is
> left to the pilot. One of the real dangers of glass is that it usurps the
> pilot's perogative to panic (or not) by doing so itself.
>
> If there's ever an argument against glass (or "advanced integrated flight
> instrumentations and controls"), this is it!
>
> ibid:
>> Day 5: Shut down in Iceland with 55 knot headwinds. I make the call "No
>> Go"!!!
>
> NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?
>
> ibid: (spelling note, day 11)
>> After everything else that has happened, this makes me not want to every
>> own a newer model Cessna, or anything with a G1000.
>
> ...not want to ever own...
> (public service, not nitpicking)
>
> (same day)
>> Everything else was uneventful, as I went direct KAD and had a small
>> dialogue with the tower about my permission to land.
>
> Anything interesting in that "dialog"?

Just dialiaog about my permissions on landing.

>
> Anyway, that's quite an adventure! Would you do it again?

Hell, Yeah!!! You Bet !!
>
> 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.

[NW_Pilot]

"houstondan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>i posted a link at a couple of cessna "type" clubs (c.p.a. and c.p.s.).
> i noticed someone did that on an earlier edition so i guessed it was ok
> to do that.
>
> someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
> he did just great. turned around, got it back on the ground, figured it
> out, flew on and made the contract. i think he needs to be
> congratulated for doing something really big and doing it well. i'm
> about finished reading "the flying north" and i expect any of those
> guys would have bought steven a beer and listened to his story.
>
> my airplane budget looks at getting a good harness system, fuel and
> engine monitors and enough gas to do some real traveling so i don't
> have to worry about a G-1000 any time soon. clearly it is a cautionary
> tale about putting too many avionics eggs in one glass basket.
>
> again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.
>
>
> dan

Thank, You

I would feel a bit better about the system if they put manual engine
monitors and fuel qty indicators as a back up the cost to Cessna would not
be much more they have the panel space and would make the newer models safer
with manual back up instruments.

[NW_Pilot]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.
>
> It's been quite an adventure for Steven. His experiences could fill a
> book already, and he's only 30!
>
> Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that
> dire situation. Stuck in IMC over the North Atlantic, in the dark, no
> primary displays, a possible carbon-monoxide leak, a known fuel leak --
> I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.
>
> You did a great job keeping everything right-side up, and your head on
> straight.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Well, my thoughts were not to panic and keep as calm as i can and think!!
How I kept calm was saying to myself yes it can get much worse!

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Oct 2006 06:47:05 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in m>:
>
>>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>>
>>Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
>
> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
> Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.

I did study the fuel system and so did the engineer that designed it and
wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions. Once
you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
description of the now modified fuel system. They left out something very
very important in the new systems description!

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Oct 2006 08:33:39 -0700, "houstondan" >
> wrote in om>:
>
>>someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
>>he did just great.
>
> There's no question Mr. Rhine did the right thing in his case.

Thank You, Mr. Dighera

[[email protected]]

Ron A. > wrote:
>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
>> Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.
>
> Garmin needs to wake up! To have out-of-bounds sensor inputs reboot the
> system continuously, especially something as unreliable as fuel sensors,
> is horrible system design.

I agree that continuous rebooting is a bad idea. Rebooting _once_ might
help, but the screen and/or manual should present it along the lines of:

"One of my inputs is flaky. I can ignore that input and keep going with
reduced capabilities, OR I can try rebooting to see if that clears up
the problem. There is no guarantee that rebooting will help, and there
is no guarantee that I will be able to keep going with reduced
capabilities after the reboot. What do you want to do?"

The idea of rebooting to fix an embedded safety system is not that great -
it shouldn't get into that state in the first place. But I think the
option should be there. If you want to work under the assumption that
you might get into an odd state, probably a better plan is to somehow
announce "I'm confused, but I'll keep going" and give the pilot the
option of rebooting by cycling power, rather than going into a reboot
loop on your own.

At work, I sometimes help engineering students who are trying to design
a (road) vehicle control system. If they are new to the subject, they
tend to want lots of lockouts and "clearly, this is always an illegal
condition" cases. I have had to give examples like "so, what if the
computer control of the 5-speed transmission decides it knows best and
cuts your thrust, right when all you can see in the rear-view mirror is
a huge chrome RENILTHGIERF"? The idea I try to get across is that a
large percentage of the time, the driver will have more information
about the situation than the computer will. Whether the driver acts
appropriately based on this extra information is a whole other
discussion, but at least the possiblity of doing the right thing is
there.

Sometime before early 1989, one Cal Keegan summed this up quite
succinctly: "It's not just a computer -- it's your ass."

> Even Microsoft has awakened to this. They now have fewer browser bugs
> per year than Firefox.

Hooray! Let's run airplane computers on Internet Explorer.

Matt Roberds

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>> Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that
>>>> dire
>>>> situation.
>>>
>>> "If I die out here, I'll never hear the end of it from the gang at
>>> rec.aviation."
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> The fact is, you're always going to get flamed, no matter what you do.
> You can't worry about it.

I agree. What's to worry about? Flames aren't fatal. They don't even
hurt. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

NW_Pilot wrote:

> "houstondan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>i posted a link at a couple of cessna "type" clubs (c.p.a. and c.p.s.).
>>i noticed someone did that on an earlier edition so i guessed it was ok
>>to do that.
>>
>>someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
>>he did just great. turned around, got it back on the ground, figured it
>>out, flew on and made the contract. i think he needs to be
>>congratulated for doing something really big and doing it well. i'm
>>about finished reading "the flying north" and i expect any of those
>>guys would have bought steven a beer and listened to his story.
>>
>>my airplane budget looks at getting a good harness system, fuel and
>>engine monitors and enough gas to do some real traveling so i don't
>>have to worry about a G-1000 any time soon. clearly it is a cautionary
>>tale about putting too many avionics eggs in one glass basket.
>>
>>again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.
>>
>>
>>dan
>
>
> Thank, You
>
> I would feel a bit better about the system if they put manual engine
> monitors and fuel qty indicators as a back up the cost to Cessna would not
> be much more they have the panel space and would make the newer models safer
> with manual back up instruments.

I agree. As we've learned and re-learned many times over the years
(Therac-25 and many others), it isn't a good idea to have all of your
eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is made of software! :-)


Matt

[John Theune]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>
>> "houstondan" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>> i posted a link at a couple of cessna "type" clubs (c.p.a. and c.p.s.).
>>> i noticed someone did that on an earlier edition so i guessed it was ok
>>> to do that.
>>>
>>> someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
>>> he did just great. turned around, got it back on the ground, figured it
>>> out, flew on and made the contract. i think he needs to be
>>> congratulated for doing something really big and doing it well. i'm
>>> about finished reading "the flying north" and i expect any of those
>>> guys would have bought steven a beer and listened to his story.
>>>
>>> my airplane budget looks at getting a good harness system, fuel and
>>> engine monitors and enough gas to do some real traveling so i don't
>>> have to worry about a G-1000 any time soon. clearly it is a cautionary
>>> tale about putting too many avionics eggs in one glass basket.
>>>
>>> again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>> dan
>>
>>
>> Thank, You
>>
>> I would feel a bit better about the system if they put manual engine
>> monitors and fuel qty indicators as a back up the cost to Cessna would
>> not be much more they have the panel space and would make the newer
>> models safer with manual back up instruments.
>
> I agree. As we've learned and re-learned many times over the years
> (Therac-25 and many others), it isn't a good idea to have all of your
> eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is made of software! :-)
>
>
> Matt
Just as people will plead to let the NTSB give a report before you
decide what caused a crash, I think the same thing should be done here.
I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot. It might
be a **** poor design or it might be something else. NW_pilot has not
given us enough data to know ( because he did not have the data either )
The biggest problem is Garmin does not issue final reports but in this
cause it may be possible to find out why. I agree that a out of range
fuel sensor should not cause a system reboot. I just went back and
re-read the story and realized that this was not truly a garmin problem.
The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
outside the design envelop of the garmin system. It would appear at
first glance that the condition that caused the problem ( over pressure
in the fuel tank due to excess fuel could not happen in a standard
system and so it was not forseen in the system design) Bottom line is
that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
that are a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.

John

[Longworth[_1_]]

x-archive-no: yes

NW_Pilot wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> >
> > Anyway, that's quite an adventure! Would you do it again?
>
> Hell, Yeah!!! You Bet !!
> >

Steven,

Adventure like this was made for adrenaline junkie like you ;-)
Congratulations for an exceedingly well done job. Actions speak louder
than words, it takes both a cool head and good piloting skill to handle
this scary event. I don't think that you can ever silent net armchair
critics, Monday morning quarterbacks etc but I hope that you have
erased some doubts in the mind of some of your 'frequent' critics.

Hai Longworth

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
>> Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that dire
>> situation.
>
>
> "If I die out here, I'll never hear the end of it from the gang at
> rec.aviation."
>

Truly any pilots version of hell.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:18:13 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>... , it isn't a good idea to have all of your
>eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is made of software! :-)

It would seem that Airbus has successfully grappled with this issue.
Perhaps Cessna and Garmin should get a clue from them.

[Jon Kraus]

but they do look funny running with their wrists flapping an all... :-)

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>>> Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in
>>>>> that dire
>>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "If I die out here, I'll never hear the end of it from the gang at
>>>> rec.aviation."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> The fact is, you're always going to get flamed, no matter what you do.
>> You can't worry about it.
>
>
> I agree. What's to worry about? Flames aren't fatal. They don't even
> hurt. :-)
>
> Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:27:24 GMT, John Theune >
wrote in <wI6Ug.876$Pk2.497@trnddc08>:

> I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
>and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot.

Would division by zero be one of them?

>It might be a **** poor design or it might be something else. NW_pilot
>has not given us enough data to know ( because he did not have the data
>either )

Perhaps. Here's what is on Mr. Honeck's web site at the URL he
provided at the beginning of this message thread
<http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm>:

[Day 2]
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.

>The biggest problem is Garmin does not issue final reports but in this
>cause it may be possible to find out why. I agree that a[n] out of range
>fuel sensor should not cause a system reboot. I just went back and
>re-read the story and realized that this was not truly a garmin problem.

Perhaps you are correct, but It would seem that there is a lot of
corroborating evidence absent at this time.

> The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
>outside the design envelop of the garmin system.

Would you care to share the information to which you refer, detailing
the "design envelope of the Garmin system?"

>It would appear at first glance that the condition that caused the problem
>( over pressure in the fuel tank due to excess fuel could not happen in a standard
>system and so it was not forseen in the system design)

Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.

>Bottom line is that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
>that are [sic] a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.

Perhaps.

I thought you felt it would be more appropriate to reserve judgment
until more information was available.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 23:12:42 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On 1 Oct 2006 06:47:05 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> in m>:
>>
>>>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>>>
>>>Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
>>
>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
>> Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.
>
>I did study the fuel system

Given the fact that the aux fuel system was a modification upon which
your safety depended, did you personally take the time to analyze its
intended operation from the schematic diagram and description of
system operation (not its use, but how it was engineered to operate)?
I believe you are intelligent enough to have done a reasonable job of
system analysis without benefit of specific training or an appropriate
college degree.

>and so did the engineer that designed it and
>wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
>inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions. Once
>you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
>description of the now modified fuel system.

If I understand your story correctly, the cause of the wing tank
venting was a result of the fuel return line pouring fuel that was
being feed from the separate aux tank fuel system into the wing
tank(s). Is that correct?

> They left out something very very important in the new systems description!

Are you referring to the necessity to burn fuel from the wing tanks
before switching to the aux tank, so that there would be adequate room
in the wing tanks to hold the fuel being returned from the fuel
injection system?

Can you provide the manufacturer's name and model number for the aux
fuel system installed in the aircraft you delivered?

How large is the documentation of the aux fuel system? Is it possible
you could make a scanned copy available? In particular, I'd like to
see a schematic drawing of the system and the description of its
operation, and its operation use instructions, in that order.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I just went back and re-read the story and realized that this was not truly a garmin problem. The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are outside the design envelop of the garmin system.

I most strenuously disagree. Systems should be designed NOT to fail
catastrophically when outside their "intended use". The problem was
=not= caused by the modified fuel system, rather, the problem was caused
by unexpected sensor input. In this case the unexpected sensor input
was caused by the modified fuel system, but it could have come from any
number of reasons, and the whole point of aviation systems is that they
be robust.

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.

[NW_Pilot]

> Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
> Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
> the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
> is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
> Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
> conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
> venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
> was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
> presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
> designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.

The Aux system used it's own fuel pump and it was tied in after the aircraft
fuel shut off valve.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
> and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot. It might
> be a **** poor design or it might be something else.

It's always poor design, unless power is cut to the system. This is
something that many software engineers don't understand.

The aircraft does not freeze in suspended animation while the system
reboots.

> I just went back and
> re-read the story and realized that this was not truly a garmin problem.

If the G1000 rebooted, it's a Garmin problem (although there may be
others).

> The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
> outside the design envelop of the garmin system.

Rebooting is not an appropriate response to excursions outside the
envelope.

> Bottom line is
> that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
> that are a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.

Why not? Does somebody have to die first?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> It would seem that Airbus has successfully grappled with this issue.

On the contrary, Airbus has shown just what a serious problem it is.

> Perhaps Cessna and Garmin should get a clue from them.

Perhaps installing a video game in place of standard avionics isn't a
good idea.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:14:15 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

>
>> Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
>> Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
>> the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
>> is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
>> Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
>> conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
>> venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
>> was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
>> presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
>> designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.
>
>The Aux system used it's own fuel pump and it was tied in after the aircraft
>fuel shut off valve.
>

So you're saying, that there was a new fuel selector valve placed in
the fuel line between the normal On/Off Cessna fuel selector valve and
the engine?

And the aux fuel system consisted of a fuel quantity indicator, the
aux fuel tank and vent, an additional fuel pump and electrical switch,
and a single fuel line leading from the aux fuel tank to the added
fuel selector valve?

[Jim Logajan]

john smith > wrote:
> The problem with that statement is that many GA pilots haven't even
> read the book to know what it says.

What's the ISBN of this book?

[Jon Kraus]

>
> The aircraft does not freeze in suspended animation while the system
> reboots.
>
It does for everything you fly...

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:41:50 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>john smith > wrote:
>> The problem with that statement is that many GA pilots haven't even
>> read the book to know what it says.
>
>What's the ISBN of this book?

I believe Mr. Smith is referring to the aircraft's POH.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> I agree that continuous rebooting is a bad idea.

Just FYI, NASA's Mars Spirit rover got itself into a continuous reboot
cycle too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_rover

I've been involved in a couple of projects where we considered adding an
external hardware watchdog reboot system. (These are simple systems that
must be sent a heartbeat pulse periodically by the application, otherwise
the watchdog assumes the app died and does a hard reset of the application
system.)

Automatic reboot is of course a last resort, but given a choice between a
distant system that freezes up entirely and all hope of recovery is lost
and one that reboots into a state long enough to allow a small chance to
salvage the situation, I think the latter is preferred.

[Jose[_1_]]

> but given a choice between a
> distant system that freezes up entirely...

Different application. Here we have a live pilot who can make a
decision and push the button, but the computer decides to push it for
him. There, it's completely on its own, and a last resort is
worthwhile. One just make sure the last resort doesn't get too
impatient. :)

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.

[Jay Honeck]

> > The fact is, you're always going to get flamed, no matter what you do.
> > You can't worry about it.
>
> I agree. What's to worry about? Flames aren't fatal. They don't even
> hurt. :-)

Well, as you know I am immune to flames, too -- but I often hear from
"lurkers" who say they don't post for fear of getting lambasted.

Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
-- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
poison pens.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jon Kraus]

Back in my day (your day too - I think we are about the same age) a
little lambasting built character...

Now get out there and get your freakn' Instrument Rating!! ;-)

Jon Kraus
Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>The fact is, you're always going to get flamed, no matter what you do.
>>>You can't worry about it.
>>
>>I agree. What's to worry about? Flames aren't fatal. They don't even
>>hurt. :-)
>
>
> Well, as you know I am immune to flames, too -- but I often hear from
> "lurkers" who say they don't post for fear of getting lambasted.
>
> Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
> -- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
> poison pens.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Theune writes:
>
> > I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
> > and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot. It might
> > be a **** poor design or it might be something else.
>
> It's always poor design, unless power is cut to the system.

Your absolutes are simply amazing.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jim Logajan > said:
wrote:
>> I agree that continuous rebooting is a bad idea.
>
>Just FYI, NASA's Mars Spirit rover got itself into a continuous reboot
>cycle too:

And even then they only way they fixed it was to figure out a way to stop
it rebooting long enough to listen to some commands.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Pity stayed his hand. "It's a pity I've run out of bullets", he thought.
-- Bored of the Rings

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Given the fact that the aux fuel system was a modification upon which
> your safety depended, did you personally take the time to analyze its
> intended operation from the schematic diagram and description of
> system operation (not its use, but how it was engineered to operate)?
> I believe you are intelligent enough to have done a reasonable job of
> system analysis without benefit of specific training or an appropriate
> college degree.

Yes, I looked at the system!

>
>>and so did the engineer that designed it and
>>wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
>>inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions.
>>Once
>>you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
>>description of the now modified fuel system.
>
> If I understand your story correctly, the cause of the wing tank
> venting was a result of the fuel return line pouring fuel that was
> being feed from the separate aux tank fuel system into the wing
> tank(s). Is that correct?

The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks. The
description also stated that it was connected after the aircraft fuel
system.

>
>> They left out something very very important in the new systems
>> description!
>
> Are you referring to the necessity to burn fuel from the wing tanks
> before switching to the aux tank, so that there would be adequate room
> in the wing tanks to hold the fuel being returned from the fuel
> injection system?

Correct, They failed to mention this the description and instruction
provided!

therir instruction basicaly short and simple! Climb to altitude on both
tanks aircraft tanks once at altitude switch to ferry tank until specified
mark on aux tank near empty then switch back to aircraft fuel.

Now!! If the instructions stated to run on the left tank till near empty
then switch to the ferry tank and monitor the left tank fuel quantity and
return to aircraft fuel and switch ferry tank off when left tank was almost
full about 2 hours flight time this little problem would not have happened.
The Greenland CAA took a copy of the instructions and fuel system
description and copy of Cessna description of the problem and will be
contacting the ferry tank mfg and installer telling them to correct their
system instructions.

>
> Can you provide the manufacturer's name and model number for the aux
> fuel system installed in the aircraft you delivered?

The Ferry tank was Manufactured And Installed By Telford Aviation In Bangor,
Maine. In the future I will try and avoid this company or flying with this
company's installed equipment if at all possible and if I am to use them
(Not Likely) I will require them to provide a full schematic of the system
and talk with them more to support their documentation. Another thing that
****es me off when I called the company (telford) to help with the problem
they were rude and said there instruction were correct and that it was not
their problem! Cessna support and the weekend A&P in Greenland were the best
they had a solution with in a few hours after faxing the instructions to
them and are also writing a letter to Telford explaining the problem with
their instructions.

>
> How large is the documentation of the aux fuel system? Is it possible
> you could make a scanned copy available? In particular, I'd like to
> see a schematic drawing of the system and the description of its
> operation, and its operation use instructions, in that order.

No schematic was available only textual description of the fuel system and
its operation. All paperwork was given to new owner and there was no photo
copy machine available in Beirut at time of delivery for me to make a copy
for myself. The Greenland CAA made copies of all paperwork and said they
will forward me copies of all paperwork.

>

[NW_Pilot]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> I just went back and re-read the story and realized that this was not
>> truly a garmin problem. The modified fuel system caused the problem and
>> those additions are outside the design envelop of the garmin system.
>
> I most strenuously disagree. Systems should be designed NOT to fail
> catastrophically when outside their "intended use". The problem was =not=
> caused by the modified fuel system, rather, the problem was caused by
> unexpected sensor input. In this case the unexpected sensor input was
> caused by the modified fuel system, but it could have come from any number
> of reasons, and the whole point of aviation systems is that they be
> robust.
>
> 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.

Don't think it was just one error causing the system to fail and reboot I
think it was multiple problems compounded by 1 problem. But still the system
should not reboot itself. When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
Garmin support they said they had a similar problem during stalls and slow
flight.

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:14:15 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>> Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
>>> Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
>>> the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
>>> is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
>>> Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
>>> conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
>>> venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
>>> was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
>>> presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
>>> designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.
>>
>>The Aux system used it's own fuel pump and it was tied in after the
>>aircraft
>>fuel shut off valve.
>>
>
> So you're saying, that there was a new fuel selector valve placed in
> the fuel line between the normal On/Off Cessna fuel selector valve and
> the engine?
>
> And the aux fuel system consisted of a fuel quantity indicator, the
> aux fuel tank and vent, an additional fuel pump and electrical switch,
> and a single fuel line leading from the aux fuel tank to the added
> fuel selector valve?

The 172 SP has a fuel slector Valve L - B - R Plus A Fuel shut off Valve!

The Ferry Tank had a shut off valve fuel pump a hose that connected after
the aircraft fuel system shut off valve.

See Photo! Look by the aircraft fuel Selector You will see a Fuel Shut Off
Valve and The Fuel Pump with Switch.
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/NWPilots-Transatlantic/2006-9-12-SurvivalGear.jpg

[Jose[_1_]]

> The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
> system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
> description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks.

How would the fuel get to the main tanks in the first place? Is the
engine the only connection? (if so, with the fuel selector OFF that
should block fuel flow to the main tanks). Is there a vent line that
connects them?

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 2 Oct 2006 10:45:20 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>> I agree. What's to worry about? Flames aren't fatal. They don't even
>> hurt. :-)
>
>Well, as you know I am immune to flames, too

We see few actual flames in this newsgroup. Most acrimonious
responses are more in the nature of heated discussion and
disagreements. Here's an example of what I consider a classic flame:

> You know - they say that people with
> I.Q.'s over 40-points apart are pretty
> much unintelligible to each other.
> That's just a random observation with no
> ulterior meaning attached to it :P
> As I read it, stupidity installed itself long
> before you clocked three score and ten,
> you are merely coming out, in bloom.
> Let's pretend that you really are not an
> obnoxious ignorant, cowardly, motor-mouthed
> cretin exuding digital diarrhea as a pretext
> to seeking a Life? About as topical as the
> man who thinks its cool to jam garden gnomes
> headlong up his ass to prove a qualified
> opinion on de rigueur art decor, your puerile
> attempt at self adulation is hilarious!
> Unfortunately my having no respect for you
> means your opinion of what I or anyone else
> needs to respect means absolutely nothing.
>
> Don't forget to **** yourself on your way
> out, moron.

We don't see much in the way of that sort of "creative writing" in
this newsgroup (thankfully).

>-- but I often hear from "lurkers" who say they don't post for fear of getting lambasted.

If the lurkers post USEFUL INFORMATION, that is correct and supported
by independent citations, they have nothing to fear. Otherwise, it
would appear that the 'flameage' is working.

>Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
>-- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
>poison pens.

Welcoming EVERYONE? You feel critical thinking* is misplaced? You
would recommend welcoming the likes of Mohammed Atta, AOL users, Ted
Kaczynski, Ted Bundy, John W. Hinckley, Jr, ...? Welcoming EVERYONE
could reduce Usenet to a the status of FidoNet. If you don't mean
'everyone,' don't use absolute language.

I have no tacit agenda to entice the timid to indulge in aviation.
If they are afraid of public response to their words, they are
probably much too fearful to become airmen.

Although you apparently believe Usenet was intended for kibitzing,
inane prattle, and chit chat, it is actually for the sharing of
INFORMATION.

This fellow put it well:

In my opinion, it is a very helpful (and in some instances quite
necessary) virtue to be able to take criticism even if it is
offensive or insulting. In fact, even the most offensive
criticism might (and hopefully does!) contain insights that are
valuable, and by disregarding the entire criticism, you are
throwing away that insight. You may not like it, but it sometimes
does pay to listen to a person that is not as friendly as you'd
like her to be.
-- Tobias Dussa >

</rant>

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

[Jose[_1_]]

> When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
> Garmin support they said they had a similar
> problem during stalls and slow flight.

Sheesh, and they marketed it anyway?

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 Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:47:43 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

> When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
>Garmin support they said they had a similar problem
>during stalls and slow flight.

So, the uncommanded FIS rebooting was a known issue, and both
manufactures chose to release their products for use? One would have
thought Cessna would have learned not to do that from their seat-rail
issue. I hope the premiums are paid current on their errors and
omissions insurance policies.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:59:11 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>How would the fuel get to the main tanks in the first place?

Read Mr. Rhine's narrative. The FI system has a fuel return line to
return unused fuel pumped to the engine back to the wing tank(s).

[Jose[_1_]]

> The FI system has a fuel return line to
> return unused fuel pumped to the engine back to the wing tank(s).

Is this dumb, or is there a good reason not to return fuel to the tank
whence it came, in this case, the ferry tank?

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.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Here's an example of what I consider a classic flame:
>
> > You know - they say that people with
> > I.Q.'s over 40-points apart are pretty
> > much unintelligible to each other.
> > That's just a random observation with no
> > ulterior meaning attached to it :P
> > As I read it, stupidity installed itself long
> > before you clocked three score and ten,
> > you are merely coming out, in bloom.
> > Let's pretend that you really are not an
> > obnoxious ignorant, cowardly, motor-mouthed
> > cretin exuding digital diarrhea as a pretext
> > to seeking a Life? About as topical as the
> > man who thinks its cool to jam garden gnomes
> > headlong up his ass to prove a qualified
> > opinion on de rigueur art decor, your puerile
> > attempt at self adulation is hilarious!
> > Unfortunately my having no respect for you
> > means your opinion of what I or anyone else
> > needs to respect means absolutely nothing.
> >
> > Don't forget to **** yourself on your way
> > out, moron.
>

Larry,

Who'd you **** off over in alt.languages.english? :)

[Andrey Serbinenko]

A few years ago, I remember reading an excellent book on general design of
modern avionics. In particular, one thing that I believe is different between
Garmin's baby and what they have in B-s and A-s is redundancy. The whole thing
there is doubled, and some critical components are tripled. And then there's
a whole body of software that takes care of voting-elimination among inputs.
By design, the event of the computer reboot (i.e. all three redundant computers
reboot) is perhaps as likely as the event of all four engines quitting at the
same time. What surprises me is that Garmin got FAA approval for such a system,
whereas it doesn't even come close to what "normal" glass cockpit is supposed
to be like in terms of robustness of system design. I understand it's all done
in the name of affordability, but this is clearly a dangerous game to play.

If you think about it, just to be able to claim any kind of "robustness",
you should be reasonably sure that there's no single failure that will take
the whole system out, right? And there we go: excessive fuel venting took
airspeed indicator out completely, and CO indication out completely. And this
is aside from any software bugs; this is the way G1000 is supposed to work
by design!

So, I guess my point is: you can't just take a steam-gauge-type airplane,
replace all the individual *independent* instrument systems with one
electronic box, and claim you've got an equally reliable plane. No way. By
tying everything together and establishing inter-system dependencies that
never existed before, you increase your likelihood of a catastrophic failure
by orders of magnitude. If you want to use an all-in-one instrument system,
you need to redesign the airplane and fit it with redundant systems to
compensate for that loss of overall reliability.

That's the book, btw:
http://www.amazon.com/Avionics-Handbook-Cary-R-Spitzer/dp/084938348X/sr=1-2/qid=1159814793/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-3654151-1914542?ie=UTF8&s=books


Andrey


Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:18:13 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>>... , it isn't a good idea to have all of your
>>eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is made of software! :-)
>
> It would seem that Airbus has successfully grappled with this issue.
> Perhaps Cessna and Garmin should get a clue from them.
>

[Allen[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
>> system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
>> description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks.
>
> How would the fuel get to the main tanks in the first place? Is the
> engine the only connection? (if so, with the fuel selector OFF that
> should block fuel flow to the main tanks). Is there a vent line that
> connects them?

Excess fuel from the engine is returned to the main tanks. Twin Cessna's
are the same way; if you switch to the aux tanks before burning a certain
amount out of the mains (90 minutes for the large aux tanks) the mains will
overfill and vent overboard before the aux tanks are empty.

Allen

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Larry Dighera" wrote USEFUL INFORMATION)
> If the lurkers post USEFUL INFORMATION, that is correct and supported by
> independent citations, they have nothing to fear. Otherwise, it would
> appear that the 'flameage' is working.


"Bloviating idiot" is still my favorite ...flameage.


Montblack

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> The FI system has a fuel return line to
>> return unused fuel pumped to the engine back to the wing tank(s).
>
> Is this dumb, or is there a good reason not to return fuel to the tank
> whence it came, in this case, the ferry tank?
>
> Jose

There would probably be a significant amount of under the cowling work that
would have to be done. So the good reason is cost.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Longworth" wrote)
> Adventure like this was made for adrenaline junkie like you ;-)
> Congratulations for an exceedingly well done job. Actions speak louder
> than words, it takes both a cool head and good piloting skill to handle
> this scary event. I don't think that you can ever silent net armchair
> critics, Monday morning quarterbacks etc but I hope that you have erased
> some doubts in the mind of some of your 'frequent' critics.


Agreed.

Congratulations! Well done.


Montblack

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:47:43 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
>>Garmin support they said they had a similar problem
>>during stalls and slow flight.
>
> So, the uncommanded FIS rebooting was a known issue, and both
> manufactures chose to release their products for use? One would have
> thought Cessna would have learned not to do that from their seat-rail
> issue. I hope the premiums are paid current on their errors and
> omissions insurance policies.

Yea, its a scary thought! The G1,000 System is nice when it works "Great IFR
platform for situational awareness" But they do need some manual back up of
some critical items for safe IFR flight. I know I would not fly into IFR
conditions in a G1000 equipped airplane with my family or a passenger on
board. After sitting for 70 hours on Cessna version of the G1000 Scares the
hell out of me and it takes a lot to scare me! To many bugs and failure in
70 hours of flight! Look at my finial day the Tach. even failed!

[NW_Pilot]

"Allen" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> m...
>>> The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft
>>> fuel system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
>>> description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks.
>>
>> How would the fuel get to the main tanks in the first place? Is the
>> engine the only connection? (if so, with the fuel selector OFF that
>> should block fuel flow to the main tanks). Is there a vent line that
>> connects them?
>
> Excess fuel from the engine is returned to the main tanks. Twin Cessna's
> are the same way; if you switch to the aux tanks before burning a certain
> amount out of the mains (90 minutes for the large aux tanks) the mains
> will overfill and vent overboard before the aux tanks are empty.
>
> Allen
>

And there is a note in the description of that fuel system that explains
that! Which was not included in the description of the modified fuel system
on the 172.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
...

>
> Yea, its a scary thought! The G1,000 System is nice when it works "Great
> IFR platform for situational awareness" But they do need some manual back
> up of some critical items for safe IFR flight. I know I would not fly into
> IFR conditions in a G1000 equipped airplane with my family or a passenger
> on board. After sitting for 70 hours on Cessna version of the G1000 Scares
> the hell out of me and it takes a lot to scare me! To many bugs and
> failure in 70 hours of flight! Look at my finial day the Tach. even
> failed!
>
>

I think you did good. This whole adventure and your handling of it has IMHO
wiped away the stain on your reputation that was the 150 roll.

[Stefan]

NW_Pilot schrieb:

> Yea, its a scary thought! The G1,000 System is nice when it works "Great IFR
> platform for situational awareness" But they do need some manual back up of
> some critical items for safe IFR flight. I know I would not fly into IFR
> conditions in a G1000 equipped airplane with my family or a passenger on

Not that I want to excuse those system failures the least bit, and not
that I would not have an adrenaline rush in that situation, but there
*are* manual back ups for the critical items! At least in those planes
I've seen so far, there has always been a "steam" AI, a "steam" ASI, a
"steam" altimeter and a whisky compass. You can perfectly fly in IMC
with this equipment.

> Look at my finial day the Tach. even failed!

Hardly a critical item.

Stefan

[Allen[_1_]]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Jose" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>> The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft
>>>> fuel system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
>>>> description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks.
>>>
>>> How would the fuel get to the main tanks in the first place? Is the
>>> engine the only connection? (if so, with the fuel selector OFF that
>>> should block fuel flow to the main tanks). Is there a vent line that
>>> connects them?
>>
>> Excess fuel from the engine is returned to the main tanks. Twin Cessna's
>> are the same way; if you switch to the aux tanks before burning a certain
>> amount out of the mains (90 minutes for the large aux tanks) the mains
>> will overfill and vent overboard before the aux tanks are empty.
>>
>> Allen
>>
>
> And there is a note in the description of that fuel system that explains
> that! Which was not included in the description of the modified fuel
> system on the 172.

That is true, I am not inferring anything. You would think the tank company
would be familiar enough with the aircraft they are installing tanks into to
have a working (correct) procedure manual. Surely you are not the first to
ferry this particular combination.

Allen

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:23:12 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>
>Is this dumb, or is there a good reason not to return fuel to the tank
>whence it came, in this case, the ferry tank?

I suppose it was an engineering expedient to simplify the
installation.

[NW_Pilot]

"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
...
>A few years ago, I remember reading an excellent book on general design of
> modern avionics. In particular, one thing that I believe is different
> between
> Garmin's baby and what they have in B-s and A-s is redundancy. The whole
> thing
> there is doubled, and some critical components are tripled. And then
> there's
> a whole body of software that takes care of voting-elimination among
> inputs.
> By design, the event of the computer reboot (i.e. all three redundant
> computers
> reboot) is perhaps as likely as the event of all four engines quitting at
> the
> same time. What surprises me is that Garmin got FAA approval for such a
> system,
> whereas it doesn't even come close to what "normal" glass cockpit is
> supposed
> to be like in terms of robustness of system design. I understand it's all
> done
> in the name of affordability, but this is clearly a dangerous game to
> play.
>
> If you think about it, just to be able to claim any kind of "robustness",
> you should be reasonably sure that there's no single failure that will
> take
> the whole system out, right? And there we go: excessive fuel venting took
> airspeed indicator out completely, and CO indication out completely. And
> this
> is aside from any software bugs; this is the way G1000 is supposed to work
> by design!
>
> So, I guess my point is: you can't just take a steam-gauge-type airplane,
> replace all the individual *independent* instrument systems with one
> electronic box, and claim you've got an equally reliable plane. No way. By
> tying everything together and establishing inter-system dependencies that
> never existed before, you increase your likelihood of a catastrophic
> failure
> by orders of magnitude. If you want to use an all-in-one instrument
> system,
> you need to redesign the airplane and fit it with redundant systems to
> compensate for that loss of overall reliability.

The G1000 system If you buy one or intend to fly one in the Soup be current
and really proficient on you partial panel skill because in the event of a
G1000 failure or even partial failure you will be left with and Compass,
Altimeter, Attitude Indicator, and Airspeed Indicator and a bunch of useless
knobs and buttons or questionable reading from a partial failure. It's
almost an IFR pilots worst nightmare yea a Vacuum and Electrical System
Failure as when the G1000 goes radios, navigation, & transponder go along
with it!

I don't think it would cost Cessna much $$$ to put some manual back up
instruments in the panel even if they are the small ones they already charge
to much for a skyhawk why not add 3k or 4k if even that much to the price
and add some redundancy to the system!

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> The FI system has a fuel return line to
>> return unused fuel pumped to the engine back to the wing tank(s).
>
> Is this dumb, or is there a good reason not to return fuel to the tank
> whence it came, in this case, the ferry tank?
>
I think it's short-sighted, as it didn't consider the entire fuel system.
From the description that NW_Pilot gave, the aux fuel system seems more
like a kludge than something that was designed.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On 02 Oct 2006 19:26:50 GMT, Andrey Serbinenko
> wrote in
>:

>So, I guess my point is: you can't just take a steam-gauge-type airplane,
>replace all the individual *independent* instrument systems with one
>electronic box, and claim you've got an equally reliable plane. No way.

Obviously you are not a member of the Cessna marketing team. :-)

Thanks for the link to the book. If I knew the appropriate
individuals at Garmin and Cessna to send it to, I would.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:32:15 GMT, "Allen" >
wrote in >:

> Twin Cessna's
>are the same way; if you switch to the aux tanks before burning a certain
>amount out of the mains (90 minutes for the large aux tanks) the mains will
>overfill and vent overboard before the aux tanks are empty.

Are you saying that Cessna designed the fuel system that way, and the
FAA certified it? Or are you referring to a ferry tank?

It makes you wonder if the FAA would certify kinking the fuel line
instead of providing a valve to shut off fuel flow. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:47:44 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

>After sitting for 70 hours on Cessna version of the G1000 Scares the
>hell out of me and it takes a lot to scare me! To many bugs and failure in
>70 hours of flight! Look at my finial day the Tach. even failed!

Was that a mechanical tach?

I would write a report of your experience detailing the equipment
failures that occurred, and politely and respectfully send copies to
Cessna and Garmin. If you word it, so that it contains implicit
references to their exposure to civil liability, and express your
disappointment with the performance of their products, who knows how
they may respond. They may try to appease you with a perk or two. If
not, forward the report to AOPA, FSDO, and AvWeb. :-)

[NW_Pilot]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot schrieb:
>
>> Yea, its a scary thought! The G1,000 System is nice when it works "Great
>> IFR platform for situational awareness" But they do need some manual back
>> up of some critical items for safe IFR flight. I know I would not fly
>> into IFR conditions in a G1000 equipped airplane with my family or a
>> passenger on
>
> Not that I want to excuse those system failures the least bit, and not
> that I would not have an adrenaline rush in that situation, but there
> *are* manual back ups for the critical items! At least in those planes
> I've seen so far, there has always been a "steam" AI, a "steam" ASI, a
> "steam" altimeter and a whisky compass. You can perfectly fly in IMC with
> this equipment.
>
>> Look at my finial day the Tach. even failed!
>
> Hardly a critical item.
>
> Stefan

I would not say perfectly you can hold straight and level and do climbs and
descents but without a reliable source of navigation except for a compass
(which has it's errors) and the deviations in Greenland area can be as much
as 40 degrees then add the wind correction makes for challenging navigation
for a few hundred miles with only a compass. Now when the only approach you
have is an NDB and the indicator don't work hahahaha!!! Trust me you don't
want to be there it's not fun but, it is a rush up until the moment you turn
on your portable gps and it downloads your present position and draws a line
to the nearest airport 200+ miles away!

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:50:35 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:14:15 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>
>>>> Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
>>>> Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
>>>> the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
>>>> is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
>>>> Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
>>>> conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
>>>> venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
>>>> was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
>>>> presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
>>>> designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.
>>>
>>>The Aux system used it's own fuel pump and it was tied in after the
>>>aircraft
>>>fuel shut off valve.
>>>
>>
>> So you're saying, that there was a new fuel selector valve placed in
>> the fuel line between the normal On/Off Cessna fuel selector valve and
>> the engine?
>>
>> And the aux fuel system consisted of a fuel quantity indicator, the
>> aux fuel tank and vent, an additional fuel pump and electrical switch,
>> and a single fuel line leading from the aux fuel tank to the added
>> fuel selector valve?
>
>The 172 SP has a fuel slector Valve L - B - R Plus A Fuel shut off Valve!
>
>The Ferry Tank had a shut off valve fuel pump a hose that connected after
>the aircraft fuel system shut off valve.
>

What position was the position of the Cessna fuel shut off valve while
you were running on the aux tank?

[Michael[_1_]]

Stefan wrote:
> He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
> supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong!

On the contrary. When flying an aircraft that has just had major
modifications to critical componets and/or systems, one becomes a test
pilot. There is nothing wrong with this - SOMEONE has to be a test
pilot.

However, there is a difference between flying proven production
aircraft and being a test pilot. The pilot flying proven production
aircraft need only study the approved guidance and procedures (the
book!) and fly by the book - and usually all will be well. This is not
because the
book is FAA approved, but because it is time-tested. The FAA approval
is pretty much irrelevant.

When one becomes a test pilot, the world changes. Now the pilot must
study the system in detail (pulling off the cowls and tracing the lines
if necessary) and understand exactly how it works. He must consider
the normal operation and the failure modes. This will give him an edge
in troubleshooting if something should go wrong in flight, but that is
secondary. More importantly, it makes things going wrong in flight far
less likely.

Reading the book and flying by the book is not enough in this
situation. The fact that the book and the system are FAA-approved is
irrelevant. Neither the book nor the system are time-proven. Unless
you are prepared to trust a bunch of federal bureaucrats who couldn't
find better work with your life, you need to understand what it is they
approved.

> In fact, I'm
> scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
> think they know better than the book.

Being a test pilot is often all about coming up with an ad-hoc
procedure, because the book is wrong - because someone didn't think of
something.

Now for our adventurer:

Once the emergency developed, you did a good job flying the emergency.
I don't want to take anything away from you there.

Your preparation for the flight, though, was incomplete. You knew that
you had a highly modified fuel system which is rarely installed on this
sort of airplane. You also knew that you had an injected engine. The
FIRST question you should have asked is - is there a vapor return line
(not all fuel injected engines have them) and if there is, where does
it go? I'm guessing you didn't ask the question because you didn't
have experience with other airplanes where this was an issue. That's
the value of breadth of experience when it comes to being a test pilot.

I accept that your documentation did not answer that question. But the
problem is, you didn't even ask it. Had you asked, you could have
gotten some sort of answer - and in any case, even a cursory
examination of the plumbing would have told you that it wasn't going
back to the ferry tank (they never do, you know) and would have forced
you to consider the problem - and to develop an operating procedure a
lot more correct than the approved one.

In theory I suppose it could be possible to become a capable,
proficient, experienced pilot without making mistakes like this and
scaring yourself. I've never seen it happen. Every experienced,
capable, proficient pilot I know got there the same way - by going out
and doing stuff, amking mistakes, and scaring himself. The difference
between the ones who get there and the ones who drop out along the way
is basically this - the ones who get there learn from the experience,
and learn not to make the same class of mistake again. You see, while
you handled the emergency, that's not the sort of thing you can count
on handling 100 times out of 100.

I'm sure you won't make the exact same mistake again - not
understanding what your modified fuel system really does - but the
lesson to learn is broader. If you are flying something that has been
modified from the norm, make sure you understand the full extent of the
modifications and their implications before you launch.

Michael

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:50:35 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:14:15 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
>>>>> Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
>>>>> the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
>>>>> is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
>>>>> Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
>>>>> conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
>>>>> venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
>>>>> was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
>>>>> presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
>>>>> designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.
>>>>
>>>>The Aux system used it's own fuel pump and it was tied in after the
>>>>aircraft
>>>>fuel shut off valve.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you're saying, that there was a new fuel selector valve placed in
>>> the fuel line between the normal On/Off Cessna fuel selector valve and
>>> the engine?
>>>
>>> And the aux fuel system consisted of a fuel quantity indicator, the
>>> aux fuel tank and vent, an additional fuel pump and electrical switch,
>>> and a single fuel line leading from the aux fuel tank to the added
>>> fuel selector valve?
>>
>>The 172 SP has a fuel slector Valve L - B - R Plus A Fuel shut off Valve!
>>
>>The Ferry Tank had a shut off valve fuel pump a hose that connected after
>>the aircraft fuel system shut off valve.
>>
>
> What position was the position of the Cessna fuel shut off valve while
> you were running on the aux tank?
>

The aircraft shut off valve was pulled straight out "Aircraft Fuel Off"

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:47:44 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>After sitting for 70 hours on Cessna version of the G1000 Scares the
>>hell out of me and it takes a lot to scare me! To many bugs and failure in
>>70 hours of flight! Look at my finial day the Tach. even failed!
>
> Was that a mechanical tach?
>
> I would write a report of your experience detailing the equipment
> failures that occurred, and politely and respectfully send copies to
> Cessna and Garmin. If you word it, so that it contains implicit
> references to their exposure to civil liability, and express your
> disappointment with the performance of their products, who knows how
> they may respond. They may try to appease you with a perk or two. If
> not, forward the report to AOPA, FSDO, and AvWeb. :-)
>

Larry, That's a great Idea and the Tach. was part of the G1000 system I am
not sure of the cause of the failure did not hang around in Beirut long
enough to find out the diagnostics.

See Photo
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/NWPilots-Transatlantic/Day%2012%20-%20oh_NO_Not_againTach_Failure.jpg

[Stefan]

NW_Pilot schrieb:

> for a few hundred miles with only a compass. Now when the only approach you
> have is an NDB and the indicator don't work hahahaha!!! Trust me you don't
> want to be there it's not fun but,

I trust you. All I said is that there are all the backup instrument
needed to keep the plane flying. Now if your mission *relies* on
electronic navigation aids, then it's a good idea to have such a backup
handy. But not all missions rely on them, so I don't see the need to add
them by default.

Stefan

[Jay Honeck]

> >Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
> >-- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
> >poison pens.
>
> Welcoming EVERYONE? You feel critical thinking* is misplaced? You
> would recommend welcoming the likes of Mohammed Atta, AOL users, Ted
> Kaczynski, Ted Bundy, John W. Hinckley, Jr, ...? Welcoming EVERYONE
> could reduce Usenet to a the status of FidoNet. If you don't mean
> 'everyone,' don't use absolute language.

You know, imitating Steven McNicoll won't get you anywhere with me,
Larry...

;-)

Seriously, you need to develop a method of filtering language so you
can detect mild hyperbole. In this case "Everyone" doesn't mean
"Adolph Hitler" or "Sadaam Hussein", or "Bill Clinton" -- but it DOES
mean guys like NW_Pilot, who is CLEARLY not a timid soul.

Incidentally, to give you some idea of the intimidation factor you (and
others) cause in this 'group, in the name of "keeping the
signal-to-noise ratio high", I have received quite a few off-line
emails THANKING me for bringing up the flaming in this group.

Ironically -- sadly -- they sent the messages to me off-group, for fear
of the reaction they might generate by posting.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

NW_Pilot writes:

> When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
> Garmin support they said they had a similar problem during stalls and slow
> flight.

I guess reboots are to be expected during stalls and slow flight,
given how incredibly rare and improbable these things are, eh?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Sheesh, and they marketed it anyway?

That's the standard PC mindset. If it compiles without errors, ship
it. Works great for Excel. If it kills anybody, his kin can call
technical support and get the first 10 minutes free.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> So, the uncommanded FIS rebooting was a known issue, and both
> manufactures chose to release their products for use?

Money talks.

> I hope the premiums are paid current on their errors and
> omissions insurance policies.

Software seems to be mysteriously immune to this sort of lawsuit.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> I would write a report of your experience detailing the equipment
> failures that occurred, and politely and respectfully send copies to
> Cessna and Garmin. If you word it, so that it contains implicit
> references to their exposure to civil liability, and express your
> disappointment with the performance of their products, who knows how
> they may respond. They may try to appease you with a perk or two. If
> not, forward the report to AOPA, FSDO, and AvWeb. :-)

Most software licenses disclaim all responsibility for everything
except an unreadable CD, although these disclaimers have never been
thoroughly tested in court, as far as I know.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jon Kraus writes:

> It does for everything you fly...

That's one of the advantages of the simulator.

However, my simulator doesn't reboot. Apparently real-world avionics
do. That's all the more reason to stick to simulation: at least I
don't die when there's a bug in the code.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Your absolutes are simply amazing.

I have a lot of experience with this sort of thing. If you want to
die on board an aircraft because of poorly written software, go for
it; but I don't want to play that game.

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

[NW_Pilot]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Stefan wrote:
>> He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
>> supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong!
>
> On the contrary. When flying an aircraft that has just had major
> modifications to critical componets and/or systems, one becomes a test
> pilot. There is nothing wrong with this - SOMEONE has to be a test
> pilot.
>
> However, there is a difference between flying proven production
> aircraft and being a test pilot. The pilot flying proven production
> aircraft need only study the approved guidance and procedures (the
> book!) and fly by the book - and usually all will be well. This is not
> because the
> book is FAA approved, but because it is time-tested. The FAA approval
> is pretty much irrelevant.
>
> When one becomes a test pilot, the world changes. Now the pilot must
> study the system in detail (pulling off the cowls and tracing the lines
> if necessary) and understand exactly how it works. He must consider
> the normal operation and the failure modes. This will give him an edge
> in troubleshooting if something should go wrong in flight, but that is
> secondary. More importantly, it makes things going wrong in flight far
> less likely.
>
> Reading the book and flying by the book is not enough in this
> situation. The fact that the book and the system are FAA-approved is
> irrelevant. Neither the book nor the system are time-proven. Unless
> you are prepared to trust a bunch of federal bureaucrats who couldn't
> find better work with your life, you need to understand what it is they
> approved.
>
>> In fact, I'm
>> scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
>> think they know better than the book.
>
> Being a test pilot is often all about coming up with an ad-hoc
> procedure, because the book is wrong - because someone didn't think of
> something.
>
> Now for our adventurer:
>
> Once the emergency developed, you did a good job flying the emergency.
> I don't want to take anything away from you there.
>
> Your preparation for the flight, though, was incomplete. You knew that
> you had a highly modified fuel system which is rarely installed on this
> sort of airplane. You also knew that you had an injected engine. The
> FIRST question you should have asked is - is there a vapor return line
> (not all fuel injected engines have them) and if there is, where does
> it go? I'm guessing you didn't ask the question because you didn't
> have experience with other airplanes where this was an issue. That's
> the value of breadth of experience when it comes to being a test pilot.
>
> I accept that your documentation did not answer that question. But the
> problem is, you didn't even ask it. Had you asked, you could have
> gotten some sort of answer - and in any case, even a cursory
> examination of the plumbing would have told you that it wasn't going
> back to the ferry tank (they never do, you know) and would have forced
> you to consider the problem - and to develop an operating procedure a
> lot more correct than the approved one.
>
> In theory I suppose it could be possible to become a capable,
> proficient, experienced pilot without making mistakes like this and
> scaring yourself. I've never seen it happen. Every experienced,
> capable, proficient pilot I know got there the same way - by going out
> and doing stuff, amking mistakes, and scaring himself. The difference
> between the ones who get there and the ones who drop out along the way
> is basically this - the ones who get there learn from the experience,
> and learn not to make the same class of mistake again. You see, while
> you handled the emergency, that's not the sort of thing you can count
> on handling 100 times out of 100.
>
> I'm sure you won't make the exact same mistake again - not
> understanding what your modified fuel system really does - but the
> lesson to learn is broader. If you are flying something that has been
> modified from the norm, make sure you understand the full extent of the
> modifications and their implications before you launch.
>
> Michael
>

Oh! Yea I learned a bunch from this trip.... I did ask questions about the
fuel system prior to launch "I have flown other tanked airplanes" and the
answer from them was the same that was written on paper when the aircraft
fuel system is completely disconnected "In the off position" the aircraft is
running only on the ferry tank system connected directly to the engine after
the aircraft fuel shut off valve.

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 myself prefer the turtlepac bag systems (Used Them A Few Times) they are
set up to transfer fuel form a fuel bag to a main aircraft tank they are
really simple and work great! http://www.turtlepac.com/collapsibleair.htm
and http://www.turtlepac.com/aircraftferry.htm

[Mxsmanic]

Andrey Serbinenko writes:

> What surprises me is that Garmin got FAA approval for such a system,
> whereas it doesn't even come close to what "normal" glass cockpit is supposed
> to be like in terms of robustness of system design.

My guess is that the FAA doesn't know how to certify glass cockpits.
There are no procedures in place to certify software, or for some
reason they are not applied to toys like the G1000.

> I understand it's all done in the name of affordability, but this
> is clearly a dangerous game to play.

Is a G1000 cheaper than a set of normal instruments in the cockpit?

> So, I guess my point is: you can't just take a steam-gauge-type airplane,
> replace all the individual *independent* instrument systems with one
> electronic box, and claim you've got an equally reliable plane. No way. By
> tying everything together and establishing inter-system dependencies that
> never existed before, you increase your likelihood of a catastrophic failure
> by orders of magnitude. If you want to use an all-in-one instrument system,
> you need to redesign the airplane and fit it with redundant systems to
> compensate for that loss of overall reliability.

Absolutely.

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

[Mxsmanic]

NW_Pilot writes:

> The G1000 system If you buy one or intend to fly one in the Soup be current
> and really proficient on you partial panel skill because in the event of a
> G1000 failure or even partial failure you will be left with and Compass,
> Altimeter, Attitude Indicator, and Airspeed Indicator and a bunch of useless
> knobs and buttons or questionable reading from a partial failure.

Better still, just skip the G1000 in the first place.

> I don't think it would cost Cessna much $$$ to put some manual back up
> instruments in the panel even if they are the small ones they already charge
> to much for a skyhawk why not add 3k or 4k if even that much to the price
> and add some redundancy to the system!

Is a G1000 standard equipment, or can you opt for reliable avionics
instead?

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

[NW_Pilot]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot writes:
>
>> When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
>> Garmin support they said they had a similar problem during stalls and
>> slow
>> flight.
>
> I guess reboots are to be expected during stalls and slow flight,
> given how incredibly rare and improbable these things are, eh?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Not rare or improbable at all!!! Stalls and slow flight are used during
approach and landing they said they fixed that problem hahaha but still have
others! Or maybe that comment was just sarcasm (check spelling) hahahaha

[NW_Pilot]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jose writes:
>
>> Sheesh, and they marketed it anyway?
>
> That's the standard PC mindset. If it compiles without errors, ship
> it. Works great for Excel. If it kills anybody, his kin can call
> technical support and get the first 10 minutes free.

And them people are why I keep trying to push my retroactive abortion laws
hahahah (Joke)!

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:32:30 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Given the fact that the aux fuel system was a modification upon which
>> your safety depended, did you personally take the time to analyze its
>> intended operation from the schematic diagram and description of
>> system operation (not its use, but how it was engineered to operate)?
>> I believe you are intelligent enough to have done a reasonable job of
>> system analysis without benefit of specific training or an appropriate
>> college degree.
>
>Yes, I looked at the system!
>

And your analysis failed to discern what would occur to the fuel from
the return line when operating from the aux tank while the main tanks
were full?

>>
>>>and so did the engineer that designed it and
>>>wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
>>>inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions.
>>>Once
>>>you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
>>>description of the now modified fuel system.
>>
>> If I understand your story correctly, the cause of the wing tank
>> venting was a result of the fuel return line pouring fuel that was
>> being feed from the separate aux tank fuel system into the wing
>> tank(s). Is that correct?
>
>The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
>system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
>description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks. The
>description also stated that it was connected after the aircraft fuel
>system.

As long as the aux fuel line was ahead of the fuel
filter/gascolator(?), or the aux fuel system contained its own filter,
that is the logical point to feed aux fuel to the engine. Without a
check valve between the Cessna fuel shutoff valve and the point
between it and the engine where the aux fuel line was attached, there
is also the possibility of back feeding fuel into the wing tanks if
the Cessna shutoff valve is left open while the aux tank fuel pump is
in operation. Did the instructions mention such a check valve or
closing the Cessna shutoff valve?

>>
>>> They left out something very very important in the new systems
>>> description!
>>
>> Are you referring to the necessity to burn fuel from the wing tanks
>> before switching to the aux tank, so that there would be adequate room
>> in the wing tanks to hold the fuel being returned from the fuel
>> injection system?
>
>Correct, They failed to mention this the description and instruction
>provided!
>
>therir instruction basicaly short and simple! Climb to altitude on both
>tanks aircraft tanks once at altitude switch to ferry tank until specified
>mark on aux tank near empty then switch back to aircraft fuel.

Do you know the name of the individual who wrote that? Do you know
the name of the FSDO inspector who certified the aux fuel tank
installation? I would contact those people personally, and make them
aware of the hazard they caused.

>Now!! If the instructions stated to run on the left tank till near empty
>then switch to the ferry tank and monitor the left tank fuel quantity and
>return to aircraft fuel and switch ferry tank off when left tank was almost
>full about 2 hours flight time this little problem would not have happened.

Given the inoperative fuel gages, the wing tanks could have filled up
at any time without your being aware of it. Considering your mission
and the operation of the aux fuel system, fuel gages are critical to
an Atlantic crossing. Cessna, FSDO, and Telford should be made aware
of that fact.

>The Greenland CAA took a copy of the instructions and fuel system
>description and copy of Cessna description of the problem and will be
>contacting the ferry tank mfg and installer telling them to correct their
>system instructions.

That's a good thing, but I'd make sure Cessna, FSDO, and Telford
appreciate the hazard they caused.

>>
>> Can you provide the manufacturer's name and model number for the aux
>> fuel system installed in the aircraft you delivered?
>
>The Ferry tank was Manufactured And Installed By Telford Aviation In Bangor,
>Maine.

That would be these folks: http://www.telfordaviation.com/contact.html

Given their mission statement:

TELFORD SERVICES - Mission

------------------------------------------------------------------
The mission of The Telford Group, Inc. is to integrate teamwork,
dedication and vision to excel in the aviation industry in quality
and customer satisfaction. It is our foremost goal to continually
enhance our products and services to an unsurpassed level and
create a mutually prosperous and beneficial relationship for our
customers and associates.

I would contact these people (all six of them):

TELFORD SERVICES - Contact Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office and Mailing Address:
The Telford Group
154 Maine Avenue
Bangor, Maine 04401
Telephone: 1-207-262-6098
Facsimile: 1-207-262-8708
Email:
Telford Allen III, Chairman of the Board
Larry Wilson, CEO, Telford Canada, Ltd.
Bob Ziegelaar, President, The Telford Group
Monique Plummer, Administrative Assistant
Aircraft Maintenance - Telford Aviation Services
Travis Allen, V.P. Operations
General Aviation - Telford Aviation Services
Ray Lane, Manager, General Aviation

And make them aware of the hazard they caused.

>In the future I will try and avoid this company or flying with this
>company's installed equipment if at all possible and if I am to use them
>(Not Likely) I will require them to provide a full schematic of the system
>and talk with them more to support their documentation.

See what experience does for you? Here's hoping your bag of
experience fills up before your bag of luck is exhausted. :-)

>Another thing that ****es me off when I called the company (telford) to help
>with the problem they were rude and said there instruction were correct and
>that it was not their problem!

Did you get the name of the individual who said that? Don't forget to
mention that in your correspondence to Telford.

>Cessna support and the weekend A&P in Greenland were the best
>they had a solution with in a few hours after faxing the instructions to
>them and are also writing a letter to Telford explaining the problem with
>their instructions.

You should do the same, IMO. See if they dig themselves a deeper
hole, or if Telford management wants to make it right.

>>
>> How large is the documentation of the aux fuel system? Is it possible
>> you could make a scanned copy available? In particular, I'd like to
>> see a schematic drawing of the system and the description of its
>> operation, and its operation use instructions, in that order.
>
>No schematic was available only textual description of the fuel system and
>its operation. All paperwork was given to new owner and there was no photo
>copy machine available in Beirut at time of delivery for me to make a copy
>for myself. The Greenland CAA made copies of all paperwork and said they
>will forward me copies of all paperwork.

It would be good for you to have a copy.

You have made the crossing before, right? Who manufactured and
installed the ferry tank(s) you used on previous Atlantic crossing(s)?

If we don't hold these folks feet to the fire, who will?

[NW_Pilot]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot writes:
>
>> The G1000 system If you buy one or intend to fly one in the Soup be
>> current
>> and really proficient on you partial panel skill because in the event of
>> a
>> G1000 failure or even partial failure you will be left with and Compass,
>> Altimeter, Attitude Indicator, and Airspeed Indicator and a bunch of
>> useless
>> knobs and buttons or questionable reading from a partial failure.
>
> Better still, just skip the G1000 in the first place.
>
>> I don't think it would cost Cessna much $$$ to put some manual back up
>> instruments in the panel even if they are the small ones they already
>> charge
>> to much for a skyhawk why not add 3k or 4k if even that much to the price
>> and add some redundancy to the system!
>
> Is a G1000 standard equipment, or can you opt for reliable avionics
> instead?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

It's an Optional Avionics Package!

[NW_Pilot]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...


>
> Is a G1000 cheaper than a set of normal instruments in the cockpit?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ahh!!! Go to look here! http://skyhawksp.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml This
bird had every thing NAV III + some but the A/C! Them airbag seat belts are
not very comfortable either!

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:32:30 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> Given the fact that the aux fuel system was a modification upon which
>>> your safety depended, did you personally take the time to analyze its
>>> intended operation from the schematic diagram and description of
>>> system operation (not its use, but how it was engineered to operate)?
>>> I believe you are intelligent enough to have done a reasonable job of
>>> system analysis without benefit of specific training or an appropriate
>>> college degree.
>>
>>Yes, I looked at the system!
>>
>
> And your analysis failed to discern what would occur to the fuel from
> the return line when operating from the aux tank while the main tanks
> were full?
>
>>>
>>>>and so did the engineer that designed it and
>>>>wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the
>>>>faa
>>>>inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions.
>>>>Once
>>>>you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the
>>>>engineered
>>>>description of the now modified fuel system.
>>>
>>> If I understand your story correctly, the cause of the wing tank
>>> venting was a result of the fuel return line pouring fuel that was
>>> being feed from the separate aux tank fuel system into the wing
>>> tank(s). Is that correct?
>>
>>The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
>>system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
>>description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks. The
>>description also stated that it was connected after the aircraft fuel
>>system.
>
> As long as the aux fuel line was ahead of the fuel
> filter/gascolator(?), or the aux fuel system contained its own filter,
> that is the logical point to feed aux fuel to the engine. Without a
> check valve between the Cessna fuel shutoff valve and the point
> between it and the engine where the aux fuel line was attached, there
> is also the possibility of back feeding fuel into the wing tanks if
> the Cessna shutoff valve is left open while the aux tank fuel pump is
> in operation. Did the instructions mention such a check valve or
> closing the Cessna shutoff valve?

Yes, the aircraft fuel was shut off by closing the aircraft fuel valve.

>
>>>
>>>> They left out something very very important in the new systems
>>>> description!
>>>
>>> Are you referring to the necessity to burn fuel from the wing tanks
>>> before switching to the aux tank, so that there would be adequate room
>>> in the wing tanks to hold the fuel being returned from the fuel
>>> injection system?
>>
>>Correct, They failed to mention this the description and instruction
>>provided!
>>
>>therir instruction basicaly short and simple! Climb to altitude on both
>>tanks aircraft tanks once at altitude switch to ferry tank until specified
>>mark on aux tank near empty then switch back to aircraft fuel.
>
> Do you know the name of the individual who wrote that? Do you know
> the name of the FSDO inspector who certified the aux fuel tank
> installation? I would contact those people personally, and make them
> aware of the hazard they caused.

That is all on the 337 form I should be reciving a copy of all info in the
mail!

>
>>Now!! If the instructions stated to run on the left tank till near empty
>>then switch to the ferry tank and monitor the left tank fuel quantity and
>>return to aircraft fuel and switch ferry tank off when left tank was
>>almost
>>full about 2 hours flight time this little problem would not have
>>happened.
>
> Given the inoperative fuel gages, the wing tanks could have filled up
> at any time without your being aware of it. Considering your mission
> and the operation of the aux fuel system, fuel gages are critical to
> an Atlantic crossing. Cessna, FSDO, and Telford should be made aware
> of that fact.
>
>>The Greenland CAA took a copy of the instructions and fuel system
>>description and copy of Cessna description of the problem and will be
>>contacting the ferry tank mfg and installer telling them to correct their
>>system instructions.
>
> That's a good thing, but I'd make sure Cessna, FSDO, and Telford
> appreciate the hazard they caused.

Greenland CAA will be contacting the Inspector and Telford they said it was
a safety issue with the paperwork that needed urgent attention.

>
>>>
>>> Can you provide the manufacturer's name and model number for the aux
>>> fuel system installed in the aircraft you delivered?
>>
>>The Ferry tank was Manufactured And Installed By Telford Aviation In
>>Bangor,
>>Maine.
>
> That would be these folks: http://www.telfordaviation.com/contact.html
>
> Given their mission statement:
>
> TELFORD SERVICES - Mission
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The mission of The Telford Group, Inc. is to integrate teamwork,
> dedication and vision to excel in the aviation industry in quality
> and customer satisfaction. It is our foremost goal to continually
> enhance our products and services to an unsurpassed level and
> create a mutually prosperous and beneficial relationship for our
> customers and associates.
>
> I would contact these people (all six of them):
>
> TELFORD SERVICES - Contact Information
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Office and Mailing Address:
> The Telford Group
> 154 Maine Avenue
> Bangor, Maine 04401
> Telephone: 1-207-262-6098
> Facsimile: 1-207-262-8708
> Email:
> Telford Allen III, Chairman of the Board
> Larry Wilson, CEO, Telford Canada, Ltd.
> Bob Ziegelaar, President, The Telford Group
> Monique Plummer, Administrative Assistant
> Aircraft Maintenance - Telford Aviation Services
> Travis Allen, V.P. Operations
> General Aviation - Telford Aviation Services
> Ray Lane, Manager, General Aviation
>
> And make them aware of the hazard they caused.

Ray Lane, Was the one that explaind they system to me and also the one that
told me that nothing was wrong with their instructions description or system
and not their problem.


>
>>In the future I will try and avoid this company or flying with this
>>company's installed equipment if at all possible and if I am to use them
>>(Not Likely) I will require them to provide a full schematic of the system
>>and talk with them more to support their documentation.
>
> See what experience does for you? Here's hoping your bag of
> experience fills up before your bag of luck is exhausted. :-)
>
>>Another thing that ****es me off when I called the company (telford) to
>>help
>>with the problem they were rude and said there instruction were correct
>>and
>>that it was not their problem!
>
> Did you get the name of the individual who said that? Don't forget to
> mention that in your correspondence to Telford.


Yep. Ray Lane


>
>>Cessna support and the weekend A&P in Greenland were the best
>>they had a solution with in a few hours after faxing the instructions to
>>them and are also writing a letter to Telford explaining the problem with
>>their instructions.
>
> You should do the same, IMO. See if they dig themselves a deeper
> hole, or if Telford management wants to make it right.

Already on it!

>
>>>
>>> How large is the documentation of the aux fuel system? Is it possible
>>> you could make a scanned copy available? In particular, I'd like to
>>> see a schematic drawing of the system and the description of its
>>> operation, and its operation use instructions, in that order.
>>
>>No schematic was available only textual description of the fuel system and
>>its operation. All paperwork was given to new owner and there was no photo
>>copy machine available in Beirut at time of delivery for me to make a copy
>>for myself. The Greenland CAA made copies of all paperwork and said they
>>will forward me copies of all paperwork.
>
> It would be good for you to have a copy.
>
> You have made the crossing before, right? Who manufactured and
> installed the ferry tank(s) you used on previous Atlantic crossing(s)?

Turtle Pac tanks! And Local DAR's usually are contracted to inspect the
tanking set up along with the certificate of export.

>
> If we don't hold these folks feet to the fire, who will?
>

[Gene Seibel]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Was that a mechanical tach?
>
> I would write a report of your experience detailing the equipment
> failures that occurred, and politely and respectfully send copies to
> Cessna and Garmin. If you word it, so that it contains implicit
> references to their exposure to civil liability, and express your
> disappointment with the performance of their products, who knows how
> they may respond. They may try to appease you with a perk or two. If
> not, forward the report to AOPA, FSDO, and AvWeb. :-)

And a NASA Report.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Jon Kraus]

Steven - quit feedig the trolls... This guy's history of idiotic
responses is unbeliveable... He's hanging out here and he's not even a
pilot... He plays games instead... Do a Google Groups search on him and
see for yourself...

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

NW_Pilot wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>NW_Pilot writes:
>>
>>
>>>When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
>>>Garmin support they said they had a similar problem during stalls and
>>>slow
>>>flight.
>>
>>I guess reboots are to be expected during stalls and slow flight,
>>given how incredibly rare and improbable these things are, eh?
>>
>>--
>>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>
> Not rare or improbable at all!!! Stalls and slow flight are used during
> approach and landing they said they fixed that problem hahaha but still have
> others! Or maybe that comment was just sarcasm (check spelling) hahahaha
>
>

[Emily]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> The fact is, you're always going to get flamed, no matter what you do.
>>> You can't worry about it.
>> I agree. What's to worry about? Flames aren't fatal. They don't even
>> hurt. :-)
>
> Well, as you know I am immune to flames, too -- but I often hear from
> "lurkers" who say they don't post for fear of getting lambasted.
>
> Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
> -- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
> poison pens.

Good luck with that. I'm thin skinned, but at least I know how to use a
kill file.

Funny, though, people posting the flames wouldn't say such things in
real life.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jon Kraus" wrote)
> He's hanging out here and he's not even a pilot...


Hey!


Montblack

[NW_Pilot]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Steven - quit feedig the trolls... This guy's history of idiotic
> responses is unbeliveable... He's hanging out here and he's not even a
> pilot... He plays games instead... Do a Google Groups search on him and
> see for yourself...
>
> Jon Kraus
> '79 Mooney 201
> 4443H @ UMP
>
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>NW_Pilot writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
>>>>Garmin support they said they had a similar problem during stalls and
>>>>slow
>>>>flight.
>>>
>>>I guess reboots are to be expected during stalls and slow flight,
>>>given how incredibly rare and improbable these things are, eh?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>>
>>
>> Not rare or improbable at all!!! Stalls and slow flight are used during
>> approach and landing they said they fixed that problem hahaha but still
>> have others! Or maybe that comment was just sarcasm (check spelling)
>> hahahaha

I think I read in to that on his last question that why I posted a lint to
Cessna pricing.

[Jon Kraus]

Hey! what? Did I same something incorrect?

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

Montblack wrote:

> ("Jon Kraus" wrote)
>
>> He's hanging out here and he's not even a pilot...
>
>
>
> Hey!
>
>
> Montblack

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> I would write a report of your experience detailing the equipment
>> failures that occurred, and politely and respectfully send copies to
>> Cessna and Garmin. If you word it, so that it contains implicit
>> references to their exposure to civil liability, and express your
>> disappointment with the performance of their products, who knows how
>> they may respond. They may try to appease you with a perk or two.
>> If not, forward the report to AOPA, FSDO, and AvWeb. :-)
>
> Most software licenses disclaim all responsibility for everything
> except an unreadable CD, although these disclaimers have never been
> thoroughly tested in court, as far as I know.
>
The kind of software that you're using isn't likely to get you killed.
This is a different ballgame altogether.

Neil

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I have a lot of experience with this sort of thing.

I've never seen a software engineering simulator. It is in French or
English? Where can I download a demo?

[houstondan]

actually, i've always been rather fond of "porcine copulator" although
the target usually either does not understand or is anxious to ask how
i found out.

dan


Montblack wrote:
> ("Larry Dighera" wrote USEFUL INFORMATION)
> > If the lurkers post USEFUL INFORMATION, that is correct and supported by
> > independent citations, they have nothing to fear. Otherwise, it would
> > appear that the 'flameage' is working.
>
>
> "Bloviating idiot" is still my favorite ...flameage.
>
>
> Montblack

[Dave S]

NW_Pilot wrote:

>
> Well, my thoughts were not to panic and keep as calm as i can and think!!
> How I kept calm was saying to myself yes it can get much worse!
>
>

Welcome home.. glad it worked out safely...

and without sounding high and mighty.. I'm guessing you will pay greater
attention to the fuel system and its architecture in the future...
particularly when aux tanks and injection return lines are involved.

Also.. do everyone else a favor and file a NASA form.. not because of
alleged rule breaking, but because you have discovered a true safety of
flight issue that needs to be addressed.. the sooner the better.. Garmin
needs to have a fault exclusion algorhythm that removes nonsensical
readings from it's decision tree.. rather than causing a software crash..

Dave

[Dave S]

John Theune wrote:
Bottom line is
> that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
> that are a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.
>
> John

To the contrary.. ferry tanks are are NOT UNCOMMON and this is a
foreseable modification. This is something that should have been
contemplated.. if not by the manufacturer then by the ferry tank
installer/STC holder.

Bottom line is.. a faulty fuel gauge for whatever reason should never
ever cause your whole damn flight instrumentation and display to crash
and reboot. This is a simple, fundamental idea

Dave

[Rob]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Longworth" wrote)
> > Adventure like this was made for adrenaline junkie like you ;-)
> > Congratulations for an exceedingly well done job. Actions speak louder
> > than words, it takes both a cool head and good piloting skill to handle
> > this scary event. I don't think that you can ever silent net armchair
> > critics, Monday morning quarterbacks etc but I hope that you have erased
> > some doubts in the mind of some of your 'frequent' critics.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Congratulations! Well done.
>
>
> Montblack

Also agreed. Great story Steven. Good job.

-R

[Larry Dighera]

On 2 Oct 2006 14:23:14 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>> >Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
>> >-- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
>> >poison pens.
>>
>> Welcoming EVERYONE? You feel critical thinking* is misplaced? You
>> would recommend welcoming the likes of Mohammed Atta, AOL users, Ted
>> Kaczynski, Ted Bundy, John W. Hinckley, Jr, ...? Welcoming EVERYONE
>> could reduce Usenet to a the status of FidoNet. If you don't mean
>> 'everyone,' don't use absolute language.
>
>You know, imitating Steven McNicoll won't get you anywhere with me,
>Larry...
>
>;-)

Oh! Now that was a rude analogy! :-) :-) (LOL)

Say what you will about the pedantic Mr. McNicoll, but the vast
majority of his comments are accurate and succinct, and contain useful
INFORMATION. He uses his full name, knows how to punctuate and
capitalize, and lends an air of dignity befitting an airman. Those
unenlightened, ignorant, two-digit IQ, illiterate, wannabes who dilute
the content of this newsgroup with banal attempts at crass humor and
insipid, empty headed comments reflect badly on airmen in this
worldwide forum. I'll take one McNicoll to a dozen of the latter.

>Seriously, you need to develop a method of filtering language so you
>can detect mild hyperbole. In this case "Everyone" doesn't mean
>"Adolph Hitler" or "Sadaam Hussein", or "Bill Clinton"

You're have the arrogance to fault me for your improper use of the
language?! You can attempt to redefine the meaning of the word
'everyone' all you like, but I doubt you'll be successful at making it
mean other than: every person; everybody. If English were your second
language, I would not be so critical of your casual use of it.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It is not incumbent upon me
to have to divine your meaning. You are capable expressing your
thoughts explicitly (aren't you?).

It's difficult enough in written communications to correctly infer the
writer's meaning without the benefit of observing body language. And
last thing I want to be guilty of is reading something into a person's
prose that they didn't intend.

>-- but it DOES mean guys like NW_Pilot, who is CLEARLY not a timid soul.

Mr. Rhine posted something that was dumb and illegal when he first
began to de-lurk. He met swift and significant criticism. His
feelings were hurt, and he threatened to quit rec.aviation.piloting.
But after the psychic pain of the initial lashing wore off, and he was
able to reflect on that responses he received, he gained a new respect
for the fellowship of airmen and himself, and he has ceased to be a
black eye for the public image of airmen. I would guess that he would
rather be criticized than have to wade through hundreds of banalities.
>Incidentally, to give you some idea of the intimidation factor you
(and
>others) cause in this 'group, in the name of "keeping the
>signal-to-noise ratio high", I have received quite a few off-line
>emails THANKING me for bringing up the flaming in this group.
>
>Ironically -- sadly -- they sent the messages to me off-group, for fear
>of the reaction they might generate by posting.

Well here's a message thread they can use to express their views.

Those who are so fearful of public ridicule as to refrain from
participating in this newsgroup probably do so because they have
nothing, other than chit chat and banalities, to contribute. If not,
let's see them post some relevant INFORMATION or personal experiences.
If they can't stand critique, they should probably stick to other
forums like rec.aviation.misc where they can wallow in the mud with
others of their ilk.

Your noble attempt to champion the timid reflects your view of what
Usenet should be: a place to kibitz with friends. Although many
newsgroups have degenerated to that level, thankfully this one hasn't
yet. That's what makes it attractive and useful. When it becomes a
bunch of grandmas chatting over the back fence, you will not see me
posting any longer.

I wish you had seen Usenet before AOL. Talk about intimidation; the
conversation was so witty and erudite, that no one ventured a post
without meaty content and careful attention to detail.

Please, let's not welcome those comments that would cause the lay
public think we airmen are a bunch of vulgar simpletons and
Philistines who lack critical thinking skills.

Obviously we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. I
have history on my side.

[Emily]

Larry Dighera wrote:
<snip>

My, someone has a high opinion of himself.

[mike regish]

Unlike you?

mike

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> <snip>
>
> My, someone has a high opinion of himself.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:32:15 GMT, "Allen" >
> wrote in >:
>
> > Twin Cessna's
> >are the same way; if you switch to the aux tanks before burning a certain
> >amount out of the mains (90 minutes for the large aux tanks) the mains
will
> >overfill and vent overboard before the aux tanks are empty.
>
> Are you saying that Cessna designed the fuel system that way, and the
> FAA certified it? Or are you referring to a ferry tank?
>
> It makes you wonder if the FAA would certify kinking the fuel line
> instead of providing a valve to shut off fuel flow. :-)


I should have said the "tip tank" Twin Cessnas. Cessna designed it that
way. Fuel injected cars do the same thing but have only one tank to return
the fuel to so it is not a problem. If you wanted to return the excess fuel
to the same tank it was drawn from you would need two sets of directional
valves; one on the supply line and another on the return line that were
synched to each other. It is much easier just to tell the pilot to burn 90
minutes out of the mains before switching to the aux's.

Allen

[Emily]

mike regish wrote:
> Unlike you?

I have a very low opinion of myself, actually.

I certainly wouldn't have written the self-congratulatory drivel that
Larry did.

[John Gaquin]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>... Here's an example of what I consider a classic flame:
>
> > You know - they say that people with
> > I.Q.'s over 40-points apart are pretty
> > much unintelligible to each other.
> > That's just a random observation with no
> > ulterior meaning attached to it :P
> > As I read it, stupidity installed itself long
> > before you clocked three score and ten,
> > you are merely coming out, in bloom.
> > Let's pretend that you really are not an
> > obnoxious ignorant, cowardly, motor-mouthed
> > cretin exuding digital diarrhea as a pretext
> > to seeking a Life? About as topical as the
> > man who thinks its cool to jam garden gnomes
> > headlong up his ass to prove a qualified
> > opinion on de rigueur art decor, your puerile
> > attempt at self adulation is hilarious!
> > Unfortunately my having no respect for you
> > means your opinion of what I or anyone else
> > needs to respect means absolutely nothing.
> >
> > Don't forget to **** yourself on your way
> > out, moron.

Grammar and sentence structure are poor, it is excessively wordy, and it is
crude. Just what is it that makes this a classic? The finest insults are
those that don't even register until some time later.

[John Gaquin]

"Emily" > wrote in message news:Lt-
>
> My, someone has a high opinion of himself.

Just noticed?

[tjd]

congrats on a successful flight NW... half of me is really jealous and
the other half thinks it'd be too scared to try that even if given the
chance. loved the story though...

i was curious about cessna's explanation of the airspeed problems - you
said "the loss of the airspeed indicator was caused by fuel vapors
entering the pitot tube". how did it get in there? the wing vent is
well behind the pitot, right? i see the picture with fuel on the
nosewheel, did that come ouf of one of the drains under the fuselage?
did you lose both the G1000 and steam gauge indications or did one keep
working (accurately?)

thanks,

todd.

[Jay Honeck]

> Your noble attempt to champion the timid reflects your view of what
> Usenet should be: a place to kibitz with friends. Although many
> newsgroups have degenerated to that level, thankfully this one hasn't
> yet. That's what makes it attractive and useful. When it becomes a
> bunch of grandmas chatting over the back fence, you will not see me
> posting any longer.

What you fail to see is that your harsh criticism of anything you find
less than worthy is keeping many educated, experienced airmen from
posting. Your verbal barbs, meant to be smart bombs, are actually
closer to carpet bombing in their effect. And the resulting collateral
damage is killing our allies as well as the enemy.

> Please, let's not welcome those comments that would cause the lay
> public think we airmen are a bunch of vulgar simpletons and
> Philistines who lack critical thinking skills.

First you do everything you can to keep people -- especially the lay
public -- from posting here. In the next breath you're worried about
what they might think of us?

> Obviously we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. I
> have history on my side.

I, unlike you, enjoy posts of all sorts in this group, but (in case you
haven't noticed) the posting group has recently shrunk to historically
low numbers. There seems to be about 20 regular posters left here,
which is down considerably from past years. I attribute this to a
number of things, but one major reason is the harsh slap-downs that
many new posters have received when they stuck their toe in the
rec.aviation waters...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:40:46 GMT, "Allen" >
wrote in >:

>I should have said the "tip tank" Twin Cessnas. Cessna designed it that
>way. If you wanted to return the excess fuel to the same tank it was drawn
>from you would need two sets of directional valves; one on the supply line
>and another on the return line that were synched to each other.

What would prevent plumbing the fuel return line into the top of all
fuel tanks above the fuel level, so that the returning fuel would be
able to fill whatever tank space was available at the time? There
would be the added cost of labor and materials, and the added weight,
but the hidden hazard would be eliminated.

>It is much easier just to tell the pilot to burn 90
>minutes out of the mains before switching to the aux's.

It would seem a placard would be more prudent.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
> I myself prefer the turtlepac bag systems (Used Them A Few Times) they are
> set up to transfer fuel form a fuel bag to a main aircraft tank they are
> really simple and work great! http://www.turtlepac.com/collapsibleair.htm
> and http://www.turtlepac.com/aircraftferry.htm

There's something to be said for a company that has photos like this on
their company's website...
http://www.turtlepac.com/gallery/mermaid.jpg

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

> What would prevent plumbing the fuel return line into the top of all
> fuel tanks above the fuel level, so that the returning fuel would be
> able to fill whatever tank space was available at the time?

This would prevent an informed tank management.

>> It is much easier just to tell the pilot to burn 90
>> minutes out of the mains before switching to the aux's.

> It would seem a placard would be more prudent.

If this simple instruction is already too complicated for a pilot...

Stefan

[Judah]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

<snip>

I'd buy all that if your very last post on this board wasn't...


"Have you ever taxied a high wing in 55 knot winds?"

What useful INFORMATION did that provide?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-01, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm

Bah, he should have dropped into Ronaldsway, Isle of Man - for a quick
visit. His flight path took him very close to where I live.

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-01, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:20:18 +0000 (UTC),
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote in >:
>
>>>NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?
>>
>>Why not? 55 knot headwinds cut into your fuel reserve, 55 knot tail winds
>>help it. I've flown with a 70 knot tail wind
>
> Have you ever attempted to taxi a high-wing aircraft in 55 knot winds?

I flew a long trip in a Bonanza in 55 knot tail winds (it cut out one
refuelling stop, too). The SURFACE winds were under 15 knots. The wind
at 9000 feet can be much stronger than at near sea level.

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

[Dylan Smith]

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 :-)

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-02, John Theune > wrote:
> The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
> outside the design envelop of the garmin system.

But a fuel sensor out of range SHOULD NOT CAUSE THE SYSTEM TO BOOT LOOP.
Why should a fuel sensor out of range deprive you of your EHSI and
attitude indicator? The read outs for the instruments out of range
should be flagged and a suitable warning message generated - not the
loss of your entire IFR panel.

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

[Judah]

John Theune > wrote in news:wI6Ug.876$Pk2.497@trnddc08:

> Just as people will plead to let the NTSB give a report before you
> decide what caused a crash, I think the same thing should be done here.
> I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
> and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot. It might
> be a **** poor design or it might be something else. NW_pilot has not
> given us enough data to know ( because he did not have the data either )
> The biggest problem is Garmin does not issue final reports but in this
> cause it may be possible to find out why. I agree that a out of range
> fuel sensor should not cause a system reboot. I just went back and
> re-read the story and realized that this was not truly a garmin problem.
> The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
> outside the design envelop of the garmin system. It would appear at
> first glance that the condition that caused the problem ( over pressure
> in the fuel tank due to excess fuel could not happen in a standard
> system and so it was not forseen in the system design) Bottom line is
> that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
> that are a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.

John,
I work in Real Time systems on packaging equipment. It's certainly not
life-or-death equipment as is the control panel of an airplane, but I can
tell you unequivocably that a robust system will not reboot just because a
sensor behaves inconsistently with specification. Sensors fail all the
time. They even fail "high".

The description of the incident demonstrates evidence that not only is the
G1000 not robust, but it also ties many or all of the subsystems together
where a single sensor failure leads to catastrophic results. After all,
sensors can fail even if they are not attached to long range tanks.

Had the Fuel System display simply shown red X's and shut down because of
the invalid input, I would have said that to be acceptable (although not
ideal). The pilot would have immediately recognized a problem with the fuel
system, recognized that the red Xs were not consistent with a total
instantaneous loss of fuel, and known where to look to diagnose the
problem. But he would still have his GPS, and other instruments, and been
able to easily navigate to the nearest safe point to diagnose the problem
on the ground. Perhaps he would have even initiated a reboot or two on his
own.

However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total system
failure, including misleading readings such as CO in the cabin, lost
airspeed and lost GPS. The bad fuel sensor reading not only "bricked" the
system, but from the description, it caused the system to put forth false
information about the cause of the failure, making diagnosis extremely
difficult even after the fact.

That certainly brings to light some very interesting questions about the
safety of the G1000 system. I wouldn't want to put my life into the hands
of a system that bricks when a single sensor fails.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Most software licenses disclaim all responsibility for everything
> except an unreadable CD, although these disclaimers have never been
> thoroughly tested in court, as far as I know.

Most software licenses are not certified by the FAA.

Software that is certified by a regulatory organization typically is held to
a bit of a higher standard than the desktop software pushed out by Microsoft.

Another good example is FDA certified software in the Pharmacuetical
industry. They too have a CFR much like aviation does, and have rigorous
standards for testing and certification before any change can be made.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jon Kraus writes:
>
>> It does for everything you fly...
>
> That's one of the advantages of the simulator.
>
> However, my simulator doesn't reboot. Apparently real-world avionics
> do. That's all the more reason to stick to simulation: at least I
> don't die when there's a bug in the code.

Neither did NW_Pilot... Piloting is quite a bit more than software and
steering.

[Stefan]

Judah schrieb:

> However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total system
> failure,

Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence is
pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we don't know.

Stefan

[Jay Honeck]

> > However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total system
> > failure,
>
> Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence is
> pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we don't know.

True. In addition to the fuel sensor "overload" (it didn't really fail
-- it just sent info to the G1000 that made no sense), he also
experienced a CO sensor failure, and (later) a tach failure.

It's hard to say what caused what to happen, without more data.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Judah]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> Not that I want to excuse those system failures the least bit, and not
> that I would not have an adrenaline rush in that situation, but there
> *are* manual back ups for the critical items! At least in those planes
> I've seen so far, there has always been a "steam" AI, a "steam" ASI, a
> "steam" altimeter and a whisky compass. You can perfectly fly in IMC
> with this equipment.

Sure, you can keep the plane aloft, but how would you navigate or fly an
approach? By the compass and Dead Reckoning? I guess it's not that much
different than an alternator / battery failure. But I think a total
electrical system failure is pretty rare. And while often missed, there are
warning signs that can give you advance warning of an impending electrical
failure so that you can get to safety (VFR or on the ground) before you are
left without effective navigation instruments (VOR, GPS, etc.). You can
even control the amount of time you have by reducing consumption (ie:
turning stuff off) and saving it for the necessary phases of your flight.

Sensors fail frequently by comparison. Hell - fuel system sensors fail so
frequently that every pilot I know checks his fuel level visually because
the fuel sensors can't be trusted. There are even discussions about whether
a fuel sensor that reads empty all the time is legally considered failed!

There is built-in redundancy in the airplane electrical system - you have
an alternator and a battery. Having your redundant electrical system
essentially undermined by a poorly designed glass panel that fails
completely when any one sensor misbehaves is unfortunate at best, and is
added risk that seems unjustifiable.

[Judah]

Stefan > wrote in news:4ae0d$452250a2$54487310$26151
@news.hispeed.ch:

> Judah schrieb:
>
>> However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total system
>> failure,
>
> Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence is
> pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we don't know.

Fair enough...

Anyone with a G1000 want to test the theory out?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>> Unlike you?
>
> I have a very low opinion of myself, actually.

Let's see. Single Female Pilot, Low self esteem issues. You are aware this
isn't match.com aren't you. ;)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:56:16 GMT, "Grumman-581"
> wrote in
>:

>There's something to be said for a company that has photos like this on
>their company's website...
>http://www.turtlepac.com/gallery/mermaid.jpg

Not those auxiliary bags; these:
http://www.turtlepac.com/aircraftferry.htm

[John Theune]

Dave S wrote:
> John Theune wrote:
> Bottom line is
>> that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
>> that are a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.
>>
>> John
>
> To the contrary.. ferry tanks are are NOT UNCOMMON and this is a
> foreseable modification. This is something that should have been
> contemplated.. if not by the manufacturer then by the ferry tank
> installer/STC holder.
>
> Bottom line is.. a faulty fuel gauge for whatever reason should never
> ever cause your whole damn flight instrumentation and display to crash
> and reboot. This is a simple, fundamental idea
>
> Dave
Your right it should not cause the system to reboot but the question is
who fault was it? Was it the sensor that exceeded it's valid output
values do to a improper installation of non standard equipment? Where
in the garmin code did it blow up? I can imagine that the fuel level
value is used in many places in the code. Was it a minor sub-system
that got modified and had a dependencies creep in that was not foreseen?
To try and test a integrated device like the G1000 with all the inputs
out of valid range is a non-trivial test and it would not surprise me to
find out in the end that this whole mess was caused by a modification to
a subsystem that used the fuel value that was not part of the system
when ( and If ) the testing was done with all the values out of range.
What operating system does the G1000 use? Does it use a OS that
seperates the various processes that control functions or is it a single
large program that can reboot if a process goes into a unrecoverable
error. I don't know the answers to these questions but I'm willing to
bet that there are a number of engineers at Garmin trying to figure out
what the hell went wrong here.


To clarify my earlier post: Go ahead and blame Garmin ( which may or
may not be right ) but don't use this failure as a reason not to have
advanced avionics in aircraft.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>>> However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total system
>>> failure,
>>
>> Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence is
>> pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we
>> don't know.
>
> True. In addition to the fuel sensor "overload" (it didn't really
> fail -- it just sent info to the G1000 that made no sense), he also
> experienced a CO sensor failure, and (later) a tach failure.
>
> It's hard to say what caused what to happen, without more data.
>
I agree that we are in no position to determine the cause of the problems;
they could be specific to this particular unit, or caused by damage during
the installation of the ferry tank and other panel mounted items rather
than the general design of the G1000. However, it still troubles me that
Garmin told NW_Pilot that the system can experience similar problems
during stalls and in slow flight. That *does* sound like the G1000 has
some design issues that need sorting out.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On 2 Oct 2006 20:51:41 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>> Your noble attempt to champion the timid reflects your view of what
>> Usenet should be: a place to kibitz with friends. Although many
>> newsgroups have degenerated to that level, thankfully this one hasn't
>> yet. That's what makes it attractive and useful. When it becomes a
>> bunch of grandmas chatting over the back fence, you will not see me
>> posting any longer.
>
>What you fail to see is that your harsh criticism of anything you find
>less than worthy is keeping many educated, experienced airmen from
>posting.

First, you'll have to provide a few examples of what you find
objectionable about what it is I said before I will accept your "harsh
criticism" assertion.

Further, you make me laugh when you assert that I have the power to
prevent "many educated, experienced airmen" from participating in the
newsgroup. That is absurd on face. I'm afraid I'm completely
unworthy of the power with which you endow me, as are we all. Usenet
has always been open to all who choose to avail themselves of
participation.

And, beyond that, why isn't it the vulgar and insipid posts that
prevent folks from wanting to be counted among the
rec.aviation.piloting readership?

What are you suggesting exactly, that all us who you deem "harsh
critics" silence ourselves or self-censor our comments to suit the
silent ones? Are you able to be explicit about exactly what it is you
want?

>Your verbal barbs, meant to be smart bombs, are actually
>closer to carpet bombing in their effect.

Again, without examples of what you characterize as "verbal barbs,"
your allegations are meaningless.

>And the resulting collateral damage is killing our allies as well as
>the enemy.

Oh please! I was raised in a family that enjoyed long and sometimes
heated political debates whenever they got together. Pilots are often
a rather direct and terse in their conversation, but that is not a bad
thing in my opinion; it's just different.

The way I see it, if civility is maintained, and denigration, libel,
and profanity are avoided, there is no valid reason for complaint.
Some folks see argument, debate, and discussion as hostile, but you've
got to admit they are the domain of Congress and thinking people
everywhere. So if that's what frightens the "many educated,
experienced airmen" you champion, I'm unswayed.

>> Please, let's not welcome those comments that would cause the lay
>> public to think we airmen are a bunch of vulgar simpletons and
>> Philistines who lack critical thinking skills.
>
>First you do everything you can to keep people -- especially the lay
>public -- from posting here.

Now that is a completely unfounded accusation. Perhaps you'll see
that in the morning.

>In the next breath you're worried about what they might think of us?

I'm not worried about anything. I just prefer not to see our fellow
airmen publicly embarrass themselves and reflect badly on us all
generally in an archived, worldwide forum. I'm sure you appreciate
the fact that the articles we post to Usenet are not ephemeral.

>> Obviously we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. I
>> have history on my side.
>
>I, unlike you, enjoy posts of all sorts in this group,

I guess I'm just a little more discriminating than you are.

>but (in case you haven't noticed) the posting group has recently shrunk
>to historically low numbers. There seems to be about 20 regular posters
>left here, which is down considerably from past years.

So now you're implying, that my articles are not only prohibiting
"many educated, experienced airmen from posting," but they are
reducing the number of regular contributors? Ridiculous.

>I attribute this to a number of things, but one major reason is the
>harsh slap-downs that many new posters have received when they stuck
>their toe in the rec.aviation waters...

Well, you are certainly free to reach any conclusions you please. But
I haven't seen anyone leave for that reason. Perhaps you'll be good
enough to provide reference to some articles that support your
unfounded notion.

There are certainly other reasons folks cease to participate in
Usenet. But regardless of how you see it, you've got to admit there
is a wealth of information posted in this newsgroup and a lot of
experienced pilots and mechanics who generously share their knowledge
here.

Take my fellow Californian, Mr. Weir. He is often less than cordial,
but he is also often a fountain of information. Or Mr. Duniho's often
deliberately abrasive manner. People like these are the true
educated, experienced airmen you should be thankful for. Are you
suggesting that they change their demeanor too, or just me?

So tell your fawning "educated, experienced airmen" to quit wining,
and join in the discussion. Who knows, their fragile psyches may
toughen up, and they may grow a little, but they will surely benefit
from the experience, as you have.

[John Theune]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>
>>>> However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total system
>>>> failure,
>>> Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence is
>>> pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we
>>> don't know.
>> True. In addition to the fuel sensor "overload" (it didn't really
>> fail -- it just sent info to the G1000 that made no sense), he also
>> experienced a CO sensor failure, and (later) a tach failure.
>>
>> It's hard to say what caused what to happen, without more data.
>>
> I agree that we are in no position to determine the cause of the problems;
> they could be specific to this particular unit, or caused by damage during
> the installation of the ferry tank and other panel mounted items rather
> than the general design of the G1000. However, it still troubles me that
> Garmin told NW_Pilot that the system can experience similar problems
> during stalls and in slow flight. That *does* sound like the G1000 has
> some design issues that need sorting out.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
I just went back and reread his account. ( I'm not flaming Steven but
if you've read his emails before you know that his written words can
often be difficult to read for content ) He said that the fuel readings
went to red Xs ( as a properly designed system with a out of spec sensor
should ) after flying ( and venting excess fuel for 7 hours ) Then he
got a CO2 warning then a GPS-1 failure. It was after the GPS1 failure
that the unit rebooted. Now failure of the fuel system I would not want
a reboot for but in some situations failure of the primary navigation
system may be grounds for a reboot depending on what failed. After the
reboot completed he was missing readings like fuel and airspeeds. He
mentions other errors but does not say what they were. He does not
specifically say that the system rebooted again directly. He said in
summery it was continually rebooting but I question that. Steven - Was
it rebooting or did it just reboot once after the initial failure? He
mentions that on downwind the fuel readings were working again but then
failed again during turn to final. Did the sensors starting given valid
information after the fuel burned off enough to have then in range and
then fail again during the turn? Not sure. He does mention the G1000
rebooting again during his landing. Was this the second reboot? Did
other instruments fail again? Too many questions and not enough
information to say for sure.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:47:45 +0200, Stefan >
wrote in >:

>
>> It would seem a placard would be more prudent.
>
>If this simple instruction is already too complicated for a pilot...

It's more a matter of the possibility of someone failing to inform the
pilot of this hidden hazard. A placard is more foolproof than relying
on the spoken word or a phrase buried in the POH.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:30:22 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>Bah, he should have dropped into Ronaldsway, Isle of Man - for a quick
>visit.

He was a commercial pilot fulfilling a contract, that didn't include
such unscheduled stops.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:34:44 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>The wind at 9000 feet can be much stronger than at near sea level.

I have a feeling, that in the arid, treeless wastes above the Arctic
Circle the wind gradient is not so steep.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:23:15 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
><snip>
>
>I'd buy all that if your very last post on this board wasn't...
>
>
>"Have you ever taxied a high wing in 55 knot winds?"
>
>What useful INFORMATION did that provide?

Are you familiar with Socratic debate*?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-03, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:34:44 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:
>
>>The wind at 9000 feet can be much stronger than at near sea level.
>
> I have a feeling, that in the arid, treeless wastes above the Arctic
> Circle the wind gradient is not so steep.

You'd be surprised. There's a lot more to the wind speed difference
between winds at 9000 feet and the surface than merely surface friction.

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

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

>>> It would seem a placard would be more prudent.

>> If this simple instruction is already too complicated for a pilot...

> It's more a matter of the possibility of someone failing to inform the
> pilot of this hidden hazard. A placard is more foolproof than relying
> on the spoken word or a phrase buried in the POH.

Ok. So let's forget the POHs and replace them with a bunch of placards.
Reminds me of my monitor full of post-it stickers.

Stefan

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:56:26 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>On 2006-10-03, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:34:44 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:
>>
>>>The wind at 9000 feet can be much stronger than at near sea level.
>>
>> I have a feeling, that in the arid, treeless wastes above the Arctic
>> Circle the wind gradient is not so steep.
>
>You'd be surprised. There's a lot more to the wind speed difference
>between winds at 9000 feet and the surface than merely surface friction.

Be that as it may, I'd be reluctant to taxi a C-172 in anything
approaching 20 knots on the surface.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-03, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Be that as it may, I'd be reluctant to taxi a C-172 in anything
> approaching 20 knots on the surface.

In any plane the weight of a C172, you should exercise caution when
taxiing in winds of 20 knots or more. I routinely used to fly a C172 in
those kinds of winds (or otherwise I wouldn't have got to fly very
often). Proper positioning of the controls is highly recommended. I've
flown lighter taildraggers in stronger winds than that - it's not
something for a novice, but with a modicum of experience and care it can
be done quite safely.

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

[Emily]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> mike regish wrote:
>>> Unlike you?
>> I have a very low opinion of myself, actually.
>
> Let's see. Single Female Pilot, Low self esteem issues. You are aware this
> isn't match.com aren't you. ;)
>
>
Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.

[Emily]

Stefan wrote:
> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
>>>> It would seem a placard would be more prudent.
>
>>> If this simple instruction is already too complicated for a pilot...
>
>> It's more a matter of the possibility of someone failing to inform the
>> pilot of this hidden hazard. A placard is more foolproof than relying
>> on the spoken word or a phrase buried in the POH.
>
> Ok. So let's forget the POHs and replace them with a bunch of placards.
> Reminds me of my monitor full of post-it stickers.
>
> Stefan

Hey, as long as the cleaning people don't come through and remove them...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> mike regish wrote:
>>>> Unlike you?
>>> I have a very low opinion of myself, actually.
>>
>> Let's see. Single Female Pilot, Low self esteem issues. You are aware
>> this isn't match.com aren't you. ;)
> Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.

Bigot.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:50:29 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:

>
>"Emily" > wrote in message
>> Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.
>
>Bigot.
>

Not according to the definitions here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

[Emily]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> mike regish wrote:
>>>>> Unlike you?
>>>> I have a very low opinion of myself, actually.
>>> Let's see. Single Female Pilot, Low self esteem issues. You are aware
>>> this isn't match.com aren't you. ;)
>> Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.
>
> Bigot.
>
Learning: A relatively permanent change in behavior caused by experience
over time.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> The kind of software that you're using isn't likely to get you killed.

The kind of software in a G1000 is.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Software that is certified by a regulatory organization typically is held to
> a bit of a higher standard than the desktop software pushed out by Microsoft.

Apparently the G1000 software is not certified in that way, or it
wouldn't be failing.

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

[Mxsmanic]

NW_Pilot writes:

> Not rare or improbable at all!!! Stalls and slow flight are used during
> approach and landing they said they fixed that problem hahaha but still have
> others! Or maybe that comment was just sarcasm (check spelling) hahahaha

It was sarcasm.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Neither did NW_Pilot ...

Not this time.

> Piloting is quite a bit more than software and steering.

Traditionally, yes. But some companies want to change that.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence is
> pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we don't know.

We know the system rebooted, and that alone is sufficient reason to
question its safety.

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

[Mxsmanic]

NW_Pilot writes:

> Ahh!!! Go to look here! http://skyhawksp.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml This
> bird had every thing NAV III + some but the A/C! Them airbag seat belts are
> not very comfortable either!

Are those prices for the avionics and options alone, or are they for
the entire aircraft _with_ those options?

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

[Ron Lee]

Emily > wrote:

>> Let's see. Single Female Pilot, Low self esteem issues. You are aware this
>> isn't match.com aren't you. ;)
>>
>>
>Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.

Now that is just not right Emily. Pilots need love too. :)

Ron Lee

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot writes:
>
>> Ahh!!! Go to look here! http://skyhawksp.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml This
>> bird had every thing NAV III + some but the A/C! Them airbag seat belts
>> are
>> not very comfortable either!
>
> Are those prices for the avionics and options alone, or are they for
> the entire aircraft _with_ those options?
>
> --


Those are prices of the aircraft with the option package. So the Skyhawk
with the Nav III package is $241.000. Or, so you can understand the figure,
every cent you earn for the next 30+ years.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:47:54 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>It was sarcasm.

Participants in this newsgroup prefer the use of a :-) to denote
sarcasm.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> mike regish wrote:
>>>>>> Unlike you?
>>>>> I have a very low opinion of myself, actually.
>>>> Let's see. Single Female Pilot, Low self esteem issues. You are aware
>>>> this isn't match.com aren't you. ;)
>>> Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.
>>
>> Bigot.
> Learning: A relatively permanent change in behavior caused by experience
> over time.

I fully understand. My wife has been married to one for over 20 years now
and she would probably agree.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:50:29 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:
>
>>
>>"Emily" > wrote in message
>>> Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.
>>
>>Bigot.
>>
>
> Not according to the definitions here:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

But according to the definitions here:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigot

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

> Participants in this newsgroup prefer the use of a :-) to denote
> sarcasm.

Some. Not all.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..

> >
> > Bigot.
> >
> Learning: A relatively permanent change in behavior caused by experience
> over time.

Then is sounds like blond jokes should be OK.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:13:40 +0000, John Theune wrote:

> To clarify my earlier post: Go ahead and blame Garmin ( which may or may
> not be right ) but don't use this failure as a reason not to have advanced
> avionics in aircraft.

I don't know about that. An inability to build proper reliability into a
system would sound to me like a good reason to avoid it.

More, I've been thinking about the statement "it rebooted". There really
shouldn't be an "it" in an airplane, should there? There should be a
"they", right? And the statement should have been "one of them rebooted".

There are two screens for redundancy, but only one system?

With respect to the sensor providing bad data: sensors can provide bad
data. They break. Part of the job of the unit accepting input from the
sensor is to flag such failures. This isn't an "odd case"; it should be
one of the tasked requirements.

All that said, I'm uncomfortable with some of the symptoms described. Why
would the AHRS have a problem because of a bad fuel sensor? How would
fuel contaminate a pitot tube (in my 182s, they're not positioned such
that this could occur)?

My first thought is that there's some problem particular to this unit that
was being flown. Failing that, I wonder what else in the environment
might have triggered the multiple failures.

- Andrew

[NW_Pilot]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:tLuUg.6710$vT1.5556@trndny03...
> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>>
>>>>> However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total system
>>>>> failure,
>>>> Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence is
>>>> pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we
>>>> don't know.
>>> True. In addition to the fuel sensor "overload" (it didn't really
>>> fail -- it just sent info to the G1000 that made no sense), he also
>>> experienced a CO sensor failure, and (later) a tach failure.
>>>
>>> It's hard to say what caused what to happen, without more data.
>>>
>> I agree that we are in no position to determine the cause of the
>> problems;
>> they could be specific to this particular unit, or caused by damage
>> during
>> the installation of the ferry tank and other panel mounted items rather
>> than the general design of the G1000. However, it still troubles me that
>> Garmin told NW_Pilot that the system can experience similar problems
>> during stalls and in slow flight. That *does* sound like the G1000 has
>> some design issues that need sorting out.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>>
> I just went back and reread his account. ( I'm not flaming Steven but if
> you've read his emails before you know that his written words can often be
> difficult to read for content ) He said that the fuel readings went to
> red Xs ( as a properly designed system with a out of spec sensor should )
> after flying ( and venting excess fuel for 7 hours ) Then he got a CO2
> warning then a GPS-1 failure. It was after the GPS1 failure that the unit
> rebooted. Now failure of the fuel system I would not want a reboot for
> but in some situations failure of the primary navigation system may be
> grounds for a reboot depending on what failed. After the reboot completed
> he was missing readings like fuel and airspeeds. He mentions other errors
> but does not say what they were. He does not specifically say that the
> system rebooted again directly. He said in summery it was continually
> rebooting but I question that. Steven - Was it rebooting or did it just
> reboot once after the initial failure? He mentions that on downwind the
> fuel readings were working again but then failed again during turn to
> final. Did the sensors starting given valid information after the fuel
> burned off enough to have then in range and then fail again during the
> turn? Not sure. He does mention the G1000 rebooting again during his
> landing. Was this the second reboot? Did other instruments fail again?
> Too many questions and not enough information to say for sure.


Will solve this question, It had to many reboots to count! The unit would
reboot then start showing items failing then reboot again start showing
items failing then reboot again and again for a few hundred miles! After
each reboot it took about 10 to 15 min to reboot again. The fuel sensors
starting given valid information upon the reboot after landing and I still
had Co2 and GPS Failure On Landing and airspeed was still a Red X! I only
took note of the critical errors I tried my best to document them all but I
am not superman I still needed to fly the plane.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, NW_Pilot > posted:

> "John Theune" > wrote in message
> news:tLuUg.6710$vT1.5556@trndny03...
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>>>
>>>>>> However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total
>>>>>> system failure,
>>>>> Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence
>>>>> is pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we
>>>>> don't know.
>>>> True. In addition to the fuel sensor "overload" (it didn't really
>>>> fail -- it just sent info to the G1000 that made no sense), he also
>>>> experienced a CO sensor failure, and (later) a tach failure.
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to say what caused what to happen, without more data.
>>>>
>>> I agree that we are in no position to determine the cause of the
>>> problems;
>>> they could be specific to this particular unit, or caused by damage
>>> during
>>> the installation of the ferry tank and other panel mounted items
>>> rather than the general design of the G1000. However, it still
>>> troubles me that Garmin told NW_Pilot that the system can
>>> experience similar problems during stalls and in slow flight. That
>>> *does* sound like the G1000 has some design issues that need
>>> sorting out.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I just went back and reread his account. ( I'm not flaming Steven
>> but if you've read his emails before you know that his written words
>> can often be difficult to read for content ) He said that the fuel
>> readings went to red Xs ( as a properly designed system with a out
>> of spec sensor should ) after flying ( and venting excess fuel for 7
>> hours ) Then he got a CO2 warning then a GPS-1 failure. It was
>> after the GPS1 failure that the unit rebooted. Now failure of the
>> fuel system I would not want a reboot for but in some situations
>> failure of the primary navigation system may be grounds for a reboot
>> depending on what failed. After the reboot completed he was missing
>> readings like fuel and airspeeds. He mentions other errors but does
>> not say what they were. He does not specifically say that the
>> system rebooted again directly. He said in summery it was
>> continually rebooting but I question that. Steven - Was it
>> rebooting or did it just reboot once after the initial failure? He
>> mentions that on downwind the fuel readings were working again but
>> then failed again during turn to final. Did the sensors starting
>> given valid information after the fuel burned off enough to have
>> then in range and then fail again during the turn? Not sure. He
>> does mention the G1000 rebooting again during his landing. Was this
>> the second reboot? Did other instruments fail again? Too many
>> questions and not enough information to say for sure.
>
>
> Will solve this question, It had to many reboots to count! The unit
> would reboot then start showing items failing then reboot again start
> showing items failing then reboot again and again for a few hundred
> miles! After each reboot it took about 10 to 15 min to reboot again.
> The fuel sensors starting given valid information upon the reboot
> after landing and I still had Co2 and GPS Failure On Landing and
> airspeed was still a Red X! I only took note of the critical errors I
> tried my best to document them all but I am not superman I still
> needed to fly the plane.
>
First of all, I think you did a superb job of handling all aspects of this
fiasco. It has to be awfully distracting to have your controls constantly
rebooting while you're trying determine whether you can get to safety.

Your description of the installation quality of the aux tank and other
items in the panel that could have been done better with a hacksaw and a
drill makes me suspect that the G1000 was damaged during this process. The
only thing that makes me think that the G1000 design may have problems is
their telling you that the unit experiences problems in normal flight
configurations. I'm curious about *which* problems, but that's only a
curiosity; I'd have a hard time trusting the unit if there aren't backup
gauges.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:40:42 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:50:29 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:
>>
>>>
>>>"Emily" > wrote in message
>>>> Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.
>>>
>>>Bigot.
>>>
>>
>> Not according to the definitions here:
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
>
>But according to the definitions here:
>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigot
>
It's a reach.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:40:42 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:50:29 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Emily" > wrote in message
>>>>> Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Bigot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not according to the definitions here:
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
>>
>>But according to the definitions here:
>>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigot
>>
> It's a reach.

Nah.... Just stop at especially.

[NW_Pilot]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> Recently, NW_Pilot > posted:
>
>> "John Theune" > wrote in message
>> news:tLuUg.6710$vT1.5556@trndny03...
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>>>>
>>>>>>> However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total
>>>>>>> system failure,
>>>>>> Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence
>>>>>> is pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we
>>>>>> don't know.
>>>>> True. In addition to the fuel sensor "overload" (it didn't really
>>>>> fail -- it just sent info to the G1000 that made no sense), he also
>>>>> experienced a CO sensor failure, and (later) a tach failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to say what caused what to happen, without more data.
>>>>>
>>>> I agree that we are in no position to determine the cause of the
>>>> problems;
>>>> they could be specific to this particular unit, or caused by damage
>>>> during
>>>> the installation of the ferry tank and other panel mounted items
>>>> rather than the general design of the G1000. However, it still
>>>> troubles me that Garmin told NW_Pilot that the system can
>>>> experience similar problems during stalls and in slow flight. That
>>>> *does* sound like the G1000 has some design issues that need
>>>> sorting out.
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I just went back and reread his account. ( I'm not flaming Steven
>>> but if you've read his emails before you know that his written words
>>> can often be difficult to read for content ) He said that the fuel
>>> readings went to red Xs ( as a properly designed system with a out
>>> of spec sensor should ) after flying ( and venting excess fuel for 7
>>> hours ) Then he got a CO2 warning then a GPS-1 failure. It was
>>> after the GPS1 failure that the unit rebooted. Now failure of the
>>> fuel system I would not want a reboot for but in some situations
>>> failure of the primary navigation system may be grounds for a reboot
>>> depending on what failed. After the reboot completed he was missing
>>> readings like fuel and airspeeds. He mentions other errors but does
>>> not say what they were. He does not specifically say that the
>>> system rebooted again directly. He said in summery it was
>>> continually rebooting but I question that. Steven - Was it
>>> rebooting or did it just reboot once after the initial failure? He
>>> mentions that on downwind the fuel readings were working again but
>>> then failed again during turn to final. Did the sensors starting
>>> given valid information after the fuel burned off enough to have
>>> then in range and then fail again during the turn? Not sure. He
>>> does mention the G1000 rebooting again during his landing. Was this
>>> the second reboot? Did other instruments fail again? Too many
>>> questions and not enough information to say for sure.
>>
>>
>> Will solve this question, It had to many reboots to count! The unit
>> would reboot then start showing items failing then reboot again start
>> showing items failing then reboot again and again for a few hundred
>> miles! After each reboot it took about 10 to 15 min to reboot again.
>> The fuel sensors starting given valid information upon the reboot
>> after landing and I still had Co2 and GPS Failure On Landing and
>> airspeed was still a Red X! I only took note of the critical errors I
>> tried my best to document them all but I am not superman I still
>> needed to fly the plane.
>>
> First of all, I think you did a superb job of handling all aspects of this
> fiasco. It has to be awfully distracting to have your controls constantly
> rebooting while you're trying determine whether you can get to safety.
>
> Your description of the installation quality of the aux tank and other
> items in the panel that could have been done better with a hacksaw and a
> drill makes me suspect that the G1000 was damaged during this process. The
> only thing that makes me think that the G1000 design may have problems is
> their telling you that the unit experiences problems in normal flight
> configurations. I'm curious about *which* problems, but that's only a
> curiosity; I'd have a hard time trusting the unit if there aren't backup
> gauges.
>
> Neil
>
>

After this Issue I think that there should be manual back up gauges and
instruments for the required equipment under FAR 91.205!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"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.

[NW_Pilot]

"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.

[Emily]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>> Bigot.
>>>
>> Learning: A relatively permanent change in behavior caused by experience
>> over time.
>
> Then is sounds like blond jokes should be OK.
>
>
Hey, I'M not blond...blond jokes are great!

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2006-10-02, John Theune > wrote:
>
>> The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
>>outside the design envelop of the garmin system.
>
>
> But a fuel sensor out of range SHOULD NOT CAUSE THE SYSTEM TO BOOT LOOP.
> Why should a fuel sensor out of range deprive you of your EHSI and
> attitude indicator? The read outs for the instruments out of range
> should be flagged and a suitable warning message generated - not the
> loss of your entire IFR panel.
>

I agree. I wonder if it was just the fuel sensor that caused the
repeated boots or if something else was contributing.

Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:16:50 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

>! I only
>took note of the critical errors I tried my best to document them all but I
>am not superman I still needed to fly the plane.

Was it not equipped with an auto pilot?

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

>> am not superman I still needed to fly the plane.

> Was it not equipped with an auto pilot?

Probably linked to the G1000...

[Emily]

Stefan wrote:
> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
>>> am not superman I still needed to fly the plane.
>
>> Was it not equipped with an auto pilot?
>
> Probably linked to the G1000...

The 172 I flew with the G1000, it was linked.

Besides, after that avionics failure, I'm not sure I'd trust anything else.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
> Let's see. Single Female Pilot, Low self esteem issues. You are aware this
> isn't match.com aren't you. ;)


I don't know, Larry's been talking up a storm about intellect, lately
.....again.

http://simple-iq.com/


Montblack :-)

[Jose[_1_]]

> To clarify my earlier post: Go ahead and blame Garmin ( which may or may not be right ) but don't use this failure as a reason not to have advanced avionics in aircraft.

Software that reboots the entire instrumentation panel because of a
single bad input is not "advanced".

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.

[John Theune]

Jose wrote:
>> To clarify my earlier post: Go ahead and blame Garmin ( which may or
>> may not be right ) but don't use this failure as a reason not to have
>> advanced avionics in aircraft.
>
> Software that reboots the entire instrumentation panel because of a
> single bad input is not "advanced".
>
> Jose
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. Even the original story said the fuel displayed displayed
red x before other system failed and eventually rebooted the overall
system. Even it the G1000 is a bad design/system, it's still no reason
to say that we must stay with steam gauges.

John

[NW_Pilot]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stefan wrote:
>> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>>
>>>> am not superman I still needed to fly the plane.
>>
>>> Was it not equipped with an auto pilot?
>>
>> Probably linked to the G1000...
>
> The 172 I flew with the G1000, it was linked.
>
> Besides, after that avionics failure, I'm not sure I'd trust anything
> else.


Yes, it was coupled to the G1000 and was useless!

[Jose[_1_]]

> Even it the G1000 is a bad design/system, it's still no reason to say that we must stay with steam gauges.

No, it is not.

It would however mean that the G1000 is a bad design/system.

More to the point, it is an =attractive= bad design/system. That's the
nub. Glass is really sexy, and because of this, can be marketed =even=
if it's a bad design/system. One should be suspicious of glass =for=
that reason.

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.

[Judah]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:23:15 GMT, Judah > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>I'd buy all that if your very last post on this board wasn't...
>>
>>
>>"Have you ever taxied a high wing in 55 knot winds?"
>>
>>What useful INFORMATION did that provide?
>
> Are you familiar with Socratic debate*?
>
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

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

[Montblack[_1_]]

("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

[Matt Whiting]

John Theune wrote:

> Jose wrote:
>
>>> To clarify my earlier post: Go ahead and blame Garmin ( which may or
>>> may not be right ) but don't use this failure as a reason not to have
>>> advanced avionics in aircraft.
>>
>>
>> Software that reboots the entire instrumentation panel because of a
>> single bad input is not "advanced".
>>
>> Jose
>
> 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. Even the original story said the fuel displayed displayed
> red x before other system failed and eventually rebooted the overall
> system. Even it the G1000 is a bad design/system, it's still no reason
> to say that we must stay with steam gauges.

I believe that there are many reasons for redundancy and the potential
for a poorly designed system is one of them.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Participants in this newsgroup prefer the use of a :-) to denote
> sarcasm.

If it has to be marked as such, there's no point in using it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Gideon writes:

> There are two screens for redundancy, but only one system?

Odd considering the fact that a software failure is far more likely
than a screen failure. But putting in an extra screen is a lot
cheaper and easier than debugging the code, and it _looks_ safer, too.

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

> Even it the G1000 is a bad design/system, it's still no reason
> to say that we must stay with steam gauges.

True. But a truly safe software system would be so expensive that
nobody could afford it--which means in effect that we should stay with
real instruments for the time being.

Most people designing and writing software today have absolutely no
clue when it comes to safety-of-life issues. What worries me is that
systems like this are being "certified." Apparently certification
means very little when it comes to software.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Those are prices of the aircraft with the option package. So the Skyhawk
> with the Nav III package is $241.000. Or, so you can understand the figure,
> every cent you earn for the next 30+ years.

Yes. Still cheaper than a Baron 58, the aircraft I like, which
apparently sells for just over a million dollars now. It's a rich
man's hobby.

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

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.
>
>> Even it the G1000 is a bad design/system, it's still no reason
>> to say that we must stay with steam gauges.
>
> True. But a truly safe software system would be so expensive that
> nobody could afford it--which means in effect that we should stay with
> real instruments for the time being.
>
> Most people designing and writing software today have absolutely no
> clue when it comes to safety-of-life issues. What worries me is that
> systems like this are being "certified." Apparently certification
> means very little when it comes to software.
>
Once again you have shown that you have no clue what your talking about.
My day job is medical software and we most certainly know what safety
of life means.

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes. Still cheaper than a Baron 58, the aircraft I like, which
> apparently sells for just over a million dollars now. It's a rich
> man's hobby.

I read the other day that a new Baron is selling for (I think) $1.7
million now.

Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
it"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael[_1_]]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> Oh! Yea I learned a bunch from this trip.... I did ask questions about the
> fuel system prior to launch

I don't doubt it. But did you ask the right question? I don't think
so.

So what makes that question the right question, other than hindsight?
Well, as someone else mentioned, there are actually production
airplanes (the C-310 comes to mind immediately) where this is an issue.

> "I have flown other tanked airplanes" and the
> answer from them was the same that was written on paper when the aircraft
> fuel system is completely disconnected "In the off position" the aircraft is
> running only on the ferry tank system connected directly to the engine after
> the aircraft fuel shut off valve.

This answer is clearly inadequate. It does not tell you where the
vapor return line goes.

Note that this identical system with the identical instructions would
have been totally fine on a plane with a carbureted engine, or with a
small Lycoming injected engine equipped with the Bendix/RSA fuel servo
(and this covers the vast majority of 172's - I'm curious what flavor
this one was) so it is entirely possible that the system has been used
successfully in many 172 crossings.

The sytem itself is fine, especially for something like a ferry flight
- the only problem is that someone dorked up the instructions. These
things happen. That's why you're being paid to do this.

Michael

[Bob Moore]

Jay Honeck wrote
> Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
> that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
> but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
> dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
> it"...

Yes....but, He has to get training and a check flight in that
biz-jet every year....to fly the Baron, just a Flight Review
in a Cessna 172 every two years. I've done Flight Reviews for
a couple of guys who traded in their biz-jets for high performance
twins just because of age, the jet training/check at Flight Safety
became more than they could handle.

Bob Moore

[Stefan]

Michael schrieb:

> But did you ask the right question?
....
> These things happen. That's why you're being paid to do this.

If a pilot sits into an approved airplane, reads the approved
instructions and acts as instructed, then I think I this pilots has all
the right to assume that the installation works as expected. That's why
such installations are so expensive.

Stefan

[Jay Honeck]

> > Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
> > that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
> > but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
> > dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
> > it"...
>
> Yes....but, He has to get training and a check flight in that
> biz-jet every year....to fly the Baron, just a Flight Review
> in a Cessna 172 every two years. I've done Flight Reviews for
> a couple of guys who traded in their biz-jets for high performance
> twins just because of age, the jet training/check at Flight Safety
> became more than they could handle.

Good point -- but my comment was more aimed at the price of a new Baron
than at the quality of the pilots. I mean, my God -- $1.7 MILLION for
a piston twin? Given what that would buy on the slightly-used
market, it's just insane to give Raytheon that much money...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> Bigot.

Nawh, she's just looking for someone with more disposable income...
<evil-grin>

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
> > Bigot.
>
> Nawh, she's just looking for someone with more disposable income...
> <evil-grin>

And pilots are disposing of their income too fast?

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On 4 Oct 2006 07:59:38 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> > Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
>> > that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
>> > but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
>> > dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
>> > it"...
>>
>> Yes....but, He has to get training and a check flight in that
>> biz-jet every year....to fly the Baron, just a Flight Review
>> in a Cessna 172 every two years. I've done Flight Reviews for
>> a couple of guys who traded in their biz-jets for high performance
>> twins just because of age, the jet training/check at Flight Safety
>> became more than they could handle.
>
>Good point -- but my comment was more aimed at the price of a new Baron
>than at the quality of the pilots. I mean, my God -- $1.7 MILLION for
>a piston twin? Given what that would buy on the slightly-used
>market, it's just insane to give Raytheon that much money...

I agree.

1.7 Mil could buy you a whole collection of cool aircraft:

P-51 Mustang
T-6 Texan
Cessna 195
Cessna 180/185
Pitts
J-3 or Champ

Bela P. Havasreti

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:23:43 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>If there's ever an argument against glass (or "advanced integrated
>flight instrumentations and controls"), this is it!

The possibility of loosing all navigation, engine, and systems
information and autopilot simultaneously while single-pilot IFR over
the Atlantic Ocean between Greenland and Iceland is not an acceptable
risk in my estimation.

Even the auto pilot became inoperative, because it is dependent on the
Garmin equipment, so the pilot was forced to fly partial panel
(airspeed, AI, altimeter, and compass)for 200 miles back to land.
Here's a photo of the Cessna panel:
http://skyhawksp.cessna.com/avionics.chtml
He lost fuel gages critical for decision making about whether to
continue on or turn back.

The Garmin product should be redesigned in a modular way, so that
failed modules can be isolated, and permit the operational part of the
system to function. And the modules should be designed, so that they
are able to provide functionality, even if it is reduced, when other
modules are inoperative. There will always be some single points of
failure, like the display or power supply, but the likelihood of
catastrophic system failure would be reduced. To compromise safety
for the sake of gee-wizz glass is just plane stupid.

The systems Garmin replaced were specifically designed to provide
redundancy and several isolated power sources, so that the probability
of such a catastrophic failure was unlikely. A rational pilot would
not knowingly sacrifice that redundant and independent system design,
no matter how cool a glass cockpit is.

Consider what is between you and an approaching automobile on the
highway, a white stripe, and consider what is between you and such a
catastrophic lose at a most inopportune time, a few microns of
silicon. Would cosmic particles affect electronic equipment near the
Earth's poles?

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> My day job is medical software and we most certainly know what safety
> of life means.

The G1000 is not running medical software. But the Therac was.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
> that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
> but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
> dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
> it"...

Is that a typical price range for a plane in the Baron's category? If
not, why is the Baron special?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> Yes....but, He has to get training and a check flight in that
> biz-jet every year....to fly the Baron, just a Flight Review
> in a Cessna 172 every two years. I've done Flight Reviews for
> a couple of guys who traded in their biz-jets for high performance
> twins just because of age, the jet training/check at Flight Safety
> became more than they could handle.

How did age interfere with it?

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

[Michael[_1_]]

Stefan wrote:
> If a pilot sits into an approved airplane, reads the approved
> instructions and acts as instructed, then I think I this pilots has all
> the right to assume that the installation works as expected. That's why
> such installations are so expensive.

And if you believe that, there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Seriously, what you say makes sense in theory. The difference between
theory and practice is often much greater in practice than it is in
theory. In theory, the installations are expensive because thorough
and competent engineering review (by the DER) assures that version 1.0
works properly. In practice, becoming a DER has little to do with
thoroughness and competence and everything to do with having
connections in the FAA.

Anyone who has worked on the maintenance side of GA for any length of
time has his own share of stories about totally incompetent
modifications that gained FAA approval. This one is small potatoes in
comparison with some of the ones I know.

Thus you have to accept that if you are flying version 1.0 of anything,
you are a test pilot and must behave accordingly. There is a very
expensive mandatory process in place to assure that this does not
happen, but the process doesn't work.

Michael

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Consider what is between you and an approaching automobile on the
> highway, a white stripe, and consider what is between you and such a
> catastrophic lose at a most inopportune time, a few microns of
> silicon. Would cosmic particles affect electronic equipment near the
> Earth's poles?

Yes, potentially, although the risk is low.

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

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

> Emily > wrote:
>
>>> Let's see. Single Female Pilot, Low self esteem issues. You are aware
>>> this isn't match.com aren't you. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.
>
> Now that is just not right Emily. Pilots need love too. :)

Perhaps. But Emily is avoiding the problem of the permanent "who gets
right seat" discussion.

There's wisdom there.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:18:26 -0700, NW_Pilot wrote:

> Yes, it was coupled to the G1000 and was useless!

Why?

The Garmin audio panel in our planes has a nifty feature. If the panel is
powered down, the pilot's headset is connected to COM1. Thus,
communication survives the failure of the audio panel.

They didn't do the same thing with the connectivity in the G1000 from
the sensors to the autopilot?

Are you sure that it wasn't the failure of the AHRS1 (which I saw in one
of your photos) which took out the AP? Not that this makes too much of a
difference to the pilot in your scenario, I suppose, but I'm growing quite
curious (in a negative way) during this thread regarding how the G1000 is
architected.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:16:08 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:

> I believe that there are many reasons for redundancy and the potential for
> a poorly designed system is one of them.

If we assume a bug that causes a G1000 to fail due to bad data coming from
a sensor, for example, then it doesn't matter if we've a dozen G1000s in
the airplane. Dealing with bad design requires diversity as well as
redundancy.

- Andrew

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> >>Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.
> >
> > Now that is just not right Emily. Pilots need love too. :)
>
> Perhaps. But Emily is avoiding the problem of the permanent "who gets
> right seat" discussion.

eh? CFI's don't fly right seat?

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

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:11:26 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>> Perhaps. But Emily is avoiding the problem of the permanent "who gets
>> right seat" discussion.
>
> eh? CFI's don't fly right seat?

I actually meant "left seat". I've no idea why I reversed it.

But either way, as the sole pilot Emily gets to decide where she sits. In
a dual pilot relationship, there's negotiation.

- Andrew

[Jay Honeck]

> But either way, as the sole pilot Emily gets to decide where she sits. In
> a dual pilot relationship, there's negotiation.

No there's not.

I get out, she gets back. Or vice versa. It's easy, and there are no
arguments.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
> > that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
> > but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
> > dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
> > it"...
>
> Is that a typical price range for a plane in the Baron's category? If
> not, why is the Baron special?

The Baron (and all Raytheon/Beech products) is considered to be the
"Cadillac" airplane, meaning extremely durable, well-engineered, and
pricey.

Or, to those of us who think it's crazy, they're heavy,
over-engineered, and over-priced.

It's all in the eye of the beholder, of course, but spending $1.7
million for a light piston twin is just stupid, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Emily]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Bigot.
>
> Nawh, she's just looking for someone with more disposable income...
> <evil-grin>
>
>
Well, SOMEONE'S got to pay the bills, and you know where my money is
going. <g>

[Emily]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:11:26 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps. But Emily is avoiding the problem of the permanent "who gets
>>> right seat" discussion.
>> eh? CFI's don't fly right seat?
>
> I actually meant "left seat". I've no idea why I reversed it.
>
> But either way, as the sole pilot Emily gets to decide where she sits. In
> a dual pilot relationship, there's negotiation.

Eh, as a CFI, I really don't care where I sit.

Unless you're assuming the pilot flying is sitting in left seat!

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-10-04, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> It's all in the eye of the beholder, of course, but spending $1.7
> million for a light piston twin is just stupid, IMHO.

Considering the Eclipse 500 was just certified and priced at $1.5M
it sure sounds crazy! Well, except I bet the cabin of the Baron is
a lot bigger. :)

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-10-04, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> I get out, she gets back. Or vice versa. It's easy, and there are no
> arguments.

Hey, instead of your IR you should get your CFI, then you could both
log PIC all day long!

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:01:55 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in >:

>The Garmin audio panel in our planes has a nifty feature. If the panel is
>powered down, the pilot's headset is connected to COM1. Thus,
>communication survives the failure of the audio panel.

It would be interesting to know how VHF communications were affected
in Mr. Rhine's mishap.

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:16:08 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>I believe that there are many reasons for redundancy and the potential for
>>a poorly designed system is one of them.
>
>
> If we assume a bug that causes a G1000 to fail due to bad data coming from
> a sensor, for example, then it doesn't matter if we've a dozen G1000s in
> the airplane. Dealing with bad design requires diversity as well as
> redundancy.

I'd prefer redundancy at both the sensor and instrument level if I was
flying IFR across the pond.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
>>>that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
>>>but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
>>>dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
>>>it"...
>>
>>Yes....but, He has to get training and a check flight in that
>>biz-jet every year....to fly the Baron, just a Flight Review
>>in a Cessna 172 every two years. I've done Flight Reviews for
>>a couple of guys who traded in their biz-jets for high performance
>>twins just because of age, the jet training/check at Flight Safety
>>became more than they could handle.
>
>
> Good point -- but my comment was more aimed at the price of a new Baron
> than at the quality of the pilots. I mean, my God -- $1.7 MILLION for
> a piston twin? Given what that would buy on the slightly-used
> market, it's just insane to give Raytheon that much money...

It's all relative. A lot of folks think that about any airplane
compared to a car. You can buy a ratty old airplane for $80,000 or a
brand new Lexus that is 10 times more comfortably and have money left
over for several nice vacations.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
>>>that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
>>>but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
>>>dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
>>>it"...
>>
>>Is that a typical price range for a plane in the Baron's category? If
>>not, why is the Baron special?
>
>
> The Baron (and all Raytheon/Beech products) is considered to be the
> "Cadillac" airplane, meaning extremely durable, well-engineered, and
> pricey.
>
> Or, to those of us who think it's crazy, they're heavy,
> over-engineered, and over-priced.
>
> It's all in the eye of the beholder, of course, but spending $1.7
> million for a light piston twin is just stupid, IMHO.

No, stupid is going into the hotel business. :-)

Matt

[Andrew Gideon]

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>

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:22:21 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:

>> If we assume a bug that causes a G1000 to fail due to bad data coming
>> from a sensor, for example, then it doesn't matter if we've a dozen
>> G1000s in the airplane. Dealing with bad design requires diversity as
>> well as redundancy.
>
> I'd prefer redundancy at both the sensor and instrument level if I was
> flying IFR across the pond.

Good point. But diversity still helps, lest a design flaw in the one
sensor design triggers a design flaw in the one instrument design.

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:24:39 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>You can buy a ratty old airplane for $80,000 or a
>brand new Lexus that is 10 times more comfortably and have money left
>over for several nice vacations.

But, you're confined to two dimensions.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

Something tells me that this concept never even crossed anyone's mind
at Garmin for the G1000.

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

[NW_Pilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:01:55 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
> wrote in >:
>
>>The Garmin audio panel in our planes has a nifty feature. If the panel is
>>powered down, the pilot's headset is connected to COM1. Thus,
>>communication survives the failure of the audio panel.
>
> It would be interesting to know how VHF communications were affected
> in Mr. Rhine's mishap.
>

Ever time the system rebooted I had VHF comms for a few min + I had the Ham
Radio!

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:24:39 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>>You can buy a ratty old airplane for $80,000 or a
>>brand new Lexus that is 10 times more comfortably and have money left
>>over for several nice vacations.
>
>
> But, you're confined to two dimensions.

Ok, so you mentioned the other advantage people often mention!

Matt

[Judah]

"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?

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Software that is certified by a regulatory organization typically is
>> held to a bit of a higher standard than the desktop software pushed
>> out by Microsoft.
>
> Apparently the G1000 software is not certified in that way, or it
> wouldn't be failing.
>

Their press releases claim that they are FAA certified.

[Emily]

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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 16:58:00 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:01:55 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>The Garmin audio panel in our planes has a nifty feature. If the panel is
>>>powered down, the pilot's headset is connected to COM1. Thus,
>>>communication survives the failure of the audio panel.
>>
>> It would be interesting to know how VHF communications were affected
>> in Mr. Rhine's mishap.
>>
>
>Ever time the system rebooted I had VHF comms for a few min + I had the Ham
>Radio!
>

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?

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Their press releases claim that they are FAA certified.

Then the FAA doesn't know how to certify software (or doesn't bother
to do so), which would not surprise me at all.

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

[NW_Pilot]

>>
>
> 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!

I believe after this incident as we see the fleet of G1000 equipped aircraft
age in the next few years there will be many fatalities and/or class action
suite's and whole generation of pilots not prepared for this type of systems
loss!

I hope that this garmin problem never happens to another pilot (I have a
feeling it will and it makes me angry) I am glad I practice partial panel
and have been ferrying airplanes the last year and have gained the skills to
deal with problems such as this. I know it could have gone the opposite
direction really fast and I thank my lucky stars I was able to keep my cool,
work the problem, make the competent decisions and use the resources
available to me to make it in safe!

I like the Avidyne system a lot better at leased if the PFD & MFD fail you
have Comm's, Autopilot, And GPS Navigation all separate! But I only have 10
hours at the controls on a new Piper to make that opinion on the Avidyne
system witch is not enough!

[Doug[_1_]]

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!

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

NW_Pilot wrote:
> >>
> >
> > 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!
>
> I believe after this incident as we see the fleet of G1000 equipped aircraft
> age in the next few years there will be many fatalities and/or class action
> suite's and whole generation of pilots not prepared for this type of systems
> loss!
>
> I hope that this garmin problem never happens to another pilot (I have a
> feeling it will and it makes me angry) I am glad I practice partial panel
> and have been ferrying airplanes the last year and have gained the skills to
> deal with problems such as this. I know it could have gone the opposite
> direction really fast and I thank my lucky stars I was able to keep my cool,
> work the problem, make the competent decisions and use the resources
> available to me to make it in safe!
>
> I like the Avidyne system a lot better at leased if the PFD & MFD fail you
> have Comm's, Autopilot, And GPS Navigation all separate! But I only have 10
> hours at the controls on a new Piper to make that opinion on the Avidyne
> system witch is not enough!

[Stefan]

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

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

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.?

Do you know how hard it is to keep answering a question
with a question?

What if someone slips and makes a direct statement
that isn't a question?

Will the game end?

Will the thread die?

Will there be film at 11?

Marty

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

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?

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI