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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TC