Glass Panel Failure Rate?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...

"Blueskies" wrote in message
om...


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


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

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



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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:13:38 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

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

Your statement is out of date since the implementation of WAAS and boxes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

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




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

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

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


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:13:38 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

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

Your statement is out of date since the implementation of WAAS and boxes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

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




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

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


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

"Blueskies" wrote

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


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

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

"jsmith"

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

Go to the NTSB website and read it yourself.

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

moo

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

Go to the NTSB website and read it yourself.

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

"jsmith" wrote in message
Go to the NTSB website and read it yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God I hope you're not a lawyer.

moo

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


This one ended up being the ground.


Montblack

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

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

Montblack wrote:
This one ended up being the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God I hope you're not a lawyer.

So do I.