Glass Panel Failure Rate?

"jsmith" wrote in message

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

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

No. Why don't you insinuate that the pilot was intoxicated? I want you to
explain your reason for intimating that an MFD failure was responsible. I
think you're blowing smoke.

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

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

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

You don't need to "accept" it because NOBODY has said or intimated or
hinted, or likely even *thought* that they are. Strawman argument.

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

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

In Florida in January? Anyway, the manual probably says that about the
whole plane. Have you read a POH for a Cessna.

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

God I hope you're not a lawyer.

So do I.

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

moo

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


"Blueskies" wrote

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


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

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

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

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

TC

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:34:17 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Blueskies" wrote

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


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

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

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

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

TC

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

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

Not certain how current the info is...

Jay B

"Morgans" wrote in message ...

"Blueskies" wrote

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

Not certain how current the info is...

Jay B

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

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

TC

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

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

Hilton

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

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

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

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

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

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

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

Here it the NTSB report on that one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X19310&key=1

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

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

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

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