Is this the death of GA

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Airbus writes:

What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much
complexity, too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of
digital systems.


If you flew, you would know if that was safe or not..


But you don't

bertie

" wrote in
:

On Feb 24, 9:09 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4
years
ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
$2.30).

Two words: Car gas.

Make sure your plane can run on it (most can), and make sure you live
in a state that doesn't pollute all of their gas with alcohol -- and
flying can still be affordable.

We have run 9000+ gallons of regular unleaded 87 octane car gas
through our home-made fuel truck (see it
hehttp://www.alexisparkinn.com/new_mighty_grape.htm) into our
airplanes, at a savings of well over $1.00 (sometimes $2.00+) per
gallon.

Do the math -- it'll pay for your truck and make flying less
expensive. AND, best of all, most planes run *better* on unleaded
fuel. It's one of very few win-win situations in aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Pretty cool!

Any club or FBO I've been in forbid refueling in the hangar.

I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
to lose an airplane AND a building.

Damned safety nuts.


Bertie

--

wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 9:09 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
$2.30).

Two words: Car gas.

Make sure your plane can run on it (most can), and make sure you live in
a
state that doesn't pollute all of their gas with alcohol -- and flying
can
still be affordable.

We have run 9000+ gallons of regular unleaded 87 octane car gas through
our
home-made fuel truck (see it
hehttp://www.alexisparkinn.com/new_mighty_grape.htm) into our airplanes,
at a
savings of well over $1.00 (sometimes $2.00+) per gallon.

Do the math -- it'll pay for your truck and make flying less expensive.
AND, best of all, most planes run *better* on unleaded fuel. It's one
of
very few win-win situations in aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Pretty cool!

Any club or FBO I've been in forbid refueling in the hangar.

I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
to lose an airplane AND a building.

Dan

That's the rule here, too. We can have it parked right in front of the
hangar but no part of the airplane can be across the door threshold. I
assume it is for the reason you state.

--
*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

On Feb 24, 9:30 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
to lose an airplane AND a building.

Damned safety nuts.

Bertie

yeah..They mess up all the fun!!!!

writes:

How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?

Two or three, I suppose. Does every instrument in the cockpit depend on
vacuum?

How do you know how much testing and of what type?

"Too much complexity"? What in Sam Hill does that mean?

I know that the number of possible paths in complex software expands
exponentially with complexity, and that it is impossible to test them all.
Therefore many paths go untested, and if a bug should exist on an untested
path, and if that path should be executed in operation ... on that path lies
danger.

Even NASA missed things occasionally in testing, and Garmin doesn't have the
time, the budget, or the mindset of NASA. And the computers NASA used were
orders of magnitude simpler than what Garmin is using.

Viperdoc writes:

None of these issues will affect you, since you don't fly and know nothing
about it. Keep looking for the ejection seat switch on the Baron.

If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people who
aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation, does that mean that people who
aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized avionics?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?

Two or three, I suppose. Does every instrument in the cockpit depend
on vacuum?


you're an idiot and you don't fly.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Viperdoc writes:

None of these issues will affect you, since you don't fly and know
nothing about it. Keep looking for the ejection seat switch on the
Baron.

If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people
who aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation,


Nobody said that non pilots shouldn't talk about airplanes. Just assholes
like you.


bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
Viperdoc writes:

None of these issues will affect you, since you don't fly and know nothing
about it. Keep looking for the ejection seat switch on the Baron.

If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people who
aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation, does that mean that people who
aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized avionics?

Nobody minds a non-specialist talking about a specialization.

What people mind is authoritative statements which are incorrect from
non-specialists and endless, non sequitur babble from just about everyone.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Feb 24, 9:49 pm, Airbus wrote:
In article ,
says...



If people who aren't doctors shouldn't talk about medicine, and people who
aren't pilots shouldn't talk about aviation, does that mean that people who
aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized avionics?

In your case, yes.
The fact that someone of your ilk is entitled to hold and express an opinion on
a subject so far beyond your grasp is really an artifact of our society's
attachment to free speech. It's something akin to granting voting rights to a
child born brain dead who manages to survive on life support to age 18.

The fact that you are entitled to expound in public forum insulting and
uninformed blather on the matter without any laws being broken is an excellent
illustration of the high intellectual price we pay for freedom of speech.

Bravo!

Well said.

(I'm exercising my free speech, BTW)

Dan