Cirrus Death Trap?

girmann writes:

While it is true that "computers" are notoriously unreliable (and I
put quotes around computers to denote commodity computer hardware that
you can buy at your local computer store) embedded hardware is designed
to be extrodinarily robust. Most embedded hardware is at least
partially redundant. (Modern aviaonics qualifies as an embedded
system)

The failures in glass cockpits are most likely to be software
failures, not hardware failures.

Embedded systems that are designed when human lives are on the line
ALWAYS fail safe and almost always have completely separate redundant
systems.

Not true, unfortunately. Think Therac-25.

To give a real life example, a fire alarm panel that is in charge of
evacuating a building has a microprocessor and runs software. If the
software fails, the hardware has the ability to reset the software to
get the software to work again.

If the software fails, the system is already defective.

Bottom line is this: just because "computers" are unreliable doesn't
mean electronics and other types of hardware equipment are unreliable
as well.

True. Unfortunately, when the overall safety of the system depends to
any degree upon software, the reliability of the electronics and
hardware do not suffice.

To prove my point, if anyone has a G1000 they would be
willing to have an engineer tear down and show these types of
redundancies, I'll give you my address. ;-)

You need to look at the code, not the hardware.

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

Bud,

Ooops. My bad.

You know what, I did read about that - so in choosing the G1000, I
chose a bad example in which to make my point. I just hope that it
wasn't lost.


wrote:
Did you read the thread about NW Pilot having his G1000 Garmin go
bonkers at night over the Atlantic in IMC during a ferry flight to
Lebanon? It was caused by the fuel senders, definately a software
glitch. The darn thing kept rebooting every minute or so. He had to
rely on his handheld GPS, HF radio, and steam gyros to make it back to
Greenland.

Bud

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Nothing prevents you from flying with such equipment, if you choose
not to believe me (or if you enjoy taking risks). But I would suggest
that you limit your flights to VMC if you are using glass instruments,
and not fly anything that gives glass avionics control over the
aircraft unless you have a positive way of disconnecting that control.

And, your basis for this "suggestion" is...?

Just because the computers you borrow from others are unreliable does not
impact the reliability of aviation electronics. Perhaps you should read up
on the reliability of traditional gauges before making such absurd and
ill-informed "suggestions".

Neil

Recently, girmann posted:

Bud,

Ooops. My bad.

You know what, I did read about that - so in choosing the G1000, I
chose a bad example in which to make my point. I just hope that it
wasn't lost.

Not only was it not lost, the facts of NW_Pilot's experience witht the
G1000 have not been established by anyone on this list. Given the whole
story, and that the panel was hacked into by an outfit whose other
products had definite design flaws, I suspect they are the more likely
culprit. No matter how robust a computer system is, it can be messed with
by a dolt with a drill.

Neil


wrote:
Did you read the thread about NW Pilot having his G1000 Garmin go
bonkers at night over the Atlantic in IMC during a ferry flight to
Lebanon? It was caused by the fuel senders, definately a software
glitch. The darn thing kept rebooting every minute or so. He had to
rely on his handheld GPS, HF radio, and steam gyros to make it back
to Greenland.

Bud

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Nothing prevents you from flying with such equipment, if you choose
not to believe me (or if you enjoy taking risks). But I would
suggest that you limit your flights to VMC if you are using glass
instruments, and not fly anything that gives glass avionics
control over the aircraft unless you have a positive way of
disconnecting that control.

And, your basis for this "suggestion" is...?

Just because the computers you borrow from others are unreliable
does not impact the reliability of aviation electronics. Perhaps
you should read up on the reliability of traditional gauges before
making such absurd and ill-informed "suggestions".

Neil

On Oct 13, 5:39 am, Dylan Smith wrote:
The type of aircraft he was in was utterly irrelevant. Smashing into a
building in a Cessna 150 is just as fatal as hitting a building in a
Cirrus, or a Learjet, or an ultralight.

That would depend upon how high above the ground you hit the building,
wouldn't it? With a slow enough crash and adequate personal
protection, it might be survivable if the remains of the plane didn't
have far to fall... Not that it is something that I want to try out...
One aircraft destroyed is more than enough for me...

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/gyro-02.jpg

On Oct 13, 6:11 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
They may well have missed the building
easily had they been in a slower airplane.

Or been a bit higher... Or started their turn a bit earlier or later...
I believe that the technical term for this is "**** HAPPENS"...

Grumman-581 wrote:

On Oct 13, 6:11 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:

They may well have missed the building
easily had they been in a slower airplane.


Or been a bit higher... Or started their turn a bit earlier or later...
I believe that the technical term for this is "**** HAPPENS"...


No, that is for things that are out of your control. If they really did
make too wide a turn (and I'm not convinced they did at this point),
then that is in the category of stupidity.

Matt

Owen

----clip----

Does anyone know at what elevation the impact took place? Were the pilots trying to
change the turn at the last minute if they suddenly saw the building, or is there
anything to suggest that they knew they were headed for the building but unable to
change course (mechanical malfunction), despite trying to do so? I'm very curious
about the time interval between when they first realized there could be a collision and
the impact.


The time interval you asked about is just enought to say "Oh S**t".

I'm assuming you asked a valid question and I tried to give a truthful
answer from my experience listening to 'black boxes" after accidents.

Big John

"Big John" wrote in message
...
The time interval you asked about is just enought to say "Oh S**t".

I'm assuming you asked a valid question and I tried to give a truthful
answer from my experience listening to 'black boxes" after accidents.

Having had my share of 'incidents' over the years, I can definitely attest
to that... *Maybe* if there's a bit more time, you get to think, "This is
*really* gonna hurt"...