HondaJet: Not A Steam Gage In Sight

On 25 Oct 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote in
.com:


Larry Dighera wrote:


I don't need a scientific degree in logic to understand even without
reading the POH that when the screen goes black, all those nifty things
which were on that very screen before are, well, not available anymore.

True. But I wasn't aware that the autopilot wouldn't even work as a
wing leveler.


Whatever made you think that it would? The autopilot is obviously
electrical.


In the scenario I have in mind (Mr. Rhine's recent ferry trip), he
didn't lose electrical power. The G1000 went into infinite re-boot
mode.

Besides, pilots flew with "only ASI, AI, VSI, Alt. and magnetic compass
steam gages" for decades, so what's the big deal.

They usually had some sort of fuel gage.


The fuel gauges in Skyhawks have been electrical for decades. We have
been losing them in power failures for more than thirty years.

Despite the electrical system being operational, the fuel gages are
part of the non-functional G1000.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 18:24:50 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote in
.com:

However, it is in the G1000 manual, which is part of
the airplane's operator's manuals.

I wasn't able to find it on the Garmin web site?

No. Garmin charges an arm, a leg, and a kidney for manuals for the
G1000.

cjcampbell wrote:

No. Garmin charges an arm, a leg, and a kidney for manuals for the
G1000.

they sell you a CD with the simulator and documentation for just
the price of postage. May be are you underselling your arm,
leg and kidneys?

--Sylvain

Sylvain wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:

No. Garmin charges an arm, a leg, and a kidney for manuals for the
G1000.

they sell you a CD with the simulator and documentation for just
the price of postage. May be are you underselling your arm,
leg and kidneys?

No, no. They ain't worth all that much.

They must have started doing that after I left for the Philippines.

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On 25 Oct 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote in
.com:


Larry Dighera wrote:


I don't need a scientific degree in logic to understand even
without reading the POH that when the screen goes black, all those
nifty things which were on that very screen before are, well, not
available anymore.

True. But I wasn't aware that the autopilot wouldn't even work as a
wing leveler.


Whatever made you think that it would? The autopilot is obviously
electrical.


In the scenario I have in mind (Mr. Rhine's recent ferry trip), he
didn't lose electrical power. The G1000 went into infinite re-boot
mode.

I'm not so sure that this is a "mode" of the G1000, but that's beside the
point. If faced with that condition, I would have simply shut the thing
off so as not to be annoyed and distracted by the "reboot light show".
Afterwards, one just follows POH procedure for total G1000 failure mode.
Not a big deal.

Besides, pilots flew with "only ASI, AI, VSI, Alt. and magnetic
compass steam gages" for decades, so what's the big deal.

They usually had some sort of fuel gage.


The fuel gauges in Skyhawks have been electrical for decades. We have
been losing them in power failures for more than thirty years.

Despite the electrical system being operational, the fuel gages are
part of the non-functional G1000.

I always consider the fuel gauges as feeding questionable information.
They are often not very accurate in the range between "full" and "zero".
Also, the same fuel levels can result in different gauge readings from one
plane to another. A clock is a much better "fuel gauge", as long as the
fuel system is intact. If there's a fuel leak, then either above scenario
can bite you just as badly.

Neil

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:14:44 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On 25 Oct 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote in
.com:


Larry Dighera wrote:


I don't need a scientific degree in logic to understand even
without reading the POH that when the screen goes black, all those
nifty things which were on that very screen before are, well, not
available anymore.

True. But I wasn't aware that the autopilot wouldn't even work as a
wing leveler.


Whatever made you think that it would? The autopilot is obviously
electrical.


In the scenario I have in mind (Mr. Rhine's recent ferry trip), he
didn't lose electrical power. The G1000 went into infinite re-boot
mode.

I'm not so sure that this is a "mode" of the G1000, but that's beside the
point.

If Mr. Rhine's narrative is to be believed, there is empirical
evidence that supports such a "failure" mode, and that may be part of
the point I'm pursuing.

For example, in the event the G1000 becomes inoperative (let's say its
circuit breaker won't reset), without affecting the function of the
balance of the aircraft's electrical system, why couldn't the (most
likely) electrically driven AI be fitted with an encoder to drive the
autopilot (sans Nav capability, of course)? If I were in IMC, and
lost the G1000's communications, navigational, flight and systems
instrumentation, I'd surely appreciate the opportunity the autopilot
would afford, to read some emergency procedures, and tend to duties
with which I'd probably be saturated initially. That might be
difficult to accomplish expediently without the autopilot while flying
partial panel IFR. (Could you still squawk 7600?)

I guess it boils down to an aversion to "having all the eggs in a
single basket." To me, that raises a red hazard flag calling the
systems engineering forethought into question. Perhaps I don't know
enough about the particulars of the system, or the emergency
procedures in place, but it seems obvious that something as small as a
stray alpha particle or static discharge could precipitate a sudden
and massive loss of functionality.

Suddenly you'd be piloting a Jenny in the clouds with *only* a map and
compass. :-) This exciting, twenty-first century technological
advancement in avionics seems to come with a "time machine" capable of
transporting a pilot back to the nineteenth century days of
barnstorming and flying the mail.

If faced with that condition, I would have simply shut the thing
off so as not to be annoyed and distracted by the "reboot light show".
Afterwards, one just follows POH procedure for total G1000 failure mode.
Not a big deal.

That is a reasonable response. Apparently the G1000 would operate for
a while between re-boots, so Mr. Rhine may have had some motivation to
view those glowing screens for a few miles at a time while over the
chilly Atlantic.

Besides, pilots flew with "only ASI, AI, VSI, Alt. and magnetic
compass steam gages" for decades, so what's the big deal.

They usually had some sort of fuel gage.


The fuel gauges in Skyhawks have been electrical for decades. We have
been losing them in power failures for more than thirty years.

True. It was a poor choice for an example of the massive loss of
instrument display that occurs when the G1000 goes down in a C-172.
The HondaJet must surely have some instrumentation hidden behind a
panel someplace, or the FAA wouldn't certify it, right?

Despite the electrical system being operational, the fuel gages are
part of the non-functional G1000.

I always consider the fuel gauges as feeding questionable information.
They are often not very accurate in the range between "full" and "zero".
Also, the same fuel levels can result in different gauge readings from one
plane to another.

All very true, and if a needle is bouncing, there's a good chance that
gage's tank's got fuel in it.

A clock is a much better "fuel gauge", as long as the
fuel system is intact.

I wonder if there's a mechanical clock or if the clock's integrated in
the G1000 too?

If there's a fuel leak, then either above scenario can bite you just as badly.

Right.

And if you've got fuel coming out the overflow/vent, and aux-tank fuel
system modifications, you might value those gages more than normal to
help diagnose the cause of a malfunction.

Neil Gould writes:

Some steam gauge failures can be far more insidious than a glass panel
going blank.

So? The fact remains that the failure modes for computer equipment
are very different.

Pilots are trained in the operation of the aircraft, and the POH would
make it clear that this is one of many possibilities. If one is
sufficiently grounded in the principles and operation of their aircraft,
no more information is necessary. If they aren't, the chances of passing
the requirements for a certificate are pretty slim.

I think they could pass the requirements with flying colors and still
have absolutely no clue about the failure modes of the G1000. Even
the people who certified it probably have no clue. It's just too
different, at least right now.

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

cjcampbell writes:

Most people know that the TV set turns off when the power goes out. You
would have to be incredibly stupid to not know that the panels will go
off in a power failure.

I'm talking about a reboot, not a power failure.

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

cjcampbell writes:

People who fly real airplanes know that anything can break. It is part
of the training.

I don't have the pilots in mind. I'm thinking of the vendor. If he
had the time and knowledge to create an emergency procedure, he had
the time and knowledge to fix the bug that can cause a reboot in the
first place, which would be far more responsible than simply
documenting it and forgetting about it.

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

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:14:44 GMT, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

In the scenario I have in mind (Mr. Rhine's recent ferry trip), he
didn't lose electrical power. The G1000 went into infinite re-boot
mode.

I'm not so sure that this is a "mode" of the G1000, but that's
beside the point.

If Mr. Rhine's narrative is to be believed, there is empirical
evidence that supports such a "failure" mode, and that may be part of
the point I'm pursuing.

It's not an issue of believing Mr. Rhine; the issue is that we don't know
that his experience was due to anything one might reasonably associate
with the G1000. As I've said before, I'd be more than suspicious of the
folks that modified the panel, given that there are definite design issues
with their aux tank and the quality of job they did installing the
entertainment system. The G1000 may have simply been the most visible
indicator of their hack job.

For example, in the event the G1000 becomes inoperative (let's say its
circuit breaker won't reset), without affecting the function of the
balance of the aircraft's electrical system, why couldn't the (most
likely) electrically driven AI be fitted with an encoder to drive the
autopilot (sans Nav capability, of course)?

Can you buy an electric AI with an encoder that will interface with an
autopilot? If so, that might be a mod that you want to pay for. If not...

I guess it boils down to an aversion to "having all the eggs in a
single basket." To me, that raises a red hazard flag calling the
systems engineering forethought into question. Perhaps I don't know
enough about the particulars of the system, or the emergency
procedures in place, but it seems obvious that something as small as a
stray alpha particle or static discharge could precipitate a sudden
and massive loss of functionality.

To some extent, it's up to the owner to satisfy their level of comfort.
For example, I wouldn't want to fly a lot of IFR with only one radio.
Since owners can easily arrange their own backups for such things, I don't
see it as a big deal that you don't get it "off the shelf". You simply
learn the weaknesses of the system and make decisions about modifications
that make you feel more comfortable.

If faced with that condition, I would have simply shut the thing
off so as not to be annoyed and distracted by the "reboot light
show". Afterwards, one just follows POH procedure for total G1000
failure mode.
Not a big deal.

That is a reasonable response. Apparently the G1000 would operate for
a while between re-boots, so Mr. Rhine may have had some motivation to
view those glowing screens for a few miles at a time while over the
chilly Atlantic.

I wouldn't trust the information that was being displayed if it was
constantly rebooting, anyway. Better to not be misled or confused.

Despite the electrical system being operational, the fuel gages are
part of the non-functional G1000.

I always consider the fuel gauges as feeding questionable
information.
They are often not very accurate in the range between "full" and
"zero". Also, the same fuel levels can result in different gauge
readings from one plane to another.

All very true, and if a needle is bouncing, there's a good chance that
gage's tank's got fuel in it.

A clock is a much better "fuel gauge", as long as the
fuel system is intact.

I wonder if there's a mechanical clock or if the clock's integrated in
the G1000 too?

Nothing stops one from wearing a watch. I don't rely on the clocks in the
plane. If they are functional, it saves you the trouble of looking at your
watch. ;-)

If there's a fuel leak, then either above scenario can bite you just
as badly.

Right.

And if you've got fuel coming out the overflow/vent, and aux-tank fuel
system modifications, you might value those gages more than normal to
help diagnose the cause of a malfunction.

While that seems reasonable on the surface, the question is what are you
going to do about it? Let's at least acknowledge that ferrying a GA plane
across the Atlantic is an unusual event. Mr. Rhine survived because he was
prepared for the level of problem he faced, but if he had lost too much
fuel to make it to safety, that backup radio would be more important than
a fuel gauge. He probably wouldn't have been able to fix the problem en
route.

Neil