Is this the death of GA

In article ,
says...


Owner writes:

See the stock & optional equipment he

http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml

Thanks.

Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in favor of
more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments), for safety
reasons.


OK, let's hear this one.
What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Let's hear the fine points, from the expert, about what's unsafe in the G-1000
system.

Airbus wrote in
:

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.



I disagree. He's great enetertainment aside form anything else and he's a
positive bon to the intellectual pool as a sort of "this is what could
happen to you" sort of way.

He's a cautionary tale..



Bertie

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.

You don't know **** from shinola when it comes to aircraft, aircraft
instruments, flying, or anything connected with reality.

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, does that mean that
people who aren't computer engineers shouldn't talk about computerized
avionics?

You're not competent to talk about anything. You don't know **** from
shinola.

In article ,
says...


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.


I used to think you were intelligent, but mentally ill.
Now I believe you are really an imbecile. Down-dirty-dumb.
You are so clueless it's historic.

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

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.

Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always has.

Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from a
flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the door.
Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the plane was fully
fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I miss those
days...

I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:9Gpwj.48454$9j6.9828@attbi_s22:

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

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.

Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always
has.


He must be some sort of sky god.



Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from
a flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the
door. Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the
plane was fully fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month.
God, I miss those days...

I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!


You'd bitch about it if it were free.


Bertie

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.

On 2008-02-25, Jay Honeck wrote:
I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!

Yeah. I remember bitching because it cost $8 to fill the tank on my first
car, a 1967 Cadillac Calais, with premium gas.

Where's my cane?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

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

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.

Our FBO routinely fuels owner's aircraft in their hangars. Always has.

Ten years ago, when we first moved into a hangar, we would return from a
flight, put the plane away, and flip a little red flapper up on the
door. Next time we came to the airport, the flapper was down, the plane
was fully fueled, and we'd get a bill at the end of the month. God, I
miss those days...

I think gas was, like, $1.74 per gallon -- and we bitched about it!

ELM, which is only 30 or so miles from where I live, lost a maintenance
hangar, 4 airplanes and lots of tools and spare parts due to a fueling
accident with an airplane inside the hangar. With the fuel spreading
across the floor, once it was ignited the hangar went up almost
instantly. Nobody was seriously injured, but even with the airport fire
department literally next door, the hangar was a total loss.

This is one rule that I believe is grounded in common sense.

Matt