Matt Whiting wrote:
NW_Pilot wrote:

"houstondan" wrote in message
ups.com...

i posted a link at a couple of cessna "type" clubs (c.p.a. and c.p.s.).
i noticed someone did that on an earlier edition so i guessed it was ok
to do that.

someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
he did just great. turned around, got it back on the ground, figured it
out, flew on and made the contract. i think he needs to be
congratulated for doing something really big and doing it well. i'm
about finished reading "the flying north" and i expect any of those
guys would have bought steven a beer and listened to his story.

my airplane budget looks at getting a good harness system, fuel and
engine monitors and enough gas to do some real traveling so i don't
have to worry about a G-1000 any time soon. clearly it is a cautionary
tale about putting too many avionics eggs in one glass basket.

again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.


dan


Thank, You

I would feel a bit better about the system if they put manual engine
monitors and fuel qty indicators as a back up the cost to Cessna would
not be much more they have the panel space and would make the newer
models safer with manual back up instruments.

I agree. As we've learned and re-learned many times over the years
(Therac-25 and many others), it isn't a good idea to have all of your
eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is made of software! :-)


Matt
Just as people will plead to let the NTSB give a report before you
decide what caused a crash, I think the same thing should be done here.
I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot. It might
be a **** poor design or it might be something else. NW_pilot has not
given us enough data to know ( because he did not have the data either )
The biggest problem is Garmin does not issue final reports but in this
cause it may be possible to find out why. I agree that a out of range
fuel sensor should not cause a system reboot. I just went back and
re-read the story and realized that this was not truly a garmin problem.
The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
outside the design envelop of the garmin system. It would appear at
first glance that the condition that caused the problem ( over pressure
in the fuel tank due to excess fuel could not happen in a standard
system and so it was not forseen in the system design) Bottom line is
that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
that are a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.

John