On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:23:43 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

If there's ever an argument against glass (or "advanced integrated
flight instrumentations and controls"), this is it!

The possibility of loosing all navigation, engine, and systems
information and autopilot simultaneously while single-pilot IFR over
the Atlantic Ocean between Greenland and Iceland is not an acceptable
risk in my estimation.

Even the auto pilot became inoperative, because it is dependent on the
Garmin equipment, so the pilot was forced to fly partial panel
(airspeed, AI, altimeter, and compass)for 200 miles back to land.
Here's a photo of the Cessna panel:
http://skyhawksp.cessna.com/avionics.chtml
He lost fuel gages critical for decision making about whether to
continue on or turn back.

The Garmin product should be redesigned in a modular way, so that
failed modules can be isolated, and permit the operational part of the
system to function. And the modules should be designed, so that they
are able to provide functionality, even if it is reduced, when other
modules are inoperative. There will always be some single points of
failure, like the display or power supply, but the likelihood of
catastrophic system failure would be reduced. To compromise safety
for the sake of gee-wizz glass is just plane stupid.

The systems Garmin replaced were specifically designed to provide
redundancy and several isolated power sources, so that the probability
of such a catastrophic failure was unlikely. A rational pilot would
not knowingly sacrifice that redundant and independent system design,
no matter how cool a glass cockpit is.

Consider what is between you and an approaching automobile on the
highway, a white stripe, and consider what is between you and such a
catastrophic lose at a most inopportune time, a few microns of
silicon. Would cosmic particles affect electronic equipment near the
Earth's poles?