NW_Pilot's Trans-Atlantic Flight -- All the scary details...

Jon Kraus writes:

It does for everything you fly...

That's one of the advantages of the simulator.

However, my simulator doesn't reboot. Apparently real-world avionics
do. That's all the more reason to stick to simulation: at least I
don't die when there's a bug in the code.

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

Steve Foley writes:

Your absolutes are simply amazing.

I have a lot of experience with this sort of thing. If you want to
die on board an aircraft because of poorly written software, go for
it; but I don't want to play that game.

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

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Stefan wrote:
He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong!

On the contrary. When flying an aircraft that has just had major
modifications to critical componets and/or systems, one becomes a test
pilot. There is nothing wrong with this - SOMEONE has to be a test
pilot.

However, there is a difference between flying proven production
aircraft and being a test pilot. The pilot flying proven production
aircraft need only study the approved guidance and procedures (the
book!) and fly by the book - and usually all will be well. This is not
because the
book is FAA approved, but because it is time-tested. The FAA approval
is pretty much irrelevant.

When one becomes a test pilot, the world changes. Now the pilot must
study the system in detail (pulling off the cowls and tracing the lines
if necessary) and understand exactly how it works. He must consider
the normal operation and the failure modes. This will give him an edge
in troubleshooting if something should go wrong in flight, but that is
secondary. More importantly, it makes things going wrong in flight far
less likely.

Reading the book and flying by the book is not enough in this
situation. The fact that the book and the system are FAA-approved is
irrelevant. Neither the book nor the system are time-proven. Unless
you are prepared to trust a bunch of federal bureaucrats who couldn't
find better work with your life, you need to understand what it is they
approved.

In fact, I'm
scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
think they know better than the book.

Being a test pilot is often all about coming up with an ad-hoc
procedure, because the book is wrong - because someone didn't think of
something.

Now for our adventurer:

Once the emergency developed, you did a good job flying the emergency.
I don't want to take anything away from you there.

Your preparation for the flight, though, was incomplete. You knew that
you had a highly modified fuel system which is rarely installed on this
sort of airplane. You also knew that you had an injected engine. The
FIRST question you should have asked is - is there a vapor return line
(not all fuel injected engines have them) and if there is, where does
it go? I'm guessing you didn't ask the question because you didn't
have experience with other airplanes where this was an issue. That's
the value of breadth of experience when it comes to being a test pilot.

I accept that your documentation did not answer that question. But the
problem is, you didn't even ask it. Had you asked, you could have
gotten some sort of answer - and in any case, even a cursory
examination of the plumbing would have told you that it wasn't going
back to the ferry tank (they never do, you know) and would have forced
you to consider the problem - and to develop an operating procedure a
lot more correct than the approved one.

In theory I suppose it could be possible to become a capable,
proficient, experienced pilot without making mistakes like this and
scaring yourself. I've never seen it happen. Every experienced,
capable, proficient pilot I know got there the same way - by going out
and doing stuff, amking mistakes, and scaring himself. The difference
between the ones who get there and the ones who drop out along the way
is basically this - the ones who get there learn from the experience,
and learn not to make the same class of mistake again. You see, while
you handled the emergency, that's not the sort of thing you can count
on handling 100 times out of 100.

I'm sure you won't make the exact same mistake again - not
understanding what your modified fuel system really does - but the
lesson to learn is broader. If you are flying something that has been
modified from the norm, make sure you understand the full extent of the
modifications and their implications before you launch.

Michael


Oh! Yea I learned a bunch from this trip.... I did ask questions about the
fuel system prior to launch "I have flown other tanked airplanes" and the
answer from them was the same that was written on paper when the aircraft
fuel system is completely disconnected "In the off position" the aircraft is
running only on the ferry tank system connected directly to the engine after
the aircraft fuel shut off valve.

The chances of myself refering or using this company for tanking is slim I
did not pick this company the customer did and the customer was not happy
with their services anyway they did a **** poor job at cutting the panel
when they installed the ADF and PS eng. entertainment system. (I could have
done a better job with a hack saw and a drill) and the painting on the
Horton kit they installed looked like orange peal!

I myself prefer the turtlepac bag systems (Used Them A Few Times) they are
set up to transfer fuel form a fuel bag to a main aircraft tank they are
really simple and work great! http://www.turtlepac.com/collapsibleair.htm
and http://www.turtlepac.com/aircraftferry.htm

Andrey Serbinenko writes:

What surprises me is that Garmin got FAA approval for such a system,
whereas it doesn't even come close to what "normal" glass cockpit is supposed
to be like in terms of robustness of system design.

My guess is that the FAA doesn't know how to certify glass cockpits.
There are no procedures in place to certify software, or for some
reason they are not applied to toys like the G1000.

I understand it's all done in the name of affordability, but this
is clearly a dangerous game to play.

Is a G1000 cheaper than a set of normal instruments in the cockpit?

So, I guess my point is: you can't just take a steam-gauge-type airplane,
replace all the individual *independent* instrument systems with one
electronic box, and claim you've got an equally reliable plane. No way. By
tying everything together and establishing inter-system dependencies that
never existed before, you increase your likelihood of a catastrophic failure
by orders of magnitude. If you want to use an all-in-one instrument system,
you need to redesign the airplane and fit it with redundant systems to
compensate for that loss of overall reliability.

Absolutely.

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

NW_Pilot writes:

The G1000 system If you buy one or intend to fly one in the Soup be current
and really proficient on you partial panel skill because in the event of a
G1000 failure or even partial failure you will be left with and Compass,
Altimeter, Attitude Indicator, and Airspeed Indicator and a bunch of useless
knobs and buttons or questionable reading from a partial failure.

Better still, just skip the G1000 in the first place.

I don't think it would cost Cessna much $$$ to put some manual back up
instruments in the panel even if they are the small ones they already charge
to much for a skyhawk why not add 3k or 4k if even that much to the price
and add some redundancy to the system!

Is a G1000 standard equipment, or can you opt for reliable avionics
instead?

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
NW_Pilot writes:

When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
Garmin support they said they had a similar problem during stalls and
slow
flight.

I guess reboots are to be expected during stalls and slow flight,
given how incredibly rare and improbable these things are, eh?

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

Not rare or improbable at all!!! Stalls and slow flight are used during
approach and landing they said they fixed that problem hahaha but still have
others! Or maybe that comment was just sarcasm (check spelling) hahahaha

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jose writes:

Sheesh, and they marketed it anyway?

That's the standard PC mindset. If it compiles without errors, ship
it. Works great for Excel. If it kills anybody, his kin can call
technical support and get the first 10 minutes free.

And them people are why I keep trying to push my retroactive abortion laws
hahahah (Joke)!


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

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:32:30 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
Given the fact that the aux fuel system was a modification upon which
your safety depended, did you personally take the time to analyze its
intended operation from the schematic diagram and description of
system operation (not its use, but how it was engineered to operate)?
I believe you are intelligent enough to have done a reasonable job of
system analysis without benefit of specific training or an appropriate
college degree.

Yes, I looked at the system!


And your analysis failed to discern what would occur to the fuel from
the return line when operating from the aux tank while the main tanks
were full?


and so did the engineer that designed it and
wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions.
Once
you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
description of the now modified fuel system.

If I understand your story correctly, the cause of the wing tank
venting was a result of the fuel return line pouring fuel that was
being feed from the separate aux tank fuel system into the wing
tank(s). Is that correct?

The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks. The
description also stated that it was connected after the aircraft fuel
system.

As long as the aux fuel line was ahead of the fuel
filter/gascolator(?), or the aux fuel system contained its own filter,
that is the logical point to feed aux fuel to the engine. Without a
check valve between the Cessna fuel shutoff valve and the point
between it and the engine where the aux fuel line was attached, there
is also the possibility of back feeding fuel into the wing tanks if
the Cessna shutoff valve is left open while the aux tank fuel pump is
in operation. Did the instructions mention such a check valve or
closing the Cessna shutoff valve?


They left out something very very important in the new systems
description!

Are you referring to the necessity to burn fuel from the wing tanks
before switching to the aux tank, so that there would be adequate room
in the wing tanks to hold the fuel being returned from the fuel
injection system?

Correct, They failed to mention this the description and instruction
provided!

therir instruction basicaly short and simple! Climb to altitude on both
tanks aircraft tanks once at altitude switch to ferry tank until specified
mark on aux tank near empty then switch back to aircraft fuel.

Do you know the name of the individual who wrote that? Do you know
the name of the FSDO inspector who certified the aux fuel tank
installation? I would contact those people personally, and make them
aware of the hazard they caused.

Now!! If the instructions stated to run on the left tank till near empty
then switch to the ferry tank and monitor the left tank fuel quantity and
return to aircraft fuel and switch ferry tank off when left tank was almost
full about 2 hours flight time this little problem would not have happened.

Given the inoperative fuel gages, the wing tanks could have filled up
at any time without your being aware of it. Considering your mission
and the operation of the aux fuel system, fuel gages are critical to
an Atlantic crossing. Cessna, FSDO, and Telford should be made aware
of that fact.

The Greenland CAA took a copy of the instructions and fuel system
description and copy of Cessna description of the problem and will be
contacting the ferry tank mfg and installer telling them to correct their
system instructions.

That's a good thing, but I'd make sure Cessna, FSDO, and Telford
appreciate the hazard they caused.


Can you provide the manufacturer's name and model number for the aux
fuel system installed in the aircraft you delivered?

The Ferry tank was Manufactured And Installed By Telford Aviation In Bangor,
Maine.

That would be these folks: http://www.telfordaviation.com/contact.html

Given their mission statement:

TELFORD SERVICES - Mission

------------------------------------------------------------------
The mission of The Telford Group, Inc. is to integrate teamwork,
dedication and vision to excel in the aviation industry in quality
and customer satisfaction. It is our foremost goal to continually
enhance our products and services to an unsurpassed level and
create a mutually prosperous and beneficial relationship for our
customers and associates.

I would contact these people (all six of them):

TELFORD SERVICES - Contact Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office and Mailing Address:
The Telford Group
154 Maine Avenue
Bangor, Maine 04401
Telephone: 1-207-262-6098
Facsimile: 1-207-262-8708
Email:
Telford Allen III, Chairman of the Board
Larry Wilson, CEO, Telford Canada, Ltd.
Bob Ziegelaar, President, The Telford Group
Monique Plummer, Administrative Assistant
Aircraft Maintenance - Telford Aviation Services
Travis Allen, V.P. Operations
General Aviation - Telford Aviation Services
Ray Lane, Manager, General Aviation

And make them aware of the hazard they caused.

In the future I will try and avoid this company or flying with this
company's installed equipment if at all possible and if I am to use them
(Not Likely) I will require them to provide a full schematic of the system
and talk with them more to support their documentation.

See what experience does for you? Here's hoping your bag of
experience fills up before your bag of luck is exhausted. :-)

Another thing that ****es me off when I called the company (telford) to help
with the problem they were rude and said there instruction were correct and
that it was not their problem!

Did you get the name of the individual who said that? Don't forget to
mention that in your correspondence to Telford.

Cessna support and the weekend A&P in Greenland were the best
they had a solution with in a few hours after faxing the instructions to
them and are also writing a letter to Telford explaining the problem with
their instructions.

You should do the same, IMO. See if they dig themselves a deeper
hole, or if Telford management wants to make it right.


How large is the documentation of the aux fuel system? Is it possible
you could make a scanned copy available? In particular, I'd like to
see a schematic drawing of the system and the description of its
operation, and its operation use instructions, in that order.

No schematic was available only textual description of the fuel system and
its operation. All paperwork was given to new owner and there was no photo
copy machine available in Beirut at time of delivery for me to make a copy
for myself. The Greenland CAA made copies of all paperwork and said they
will forward me copies of all paperwork.

It would be good for you to have a copy.

You have made the crossing before, right? Who manufactured and
installed the ferry tank(s) you used on previous Atlantic crossing(s)?

If we don't hold these folks feet to the fire, who will?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
NW_Pilot writes:

The G1000 system If you buy one or intend to fly one in the Soup be
current
and really proficient on you partial panel skill because in the event of
a
G1000 failure or even partial failure you will be left with and Compass,
Altimeter, Attitude Indicator, and Airspeed Indicator and a bunch of
useless
knobs and buttons or questionable reading from a partial failure.

Better still, just skip the G1000 in the first place.

I don't think it would cost Cessna much $$$ to put some manual back up
instruments in the panel even if they are the small ones they already
charge
to much for a skyhawk why not add 3k or 4k if even that much to the price
and add some redundancy to the system!

Is a G1000 standard equipment, or can you opt for reliable avionics
instead?

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

It's an Optional Avionics Package!

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news


Is a G1000 cheaper than a set of normal instruments in the cockpit?

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

Ahh!!! Go to look here! http://skyhawksp.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml This
bird had every thing NAV III + some but the A/C! Them airbag seat belts are
not very comfortable either!