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

NW_Pilot wrote:


Well, my thoughts were not to panic and keep as calm as i can and think!!
How I kept calm was saying to myself yes it can get much worse!



Welcome home.. glad it worked out safely...

and without sounding high and mighty.. I'm guessing you will pay greater
attention to the fuel system and its architecture in the future...
particularly when aux tanks and injection return lines are involved.

Also.. do everyone else a favor and file a NASA form.. not because of
alleged rule breaking, but because you have discovered a true safety of
flight issue that needs to be addressed.. the sooner the better.. Garmin
needs to have a fault exclusion algorhythm that removes nonsensical
readings from it's decision tree.. rather than causing a software crash..

Dave

John Theune wrote:
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

To the contrary.. ferry tanks are are NOT UNCOMMON and this is a
foreseable modification. This is something that should have been
contemplated.. if not by the manufacturer then by the ferry tank
installer/STC holder.

Bottom line is.. a faulty fuel gauge for whatever reason should never
ever cause your whole damn flight instrumentation and display to crash
and reboot. This is a simple, fundamental idea

Dave

Montblack wrote:
("Longworth" wrote)
Adventure like this was made for adrenaline junkie like you ;-)
Congratulations for an exceedingly well done job. Actions speak louder
than words, it takes both a cool head and good piloting skill to handle
this scary event. I don't think that you can ever silent net armchair
critics, Monday morning quarterbacks etc but I hope that you have erased
some doubts in the mind of some of your 'frequent' critics.


Agreed.

Congratulations! Well done.


Montblack

Also agreed. Great story Steven. Good job.

-R

On 2 Oct 2006 14:23:14 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com:

Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
-- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
poison pens.

Welcoming EVERYONE? You feel critical thinking* is misplaced? You
would recommend welcoming the likes of Mohammed Atta, AOL users, Ted
Kaczynski, Ted Bundy, John W. Hinckley, Jr, ...? Welcoming EVERYONE
could reduce Usenet to a the status of FidoNet. If you don't mean
'everyone,' don't use absolute language.

You know, imitating Steven McNicoll won't get you anywhere with me,
Larry...

;-)

Oh! Now that was a rude analogy! :-) :-) (LOL)

Say what you will about the pedantic Mr. McNicoll, but the vast
majority of his comments are accurate and succinct, and contain useful
INFORMATION. He uses his full name, knows how to punctuate and
capitalize, and lends an air of dignity befitting an airman. Those
unenlightened, ignorant, two-digit IQ, illiterate, wannabes who dilute
the content of this newsgroup with banal attempts at crass humor and
insipid, empty headed comments reflect badly on airmen in this
worldwide forum. I'll take one McNicoll to a dozen of the latter.

Seriously, you need to develop a method of filtering language so you
can detect mild hyperbole. In this case "Everyone" doesn't mean
"Adolph Hitler" or "Sadaam Hussein", or "Bill Clinton"

You're have the arrogance to fault me for your improper use of the
language?! You can attempt to redefine the meaning of the word
'everyone' all you like, but I doubt you'll be successful at making it
mean other than: every person; everybody. If English were your second
language, I would not be so critical of your casual use of it.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It is not incumbent upon me
to have to divine your meaning. You are capable expressing your
thoughts explicitly (aren't you?).

It's difficult enough in written communications to correctly infer the
writer's meaning without the benefit of observing body language. And
last thing I want to be guilty of is reading something into a person's
prose that they didn't intend.

-- but it DOES mean guys like NW_Pilot, who is CLEARLY not a timid soul.

Mr. Rhine posted something that was dumb and illegal when he first
began to de-lurk. He met swift and significant criticism. His
feelings were hurt, and he threatened to quit rec.aviation.piloting.
But after the psychic pain of the initial lashing wore off, and he was
able to reflect on that responses he received, he gained a new respect
for the fellowship of airmen and himself, and he has ceased to be a
black eye for the public image of airmen. I would guess that he would
rather be criticized than have to wade through hundreds of banalities.
Incidentally, to give you some idea of the intimidation factor you
(and
others) cause in this 'group, in the name of "keeping the
signal-to-noise ratio high", I have received quite a few off-line
emails THANKING me for bringing up the flaming in this group.

Ironically -- sadly -- they sent the messages to me off-group, for fear
of the reaction they might generate by posting.

Well here's a message thread they can use to express their views.

Those who are so fearful of public ridicule as to refrain from
participating in this newsgroup probably do so because they have
nothing, other than chit chat and banalities, to contribute. If not,
let's see them post some relevant INFORMATION or personal experiences.
If they can't stand critique, they should probably stick to other
forums like rec.aviation.misc where they can wallow in the mud with
others of their ilk.

Your noble attempt to champion the timid reflects your view of what
Usenet should be: a place to kibitz with friends. Although many
newsgroups have degenerated to that level, thankfully this one hasn't
yet. That's what makes it attractive and useful. When it becomes a
bunch of grandmas chatting over the back fence, you will not see me
posting any longer.

I wish you had seen Usenet before AOL. Talk about intimidation; the
conversation was so witty and erudite, that no one ventured a post
without meaty content and careful attention to detail.

Please, let's not welcome those comments that would cause the lay
public think we airmen are a bunch of vulgar simpletons and
Philistines who lack critical thinking skills.

Obviously we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. I
have history on my side.

Larry Dighera wrote:
snip

My, someone has a high opinion of himself.

Unlike you?

mike

"Emily" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:
snip

My, someone has a high opinion of himself.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:32:15 GMT, "Allen"
wrote in :

Twin Cessna's
are the same way; if you switch to the aux tanks before burning a certain
amount out of the mains (90 minutes for the large aux tanks) the mains
will
overfill and vent overboard before the aux tanks are empty.

Are you saying that Cessna designed the fuel system that way, and the
FAA certified it? Or are you referring to a ferry tank?

It makes you wonder if the FAA would certify kinking the fuel line
instead of providing a valve to shut off fuel flow. :-)


I should have said the "tip tank" Twin Cessnas. Cessna designed it that
way. Fuel injected cars do the same thing but have only one tank to return
the fuel to so it is not a problem. If you wanted to return the excess fuel
to the same tank it was drawn from you would need two sets of directional
valves; one on the supply line and another on the return line that were
synched to each other. It is much easier just to tell the pilot to burn 90
minutes out of the mains before switching to the aux's.

Allen

mike regish wrote:
Unlike you?

I have a very low opinion of myself, actually.

I certainly wouldn't have written the self-congratulatory drivel that
Larry did.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... Here's an example of what I consider a classic flame:

You know - they say that people with
I.Q.'s over 40-points apart are pretty
much unintelligible to each other.
That's just a random observation with no
ulterior meaning attached to it :P
As I read it, stupidity installed itself long
before you clocked three score and ten,
you are merely coming out, in bloom.
Let's pretend that you really are not an
obnoxious ignorant, cowardly, motor-mouthed
cretin exuding digital diarrhea as a pretext
to seeking a Life? About as topical as the
man who thinks its cool to jam garden gnomes
headlong up his ass to prove a qualified
opinion on de rigueur art decor, your puerile
attempt at self adulation is hilarious!
Unfortunately my having no respect for you
means your opinion of what I or anyone else
needs to respect means absolutely nothing.

Don't forget to **** yourself on your way
out, moron.

Grammar and sentence structure are poor, it is excessively wordy, and it is
crude. Just what is it that makes this a classic? The finest insults are
those that don't even register until some time later.

"Emily" wrote in message news:Lt-

My, someone has a high opinion of himself.

Just noticed?