CAP T182T Crash on Nov. 8

On Jan 24, 7:51 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
wrote:
No, the most likely reason for a G1000 dark screen is a software
problem.

Says who?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

You're a systems and software engineer, I presume?

If so, I want to buy anything you produce, as it clearly must be
flawless.

Dan

On Jan 24, 7:23 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
wrote:
My experience is limited to one G1000-equipped C182, but the (albeit
anecdotal) evidence is that airplane has gone dark on several
occasions.

I'd call that a mighty small sample on which to base such a broad judgement,
wouldn't you?

What caused it to go dark on several occasions?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

And if you read carefully, you would have seen that I said it was
anecdotal evidence. However, the sources are multiple and all have
flown that airplane as well and had the system tank.

Dan

On Jan 24, 7:26 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
wrote:
Whats the backup consist of?

AI, ASI, DG offset down and to the right.

'Zat so?

How much time have you got with a G1000?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Enough to know a fully redundant backup would be a lifesaver in IMC.

Dan

On Jan 24, 7:51 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
wrote:
No, the most likely reason for a G1000 dark screen is a software
problem.

Says who?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

No one. Go back to your flawless software dreamworld.

The rest of us will continue to insist on redundancy.

Dan

wrote:

:
No, the most likely reason for a G1000 dark screen is a software
problem.

Says who?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

No one. Go back to your flawless software dreamworld.

IOW, you're just blowing gas out your nether regions.

Thought so.


The rest of us will continue to insist on redundancy.

"Us" being you and your imaginary friends, I presume.

Insist away. Who will listen?

--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick

wrote:

Relax, G1000 Boy.

From the beginning I said the evidence was anecdotal.

Um...no.

From the beginning, you said it was "apparently a regular occurence."

Then you weaseled back to admitting it was only in one (alleged) airplane.

And I have my doubts about that, since you incorrectly named the backup
instruments in a G1000 182.

Even Anthony would know better than that.

Can't you find Cessna's web site?



Go enjoy your G1000. I'm plenty happy with a 6 pack and a 430 WAAS.

You're referring to the Sporty's poster on your wall, no doubt.

Enjoy.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

wrote:

Whats the backup consist of?

AI, ASI, DG offset down and to the right.

'Zat so?

How much time have you got with a G1000?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Enough to know a fully redundant backup would be a lifesaver in IMC.

But not enough to know what the panel really looks like?

Haw-haw!

Even Anthony knows that!

Pratt.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

" wrote in news:6320e4d4-a223-4d50-
:

On Jan 24, 10:19 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Correct. So if two pilots who have far superior skill and judegement
than you or I, that are flying one of the most technically advanced GA
aircraft on the market can get into trouble, the rest of us should
take a moment to pause.

-Robert

The G1000 equipped 182 may be technically advanced, but I'm not a big
fan of the backup instrument layout and the lack of an electrically-
driven turn coordinator.


Whats the backup consist of?


Bertie


Bertie

Let me use your post to tell another war story.

When The Air defense Command took delivery on the F-106 it was their
first bird to have tape gauges and all the gauges were tied to a
common power supply that ran most if not all of the electrical things
in bird.

That power supply failed very often leaving the bird without
instruments, Instead of grounding the fleet until the problem was
fixed (took over a year) we only flew the F-106 in pairs, day, night,
IFR, etc. If one bird had a failure he recovered in formation on the
wing of the other bird.

That was our redundancy )

Big John

"Big John" wrote:


That power supply failed very often leaving the bird without
instruments, Instead of grounding the fleet until the problem was
fixed (took over a year) we only flew the F-106 in pairs, day, night,
IFR, etc. If one bird had a failure he recovered in formation on the
wing of the other bird.

That was our redundancy )

Holy ****!

And I call myself a pilot.

Haw!

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Big John wrote in
:

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

" wrote in news:6320e4d4-a223-
4d50-
:

On Jan 24, 10:19 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Correct. So if two pilots who have far superior skill and
judegement
than you or I, that are flying one of the most technically advanced
GA
aircraft on the market can get into trouble, the rest of us should
take a moment to pause.

-Robert

The G1000 equipped 182 may be technically advanced, but I'm not a
big
fan of the backup instrument layout and the lack of an electrically-
driven turn coordinator.


Whats the backup consist of?


Bertie


Bertie

Let me use your post to tell another war story.

When The Air defense Command took delivery on the F-106 it was their
first bird to have tape gauges and all the gauges were tied to a
common power supply that ran most if not all of the electrical things
in bird.

That power supply failed very often leaving the bird without
instruments, Instead of grounding the fleet until the problem was
fixed (took over a year) we only flew the F-106 in pairs, day, night,
IFR, etc. If one bird had a failure he recovered in formation on the
wing of the other bird.

That was our redundancy )



Well, that and the bang seat!


Bertie