![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
1) All avionics software implements internal isolation to prevent one
part of the system from taking down another part. 2) A faulty fuel reading cannot cause the system to reboot. In addition to testing every possible faulty fuel value, I've tested every combination of faulty sensor readings related to this thread and am unable to get anything out of the ordinary to happen. The picture of the fuel sensor with the red X is correct behavior when a gauge is fauly or giving erroneous data. 3) When the system reboots due to a software error, a very obvious message with a very obvious color is displayed on the screen prior to the reboot. Was this seen? I have seen no mention of it. 4) FYI to a few: the CO message is indicating an error in the detector, not CO in the cabin. What was going on with the second display? Was the "Initializing System" message being displayed each time it 'rebooted'? During the 15minute intervals between reboots, how operational was the system? I won't delve into the actual debate issues of whether to go glass, realtime reliability vs. features demanded, benefits vs. risk of various situational awareness methods, or anything like that. I'm just trying to get the facts straight. No software engineer would claim a flawless system, but the facts so far do not allow for a simple answer such as the fuel gauge or airspeed indication being the only cause. Something very strange had to be going with where that escaping fuel was going. If it was affecting three gauges (airspeed, co detector, fuel) in a measurable way, who knows what it could have been doing to less obvious internal wirings of the aircraft. I've never heard of a report of a continuously rebooting system, and there are a lot out there. The somewhat drastic customizations and the newness of the aircraft add to suspicion. That said, there's no excuse for a failure, wherever in the aircraft that failure is determined to be. PS: I appreciate the balanced feedback and analysis of most of this group. Don't feed the 20% trolls. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |