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

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total system
failure,

Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence is
pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we
don't know.

True. In addition to the fuel sensor "overload" (it didn't really
fail -- it just sent info to the G1000 that made no sense), he also
experienced a CO sensor failure, and (later) a tach failure.

It's hard to say what caused what to happen, without more data.

I agree that we are in no position to determine the cause of the problems;
they could be specific to this particular unit, or caused by damage during
the installation of the ferry tank and other panel mounted items rather
than the general design of the G1000. However, it still troubles me that
Garmin told NW_Pilot that the system can experience similar problems
during stalls and in slow flight. That *does* sound like the G1000 has
some design issues that need sorting out.

Neil

On 2 Oct 2006 20:51:41 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com:

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.

What you fail to see is that your harsh criticism of anything you find
less than worthy is keeping many educated, experienced airmen from
posting.

First, you'll have to provide a few examples of what you find
objectionable about what it is I said before I will accept your "harsh
criticism" assertion.

Further, you make me laugh when you assert that I have the power to
prevent "many educated, experienced airmen" from participating in the
newsgroup. That is absurd on face. I'm afraid I'm completely
unworthy of the power with which you endow me, as are we all. Usenet
has always been open to all who choose to avail themselves of
participation.

And, beyond that, why isn't it the vulgar and insipid posts that
prevent folks from wanting to be counted among the
rec.aviation.piloting readership?

What are you suggesting exactly, that all us who you deem "harsh
critics" silence ourselves or self-censor our comments to suit the
silent ones? Are you able to be explicit about exactly what it is you
want?

Your verbal barbs, meant to be smart bombs, are actually
closer to carpet bombing in their effect.

Again, without examples of what you characterize as "verbal barbs,"
your allegations are meaningless.

And the resulting collateral damage is killing our allies as well as
the enemy.

Oh please! I was raised in a family that enjoyed long and sometimes
heated political debates whenever they got together. Pilots are often
a rather direct and terse in their conversation, but that is not a bad
thing in my opinion; it's just different.

The way I see it, if civility is maintained, and denigration, libel,
and profanity are avoided, there is no valid reason for complaint.
Some folks see argument, debate, and discussion as hostile, but you've
got to admit they are the domain of Congress and thinking people
everywhere. So if that's what frightens the "many educated,
experienced airmen" you champion, I'm unswayed.

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

First you do everything you can to keep people -- especially the lay
public -- from posting here.

Now that is a completely unfounded accusation. Perhaps you'll see
that in the morning.

In the next breath you're worried about what they might think of us?

I'm not worried about anything. I just prefer not to see our fellow
airmen publicly embarrass themselves and reflect badly on us all
generally in an archived, worldwide forum. I'm sure you appreciate
the fact that the articles we post to Usenet are not ephemeral.

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

I, unlike you, enjoy posts of all sorts in this group,

I guess I'm just a little more discriminating than you are.

but (in case you haven't noticed) the posting group has recently shrunk
to historically low numbers. There seems to be about 20 regular posters
left here, which is down considerably from past years.

So now you're implying, that my articles are not only prohibiting
"many educated, experienced airmen from posting," but they are
reducing the number of regular contributors? Ridiculous.

I attribute this to a number of things, but one major reason is the
harsh slap-downs that many new posters have received when they stuck
their toe in the rec.aviation waters...

Well, you are certainly free to reach any conclusions you please. But
I haven't seen anyone leave for that reason. Perhaps you'll be good
enough to provide reference to some articles that support your
unfounded notion.

There are certainly other reasons folks cease to participate in
Usenet. But regardless of how you see it, you've got to admit there
is a wealth of information posted in this newsgroup and a lot of
experienced pilots and mechanics who generously share their knowledge
here.

Take my fellow Californian, Mr. Weir. He is often less than cordial,
but he is also often a fountain of information. Or Mr. Duniho's often
deliberately abrasive manner. People like these are the true
educated, experienced airmen you should be thankful for. Are you
suggesting that they change their demeanor too, or just me?

So tell your fawning "educated, experienced airmen" to quit wining,
and join in the discussion. Who knows, their fragile psyches may
toughen up, and they may grow a little, but they will surely benefit
from the experience, as you have.

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

However, in this case, the fuel sensor failure caused a total system
failure,
Actually, we do not know this. We can assume it, and the evidence is
pretty strong, but there might have been other factors which we
don't know.
True. In addition to the fuel sensor "overload" (it didn't really
fail -- it just sent info to the G1000 that made no sense), he also
experienced a CO sensor failure, and (later) a tach failure.

It's hard to say what caused what to happen, without more data.

I agree that we are in no position to determine the cause of the problems;
they could be specific to this particular unit, or caused by damage during
the installation of the ferry tank and other panel mounted items rather
than the general design of the G1000. However, it still troubles me that
Garmin told NW_Pilot that the system can experience similar problems
during stalls and in slow flight. That *does* sound like the G1000 has
some design issues that need sorting out.

Neil



I just went back and reread his account. ( I'm not flaming Steven but
if you've read his emails before you know that his written words can
often be difficult to read for content ) He said that the fuel readings
went to red Xs ( as a properly designed system with a out of spec sensor
should ) after flying ( and venting excess fuel for 7 hours ) Then he
got a CO2 warning then a GPS-1 failure. It was after the GPS1 failure
that the unit rebooted. Now failure of the fuel system I would not want
a reboot for but in some situations failure of the primary navigation
system may be grounds for a reboot depending on what failed. After the
reboot completed he was missing readings like fuel and airspeeds. He
mentions other errors but does not say what they were. He does not
specifically say that the system rebooted again directly. He said in
summery it was continually rebooting but I question that. Steven - Was
it rebooting or did it just reboot once after the initial failure? He
mentions that on downwind the fuel readings were working again but then
failed again during turn to final. Did the sensors starting given valid
information after the fuel burned off enough to have then in range and
then fail again during the turn? Not sure. He does mention the G1000
rebooting again during his landing. Was this the second reboot? Did
other instruments fail again? Too many questions and not enough
information to say for sure.

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:47:45 +0200, Stefan
wrote in :


It would seem a placard would be more prudent.

If this simple instruction is already too complicated for a pilot...

It's more a matter of the possibility of someone failing to inform the
pilot of this hidden hazard. A placard is more foolproof than relying
on the spoken word or a phrase buried in the POH.

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:30:22 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

Bah, he should have dropped into Ronaldsway, Isle of Man - for a quick
visit.

He was a commercial pilot fulfilling a contract, that didn't include
such unscheduled stops.

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:34:44 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

The wind at 9000 feet can be much stronger than at near sea level.

I have a feeling, that in the arid, treeless wastes above the Arctic
Circle the wind gradient is not so steep.

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:23:15 GMT, Judah wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

snip

I'd buy all that if your very last post on this board wasn't...


"Have you ever taxied a high wing in 55 knot winds?"

What useful INFORMATION did that provide?

Are you familiar with Socratic debate*?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

On 2006-10-03, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:34:44 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

The wind at 9000 feet can be much stronger than at near sea level.

I have a feeling, that in the arid, treeless wastes above the Arctic
Circle the wind gradient is not so steep.

You'd be surprised. There's a lot more to the wind speed difference
between winds at 9000 feet and the surface than merely surface friction.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Larry Dighera schrieb:

It would seem a placard would be more prudent.

If this simple instruction is already too complicated for a pilot...

It's more a matter of the possibility of someone failing to inform the
pilot of this hidden hazard. A placard is more foolproof than relying
on the spoken word or a phrase buried in the POH.

Ok. So let's forget the POHs and replace them with a bunch of placards.
Reminds me of my monitor full of post-it stickers.

Stefan

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:56:26 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

On 2006-10-03, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:34:44 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

The wind at 9000 feet can be much stronger than at near sea level.

I have a feeling, that in the arid, treeless wastes above the Arctic
Circle the wind gradient is not so steep.

You'd be surprised. There's a lot more to the wind speed difference
between winds at 9000 feet and the surface than merely surface friction.

Be that as it may, I'd be reluctant to taxi a C-172 in anything
approaching 20 knots on the surface.