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

NW_Pilot schrieb:

Look where the plane went! I assure you that it is going to over fly water
again in IMC conditions!

In the Arab desert? Ok, there's a lot more about Arabia than just
desert, I know.

But this is beside the point anyway. The point is, the buyer of a new
plane decides what instruments he wants to be fitted. If the buyer
decides he wants just the basics as a backup, then this is the buyers
decision and neither Cessna's nor Garmin's. And I do perfectly
understand if this buyer doesn't want to spend a couple of thousand for
instruments which might be useful just for the ferry flight. After all,
you knew this acted accordingly: You had an independant radio and an
independant GPS as backup with you.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:

Matt Whiting schrieb:

I'd prefer redundancy at both the sensor and instrument level if I was
flying IFR across the pond.


It was a *ferry flight* in an airplane which was not supposed to ever
fly over water again. You want full redundancy installed for one ferry
flight? Ok, just don't ferry fly then.

I'd prefer it for all flights given the importance of fuel supply in an
airplane and given the fairly high rate of fuel exhaustion incidents. I
especially want redundancy with a system as fragile as the G1000 appears
to be.

Matt

Matt Whiting schrieb:

I'd prefer it for all flights given the importance of fuel supply in an
airplane and given the fairly high rate of fuel exhaustion incidents. I
especially want redundancy with a system as fragile as the G1000 appears
to be.

Ok, so you want the FAA jump in and require full redundancy on all
instruments for all privately operated light singles to be considered
airworthy? I'm not sure you really want this.

(Heck, I fly routinely with T&B, ASI, Altimeter and whisky compass in
clouds, with no Garmin whatsoever in the first place. Granted, not 200
miles over water and on no other mission than for the fun of it.)

Stefan

John Theune writes:

and as had been pointed out by a number of people, there is no solid
evidence that make it clear that the reboots where caused by the out of
range sensor.

It doesn't matter what caused the reboots, because only defective
software reboots in the first place.

Even it the G1000 is a bad design/system, it's still no reason
to say that we must stay with steam gauges.

True. But a truly safe software system would be so expensive that
nobody could afford it--which means in effect that we should stay with
real instruments for the time being.

Most people designing and writing software today have absolutely no
clue when it comes to safety-of-life issues. What worries me is that
systems like this are being "certified." Apparently certification
means very little when it comes to software.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Theune writes:

and as had been pointed out by a number of people, there is no solid
evidence that make it clear that the reboots where caused by the out of
range sensor.

It doesn't matter what caused the reboots, because only defective
software reboots in the first place.

Even it the G1000 is a bad design/system, it's still no reason
to say that we must stay with steam gauges.

True. But a truly safe software system would be so expensive that
nobody could afford it--which means in effect that we should stay with
real instruments for the time being.

Most people designing and writing software today have absolutely no
clue when it comes to safety-of-life issues. What worries me is that
systems like this are being "certified." Apparently certification
means very little when it comes to software.

Once again you have shown that you have no clue what your talking about.
My day job is medical software and we most certainly know what safety
of life means.

John Theune writes:

My day job is medical software and we most certainly know what safety
of life means.

The G1000 is not running medical software. But the Therac was.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
John Theune writes:

and as had been pointed out by a number of people, there is no solid
evidence that make it clear that the reboots where caused by the out of
range sensor.

It doesn't matter what caused the reboots, because only defective
software reboots in the first place.

No a hardware problem could have also been the cause. An electrical short
caused by the "hacked" wiring sounds like an excellent place to start
looking.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

No a hardware problem could have also been the cause.

Not for synchronized reboots. Those come from software.

An electrical short
caused by the "hacked" wiring sounds like an excellent place to start
looking.

A short will either have no effect or it will prevent the system from
operating at all. It will not reboot the system in perfect
synchronization with the software.

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