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

Larry Dighera writes:

Participants in this newsgroup prefer the use of a :-) to denote
sarcasm.

If it has to be marked as such, there's no point in using it.

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

Andrew Gideon writes:

There are two screens for redundancy, but only one system?

Odd considering the fact that a software failure is far more likely
than a screen failure. But putting in an extra screen is a lot
cheaper and easier than debugging the code, and it _looks_ safer, too.

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

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.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Those are prices of the aircraft with the option package. So the Skyhawk
with the Nav III package is $241.000. Or, so you can understand the figure,
every cent you earn for the next 30+ years.

Yes. Still cheaper than a Baron 58, the aircraft I like, which
apparently sells for just over a million dollars now. It's a rich
man's hobby.

--
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.

Yes. Still cheaper than a Baron 58, the aircraft I like, which
apparently sells for just over a million dollars now. It's a rich
man's hobby.

I read the other day that a new Baron is selling for (I think) $1.7
million now.

Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
it"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

NW_Pilot wrote:
Oh! Yea I learned a bunch from this trip.... I did ask questions about the
fuel system prior to launch

I don't doubt it. But did you ask the right question? I don't think
so.

So what makes that question the right question, other than hindsight?
Well, as someone else mentioned, there are actually production
airplanes (the C-310 comes to mind immediately) where this is an issue.

"I have flown other tanked airplanes" and the
answer from them was the same that was written on paper when the aircraft
fuel system is completely disconnected "In the off position" the aircraft is
running only on the ferry tank system connected directly to the engine after
the aircraft fuel shut off valve.

This answer is clearly inadequate. It does not tell you where the
vapor return line goes.

Note that this identical system with the identical instructions would
have been totally fine on a plane with a carbureted engine, or with a
small Lycoming injected engine equipped with the Bendix/RSA fuel servo
(and this covers the vast majority of 172's - I'm curious what flavor
this one was) so it is entirely possible that the system has been used
successfully in many 172 crossings.

The sytem itself is fine, especially for something like a ferry flight
- the only problem is that someone dorked up the instructions. These
things happen. That's why you're being paid to do this.

Michael

Jay Honeck wrote
Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
it"...

Yes....but, He has to get training and a check flight in that
biz-jet every year....to fly the Baron, just a Flight Review
in a Cessna 172 every two years. I've done Flight Reviews for
a couple of guys who traded in their biz-jets for high performance
twins just because of age, the jet training/check at Flight Safety
became more than they could handle.

Bob Moore

Michael schrieb:

But did you ask the right question?
....
These things happen. That's why you're being paid to do this.

If a pilot sits into an approved airplane, reads the approved
instructions and acts as instructed, then I think I this pilots has all
the right to assume that the installation works as expected. That's why
such installations are so expensive.

Stefan

Personally, I think you'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to pay
that much for a Baron -- hell, you can get a nice biz-jet for less --
but there were apparently 17 people in 2005 that possessed the unique
dual-qualities of "dumb enough to do it, and rich enough to afford
it"...

Yes....but, He has to get training and a check flight in that
biz-jet every year....to fly the Baron, just a Flight Review
in a Cessna 172 every two years. I've done Flight Reviews for
a couple of guys who traded in their biz-jets for high performance
twins just because of age, the jet training/check at Flight Safety
became more than they could handle.

Good point -- but my comment was more aimed at the price of a new Baron
than at the quality of the pilots. I mean, my God -- $1.7 MILLION for
a piston twin? Given what that would buy on the slightly-used
market, it's just insane to give Raytheon that much money...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"