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

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
Bigot.

Nawh, she's just looking for someone with more disposable income...
evil-grin

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
Bigot.

Nawh, she's just looking for someone with more disposable income...
evil-grin

And pilots are disposing of their income too fast?

On 4 Oct 2006 07:59:38 -0700, "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.

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...

I agree.

1.7 Mil could buy you a whole collection of cool aircraft:

P-51 Mustang
T-6 Texan
Cessna 195
Cessna 180/185
Pitts
J-3 or Champ

Bela P. Havasreti

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:23:43 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

If there's ever an argument against glass (or "advanced integrated
flight instrumentations and controls"), this is it!

The possibility of loosing all navigation, engine, and systems
information and autopilot simultaneously while single-pilot IFR over
the Atlantic Ocean between Greenland and Iceland is not an acceptable
risk in my estimation.

Even the auto pilot became inoperative, because it is dependent on the
Garmin equipment, so the pilot was forced to fly partial panel
(airspeed, AI, altimeter, and compass)for 200 miles back to land.
Here's a photo of the Cessna panel:
http://skyhawksp.cessna.com/avionics.chtml
He lost fuel gages critical for decision making about whether to
continue on or turn back.

The Garmin product should be redesigned in a modular way, so that
failed modules can be isolated, and permit the operational part of the
system to function. And the modules should be designed, so that they
are able to provide functionality, even if it is reduced, when other
modules are inoperative. There will always be some single points of
failure, like the display or power supply, but the likelihood of
catastrophic system failure would be reduced. To compromise safety
for the sake of gee-wizz glass is just plane stupid.

The systems Garmin replaced were specifically designed to provide
redundancy and several isolated power sources, so that the probability
of such a catastrophic failure was unlikely. A rational pilot would
not knowingly sacrifice that redundant and independent system design,
no matter how cool a glass cockpit is.

Consider what is between you and an approaching automobile on the
highway, a white stripe, and consider what is between you and such a
catastrophic lose at a most inopportune time, a few microns of
silicon. Would cosmic particles affect electronic equipment near the
Earth's poles?

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.

Jay Honeck writes:

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"...

Is that a typical price range for a plane in the Baron's category? If
not, why is the Baron special?

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

Bob Moore writes:

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.

How did age interfere with it?

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

Stefan wrote:
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.

And if you believe that, there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Seriously, what you say makes sense in theory. The difference between
theory and practice is often much greater in practice than it is in
theory. In theory, the installations are expensive because thorough
and competent engineering review (by the DER) assures that version 1.0
works properly. In practice, becoming a DER has little to do with
thoroughness and competence and everything to do with having
connections in the FAA.

Anyone who has worked on the maintenance side of GA for any length of
time has his own share of stories about totally incompetent
modifications that gained FAA approval. This one is small potatoes in
comparison with some of the ones I know.

Thus you have to accept that if you are flying version 1.0 of anything,
you are a test pilot and must behave accordingly. There is a very
expensive mandatory process in place to assure that this does not
happen, but the process doesn't work.

Michael

Larry Dighera writes:

Consider what is between you and an approaching automobile on the
highway, a white stripe, and consider what is between you and such a
catastrophic lose at a most inopportune time, a few microns of
silicon. Would cosmic particles affect electronic equipment near the
Earth's poles?

Yes, potentially, although the risk is low.

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

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:

Emily wrote:

Let's see. Single Female Pilot, Low self esteem issues. You are aware
this isn't match.com aren't you.


Um, yes. I don't date pilots anyway.

Now that is just not right Emily. Pilots need love too.

Perhaps. But Emily is avoiding the problem of the permanent "who gets
right seat" discussion.

There's wisdom there.

- Andrew