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

well, actually, the way i understand it the only reason he got out of
this alive was that he had a back-up handheld gps that pointed him to
an airport. it really looks like if he would have only had what garmin
and cessna put in that plane he very well may not have made it.

dan


Doug wrote:

(((( SNIP)))


There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
and they are WORKING!

Also keep in mind that the backup systems did work here. He was able to
fly the aircraft on the instruments he had.

Yeah, and I'll bet that handheld was a Garmin....

houstondan wrote:
well, actually, the way i understand it the only reason he got out of
this alive was that he had a back-up handheld gps that pointed him to
an airport. it really looks like if he would have only had what garmin
and cessna put in that plane he very well may not have made it.

dan


Doug wrote:

(((( SNIP)))


There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
and they are WORKING!

Also keep in mind that the backup systems did work here. He was able to
fly the aircraft on the instruments he had.

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yeah, and I'll bet that handheld was a Garmin....


Nope, Not a Garmin!!

On 5 Oct 2006 03:09:48 -0700, "Doug"
wrote in .com:

Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
this was the auxilary fuel tank!

First, let me say, that I am a fan of Garmin products; I'm
particularly impressed with their logical user interface.

I would characterize the aux tanks role as only _precipitating_ the
Garmin equipment failure.

It created a condition that the Garmin unit could not handle.

Lacking evidence to the contrary at this time, there is little doubt
in my mind, that the Garmin design, with it's lack of redundancy and
over integration of systems, when faced with an out of range sensor
input took out all navigation, communications, and other systems
functionality. Such design strategy is gravely flawed, and borders on
criminal negligence.

But the stock Cessna setup would never create this condition!

How did you reach that questionable conclusion?

I think the real blame here has to be on the auxilary fuel design.

While the aux fuel tank system design has its shortcomings, for a
one-time use mission, it is acceptable, IMO. The true culprits are
the flawed instructions for its use, and the incompetence of the staff
who were responsible for its installation, as well as the FAA
personnel who certified it.

There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
and they are WORKING!

Be that as it may, they are a ticking time bomb, IMO.

Also keep in mind that the backup systems did work here. He was able to
fly the aircraft on the instruments he had.

That was a result of Mr. Rhine's foresight in equipping his flight
with portable devices to supplement the Garmin equipment, and the helo
that guided him through the instrument approach. Without that help
and equipment, it is very unlikely the outcome would have been the
same.

If you disagree, please explain how you'd have navigate 200 miles in
IMC, and execute an instrument approach with only compass, airspeed,
altimeter and attitude indicator.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 5 Oct 2006 03:09:48 -0700, "Doug"
wrote in .com:

Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
this was the auxilary fuel tank!

First, let me say, that I am a fan of Garmin products; I'm
particularly impressed with their logical user interface.

I would characterize the aux tanks role as only _precipitating_ the
Garmin equipment failure.

It created a condition that the Garmin unit could not handle.

Lacking evidence to the contrary at this time, there is little doubt
in my mind, that the Garmin design, with it's lack of redundancy and
over integration of systems, when faced with an out of range sensor
input took out all navigation, communications, and other systems
functionality. Such design strategy is gravely flawed, and borders on
criminal negligence.

But the stock Cessna setup would never create this condition!

How did you reach that questionable conclusion?

I think the real blame here has to be on the auxilary fuel design.

While the aux fuel tank system design has its shortcomings, for a
one-time use mission, it is acceptable, IMO. The true culprits are
the flawed instructions for its use, and the incompetence of the staff
who were responsible for its installation, as well as the FAA
personnel who certified it.

There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
and they are WORKING!

Be that as it may, they are a ticking time bomb, IMO.

Also keep in mind that the backup systems did work here. He was able to
fly the aircraft on the instruments he had.

That was a result of Mr. Rhine's foresight in equipping his flight
with portable devices to supplement the Garmin equipment, and the helo
that guided him through the instrument approach. Without that help
and equipment, it is very unlikely the outcome would have been the
same.

If you disagree, please explain how you'd have navigate 200 miles in
IMC, and execute an instrument approach with only compass, airspeed,
altimeter and attitude indicator.


The, Airport was not IMC just a thin layer About 2,000' thick around 10,000'
If you read it Was a spiraling decent to land the helo just kept me away
form the rather large mountains and gave me a visual fix to spiral around!
If it would have been bad weather an instrument conditions an instrument
approach would have been almost impossible.

"Doug" writes:

Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
this was the auxilary fuel tank! It created a condition that the Garmin
unit could not handle. But the stock Cessna setup would never create
this condition! [...]

Given that the fuel vapor return line goes to the left tank, I wonder
what happens on these newfangled 172s if one flies off of the right
tank for quite some time.

- FChE

Doug writes:

Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
this was the auxilary fuel tank!

No. What caused it was a design flaw in the G1000.

It created a condition that the Garmin unit could not handle.

Because of defective design in the Garmin unit.

There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
and they are WORKING!

They are not working if they reboot, and apparently Garmin knows of
anomalies.

How such a mess got certified for anything is a mystery to me.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Doug writes:

Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
this was the auxilary fuel tank!

No. What caused it was a design flaw in the G1000.

It created a condition that the Garmin unit could not handle.

Because of defective design in the Garmin unit.

There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
and they are WORKING!

They are not working if they reboot, and apparently Garmin knows of
anomalies.

How such a mess got certified for anything is a mystery to me.

It would appear that applies to all aviation for you, it's a mystery,

John Theune writes:

It would appear that applies to all aviation for you, it's a mystery,

But computers are not. And with what I know about them, I would not
entrust my life to a completely computerized cockpit.

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

Doug wrote:

Before everyone jumps all over Garmin keep in mind that what caused
this was the auxilary fuel tank! It created a condition that the Garmin
unit could not handle. But the stock Cessna setup would never create
this condition! I think the real blame here has to be on the auxilary
fuel design. There are LOTS of these Garmin units out there working
very well, very few complaints at all. ALL of the new Cessnas have them
and they are WORKING!

If an out of range sensor reading can cause the system to fail, that is
a design flaw pure and simple. The fact that it is never supposed to
happen is no excuse. Same thing happened to the Ariane rocket (Ariane 5
if memory serves) although the outcome was a little more severe.


Matt