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

houstondan wrote:
emily, emily, emily...yer 'sposed to say "no, is wasn't born here but i
got here as fast as i could". it's in the state constitution right
next to the recipe for jalapeno peanut butter!

Well, I'm still a born Southerner, so...

(who hates peanut butter)

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:02:31 GMT, Judah wrote in
:

"Montblack" wrote in
:

("Judah" wrote)
Are you aware that the Jews have the monopoly on answering a
question with a question?

You don't say?

Montblack
5 of 7

Did you think that making a statement and putting a question mark at
the end counts as a question?

Are we really playing the question game here on r.a.p.?

What kind of rhetorical question is that?

;-)

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
Andrew Gideon writes:

Good point. But diversity still helps, lest a design flaw in the one
sensor design triggers a design flaw in the one instrument design.

Software requires diversity rather than redundancy. In practice this
means having two or three or more software packages that perform
exactly the same functions, but are written in different ways by
different development teams. It's unlikely that they will all fail in
the same way at the same time, because they are completely different
internally. This helps make the system more robust.


A Man with one watch knows what time it is,
a man with two is never sure...

Al G

I find it difficult to believe that the pressure in the wing tank(s)
was significant,

Ok, "overpressure" is the wrong word, but it pumped gas into an overfull
tank causing the fuel to go overboard and read "more than full".

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:01:50 GMT, Jose
wrote in :


I find it difficult to believe that the pressure in the wing tank(s)
was significant,

Ok, "overpressure" is the wrong word,

That is how the pilot described it, so I'm not so sure of exactly what
the situation actually was.

but it pumped gas into an overfull
tank causing the fuel to go overboard and read "more than full".

While the wing tank did lose fuel through its drain system, I believe
it stopped "reading" all together. Where did Mr. Rhine indicate in
his narrative, that it was "reading" more than full?


After switching to the aircraft fuel (from the ferry tank) strange
things started happening. The 100-gallon ferry tank went dry
after only 7 hours, burning 8 to 9 gallons per hour! Something
just did not add up...
[...]


Then, the G1000 started to go nuts, with the fuel indicators
displaying red X's. Next, I received a CO2 detector failure, then
GPS-1 failure!
[...]


When the G1000 got done rebooting, I found myself missing my
airspeed indicator and fuel gauges -- and it was now displaying a
bunch of other errors. Assessing my situation, I figured that I
had no fuel gauges, the G1000 is continually rebooting, possible
CO2 in the cabin, AND an apparent fuel leak!
[...]


As I grind closer and closer to Narsarsuaq, at about 60 miles out
they send up a rescue chopper, locate me, and guide me in, since
I am unable to make the NDB approach with the G1000 rebooting
itself. (The ADF display is tied to the G1000's HSI.)
[...]


[Day 3]
We finally figured out that the instructions for the ferry tank
were not correct, and really need to be changed before the company
installing the tank kills someone.


The problem was the ferry tank's fuel return line was over
pressurizing the aircraft tanks, causing fuel to vent overboard.
To prevent this, what needed to be done was to FIRST run the
aircraft's left tank down till it was almost empty, THEN turn on
the ferry tank.


The instructions with the ferry tank said only to "Climb to
altitude, then switch to the ferry tank and turn off the aircraft
fuel", then run it till the fuel level hits a mark on the ferry
tank's fuel level indicator. These instructions turned out to be
totally incorrect!


Even Cessna engineering was surprised that the FAA had approved
the instructions for the ferry tank setup, because it also caused
the G1000 to go nuts. Apparently the added pressure in the fuel
tanks pushed the floats in the fuel tank up, which got the Garmin
confused, causing an error that made it reboot. The loss of the
airspeed indicator was caused by fuel vapors entering the pitot
tube -- which also caused the CO2 detector failure!
[...]


[Day 11]
Then the tach started being erratic, saying that my RPMs were 4000
-- yeah, right! Then it went Red X. OK, Garmin & Cessna, you
need to have better quality control. After everything else that
has happened, this makes me not want to every own a newer model
Cessna, or anything with a G1000.

It's difficult to understand how fuel got into the pitot system, given
the placement of the fuel vent and the pitot mast. If the new
Skyhawks don't have fuel balders any longer, perhaps the pitot
plumbing was routed through the wing tank, and the increased pressure
was adequate to cause fuel to seep past the plumbing fittings.

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:46:44 -0700, news.charter.net wrote:

A Man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two is never
sure...

That's why we need three: for total and utter confusion.

- Andrew

news.charter.net writes:

A Man with one watch knows what time it is,
a man with two is never sure...

Which is why some configurations have three separate systems.

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

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.

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:58:54 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote in
:

So when the Garmin system went down, other than HF Communications
provided by a portable transceiver, and the flight controls, the only
other functional instruments and operable systems you had were the OAT
thermometer, EGT, magnetic compass, attitude indicator, altimeter,
intermittent tachometer and airspeed indicator? No navigation
equipment, auto pilot, VHF communications, fuel gages, engine oil
pressure nor temperature gages? Have I finally got it right?


When the system went down the only things I had was My Portable GPS, HF Com,
Portable VHF Com, Steam Attitude Indicator, Steam Airspeed Indicator, Steam
Altimeter, Whiskey Compass! Every thing else was tied to the G1000 and was
useless or not to be trusted as accurate in that situation. They don't even
have a slip/skid ball in the thing when the G1000 goes blink that's
intergraded also!

Thanks for the information.

Can you tell me more about the overpressure in the wing tank(s), and
the fuel entering the pitot-static system causing the loss of the
airspeed indicator? Here's all I have:

Apparently the added pressure in the fuel
tanks pushed the floats in the fuel tank up, which got the Garmin
confused, causing an error that made it reboot. The loss of the
airspeed indicator was caused by fuel vapors entering the pitot
tube -- which also caused the CO2 detector failure!

Has anyone figured out what happened to cause fuel to enter the
pitot-static system? Have you any idea of the magnitude of the added
pressure you mentioned? Where there rubber bladders in the wing
tanks?

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:23:21 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote in :

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:02:31 GMT, Judah wrote in
:

"Montblack" wrote in
:

("Judah" wrote)
Are you aware that the Jews have the monopoly on answering a
question with a question?

You don't say?

Montblack
5 of 7

Did you think that making a statement and putting a question mark at
the end counts as a question?

Are we really playing the question game here on r.a.p.?

What kind of rhetorical question is that?

What right do you have to question my question?

(Does the question game come from Roar of the
Greasepaint, Smell of the Crowd? Or am I
misremembering it entirely?)

Marty