Cirrus BRS deployment

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It doesn't
matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else. There's
nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
everybody had that mindset.

We have backup trees in the front yard which we can
climb into if the house becomes uninhabitable for some
reason.

Assume you are in an automobile, boat, or locomotive with a glass cockpit,
and you have a total failure of the glass cockpit.

You close the throttle and/or apply the brakes and come to a stop. No big
deal.

But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
have a major problem.

Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam gauges:
a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they will
fail and what the failure points will probably be.

But with a glass cockpit, the only failure information we have is
computer-projected, we don't really know much about what their in-service
failure history will be.

Prudence would dictate not only that you back up an unproved system, but
that you back it up with a proved system.

Five years or so down the road, when we have some realistic, real-world
failure data, you will probably see pilots becoming more receptive to glass
cockpits. But until more service data is built up, a healthy dose of caution
is in order...





"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dennis,

You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an accident
causes.

Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies,
life
is a bitch...


Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It doesn't
matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else. There's
nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
everybody had that mindset.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Unless you're completely immersed in IMC, even a "total failure" of a glass
cockpit should be more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. And if
you're talking about those IMC conditions, then you already have some
complex systems in use that you rely on which could just as easily fail as
the glass versions.


"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Assume you are in an automobile, boat, or locomotive with a glass cockpit,
and you have a total failure of the glass cockpit.

You close the throttle and/or apply the brakes and come to a stop. No big
deal.

But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
have a major problem.

Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam
gauges:
a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they
will
fail and what the failure points will probably be.

But with a glass cockpit, the only failure information we have is
computer-projected, we don't really know much about what their in-service
failure history will be.

Prudence would dictate not only that you back up an unproved system, but
that you back it up with a proved system.

Five years or so down the road, when we have some realistic, real-world
failure data, you will probably see pilots becoming more receptive to
glass
cockpits. But until more service data is built up, a healthy dose of
caution
is in order...





"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dennis,

You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an accident
causes.

Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies,
life
is a bitch...


Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It
doesn't
matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else. There's
nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
everybody had that mindset.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
Do not bet your life with a GA airplane that has a total
electronic panel... You still need a few steam gauges, and a spare
nav/com/ils on the back up battery, and at least one vacuum gyro...

A nice pic of the gauges included with all SR's:

http://www.wvfc.org/craft/508dk.html

There's plenty of steam gauges to go around in those newfangled things. The
glass cockpit simply paints a prettier picture of all of them.

--
Jim Fisher

Ouch, $210 per hour


"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
Do not bet your life with a GA airplane that has a total
electronic panel... You still need a few steam gauges, and a spare
nav/com/ils on the back up battery, and at least one vacuum gyro...

A nice pic of the gauges included with all SR's:

http://www.wvfc.org/craft/508dk.html

There's plenty of steam gauges to go around in those newfangled things.
The
glass cockpit simply paints a prettier picture of all of them.

--
Jim Fisher

Bill,

But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
have a major problem.


No, you don't. You use the back-up that is there by FAA regulation.

Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam gauges:
a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they will
fail and what the failure points will probably be.

Uh, ever fly the airlines? They have years of experience with glass cockpits.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

My mistake: I failed to mention that this was a "no backup" scenario.

My intent was to illustrate the relative dangers of using a new technology
in varying applications, and to touch on the failure rates of mature vs. new
technology.

Sorry for my poor communications...



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
t...
Unless you're completely immersed in IMC, even a "total failure" of a
glass
cockpit should be more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. And if
you're talking about those IMC conditions, then you already have some
complex systems in use that you rely on which could just as easily fail as
the glass versions.


"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Assume you are in an automobile, boat, or locomotive with a glass
cockpit,
and you have a total failure of the glass cockpit.

You close the throttle and/or apply the brakes and come to a stop. No
big
deal.

But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
have a major problem.

Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam
gauges:
a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they
will
fail and what the failure points will probably be.

But with a glass cockpit, the only failure information we have is
computer-projected, we don't really know much about what their
in-service
failure history will be.

Prudence would dictate not only that you back up an unproved system, but
that you back it up with a proved system.

Five years or so down the road, when we have some realistic, real-world
failure data, you will probably see pilots becoming more receptive to
glass
cockpits. But until more service data is built up, a healthy dose of
caution
is in order...





"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dennis,

You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an accident
causes.

Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip
thingies,
life
is a bitch...


Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It
doesn't
matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else.
There's
nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
everybody had that mindset.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

The engine doesn't need avionics to run though, that was my point.


"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
My mistake: I failed to mention that this was a "no backup" scenario.

My intent was to illustrate the relative dangers of using a new technology
in varying applications, and to touch on the failure rates of mature vs.
new
technology.

Sorry for my poor communications...



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
t...
Unless you're completely immersed in IMC, even a "total failure" of a
glass
cockpit should be more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. And if
you're talking about those IMC conditions, then you already have some
complex systems in use that you rely on which could just as easily fail
as
the glass versions.


"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Assume you are in an automobile, boat, or locomotive with a glass
cockpit,
and you have a total failure of the glass cockpit.

You close the throttle and/or apply the brakes and come to a stop. No
big
deal.

But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure
you
have a major problem.

Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam
gauges:
a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when
they
will
fail and what the failure points will probably be.

But with a glass cockpit, the only failure information we have is
computer-projected, we don't really know much about what their
in-service
failure history will be.

Prudence would dictate not only that you back up an unproved system,
but
that you back it up with a proved system.

Five years or so down the road, when we have some realistic,
real-world
failure data, you will probably see pilots becoming more receptive to
glass
cockpits. But until more service data is built up, a healthy dose of
caution
is in order...





"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dennis,

You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an
accident
causes.

Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip
thingies,
life
is a bitch...


Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It
doesn't
matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else.
There's
nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
everybody had that mindset.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

For what it's worth, the SR22 that went down today was *not* PFD
equipped; it was an early steam gauge model.

No, an airline will have years of experience with A glass cockpit, or
perhaps maybe two or three.

But I seriously doubt if any of them have any experience with a Garmin
G1000. And this is the rub: one vacuum instrument is pretty much identical
to the same instrument from another manufacturer in design, construction,
and materials. But it is quite unlikely that a Garmin glass cockpit will
bear any resemblance to an Avidyne or Bendix/King unit in design, or any
other under-the-hood feature.

I don't see this as being a problem, but we don't yet have any failure
statistics or any other sort of history for glass cockpits, and until we do,
some people will be resistant to the change. It's human nature.

Personally, FedEx me a medical and a half million bucks and see how fast I
end up with a Mooney Ovation with the Garmin G1000 in my backyard....


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Bill,

But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
have a major problem.


No, you don't. You use the back-up that is there by FAA regulation.

Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam
gauges:
a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they
will
fail and what the failure points will probably be.

Uh, ever fly the airlines? They have years of experience with glass
cockpits.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)