Glass Panel Failure Rate?

Don Hammer wrote:
Gliders have been using very long and thin wings made of glass and
carbon for at least 25 years. Never heard of one having a wing
failure.

There was a 'high profile' accidnet in Minden a few years ago. Two
well-known pilots I believe. I'm sure a quick search on ntsb.gov will show
it.

Hilton

In article .net,
Hilton wrote:
Don Hammer wrote:
Gliders have been using very long and thin wings made of glass and
carbon for at least 25 years. Never heard of one having a wing
failure.

There was a 'high profile' accidnet in Minden a few years ago. Two
well-known pilots I believe. I'm sure a quick search on ntsb.gov will show
it.

It's still pretty rare though - we don't hear of glass gliders falling
out of the sky all the time. There are the occasional failures of
"traditionally" constructed (wooden) gliders too, last year a Ka-7 in
England broke up in level flight at 1000' AGL.

The only glass glider I've heard of breaking up got struck by lightning.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article .net,
Hilton wrote:
Don Hammer wrote:
Gliders have been using very long and thin wings made of glass and
carbon for at least 25 years. Never heard of one having a wing
failure.

There was a 'high profile' accidnet in Minden a few years ago. Two
well-known pilots I believe. I'm sure a quick search on ntsb.gov will show
it.

Here it the NTSB report on that one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X19310&key=1

The basic summary is the pilots over controlled recovering from a
spin. One of the pilots was the head of the National Air and Space
Museum and a high time fighter pilot.

We happened to have some USAF pilots visiting our CAP squadron soon
after this accident, and there was an interesting discussion between
a local glider CFI and the USAF guys. The amount of control movement
needed in a glider is much less then in a fighter, and the CFI
speculated at the time that the pilot over controlled it, causing
the structural failure. That is pretty much what the NTSB found.

The material the wing was made of made no difference in this accident.
The aircraft exceeded design loads, and failed.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:44:15 -0500, Helen Woods
wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where
all the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't
ever delaminate no matter what color I paint them...

I love plastic airplanes and glass panels...Can't afford either so
that's why I'm building the G-III.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Helen

"Helen Woods" wrote in message

Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or
flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something about flying a bird where all
the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't ever
delaminate no matter what color I paint them...

OK You're old fashioned. Your reference to "a "plastic" airplane" suggests
that you're uneducated as well. As for "glass panel" avionics, the future
will leave you behind. I assume you never fly in newer commercial
airliners.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message .. .
"Helen Woods" wrote in message

Call me old fashioned, but you won't find me behind a glass panel or flying a "plastic" airplane. Just something
about flying a bird where all the instruments don't rely on one type of system and the wings won't ever delaminate no
matter what color I paint them...

OK You're old fashioned. Your reference to "a "plastic" airplane" suggests that you're uneducated as well. As for
"glass panel" avionics, the future will leave you behind. I assume you never fly in newer commercial airliners.

moo


It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved...

"Blueskies" wrote in message

It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved...

I'm not in the mood to back up my statements with cites, or links, but I do
believe you are incorrect.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message news

"Blueskies" wrote in message

It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved...

I'm not in the mood to back up my statements with cites, or links, but I do
believe you are incorrect.
--
Jim in NC




You always have to have 'conventional' ground based navigation equipment on board and operational and at least one
'conventional' approach available at your alternate airport. You still cannot go 'only GPS'.

"Blueskies"

It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved...

It is interesting that IFR without GPS is approved.

moo

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:13:38 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

It is interesting that GPS only IFR is not approved..

Your statement is out of date since the implementation of WAAS and boxes
certified under TSO146a.

"...installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have
other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown."




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)