Cirrus BRS deployment

Islip,

So, what's the bias against PFD'S?


It's imaginary.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies, life
is a bitch... 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...


I guess all the new Boeings, Airbuses and bizjets should still be
exclusively using steam guages too, then, huh?

The old timers have to get with it. The last 10 years have shown more
leaps and bounds in aviation technology than the previous 40.
Technology is good when used appropriately. The parachute is a
perfect example.

Dave opined

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies, life
is a bitch... 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...


I guess all the new Boeings, Airbuses and bizjets should still be
exclusively using steam guages too, then, huh?

One suspects that they have 2 pilots, 4 or more displays, a bunch of airdata
computers and several independent pitot-static systems. Just a little more
redundency than your typical GA aircraft.

The old timers have to get with it. The last 10 years have shown more
leaps and bounds in aviation technology than the previous 40.
Technology is good when used appropriately. The parachute is a
perfect example.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

Snicker!

--
Jim Fisher

In article , Ash Wyllie wrote:
One suspects that they have 2 pilots, 4 or more displays, a bunch of airdata
computers and several independent pitot-static systems. Just a little more
redundency than your typical GA aircraft.

But if you look at the screensh^W photographs of the Cirrus panel,
you'll see not only the glass, but underneath, a normal AI gyro,
mechanical altimeter and airspeed.

That's more redundancy than most IFR-equipped steam gauge GA aircraft
have. Most steam gauge IFR-equipped GA aircraft also put the most useful
gyros (AI and DI) on a very unreliable vacuum pump, leaving the TC as
the more reliably-powered unit. (Anecdotally, more pilots seem to have
experienced a vacuum failure than an electrical failure, and personal
experience seems to bear this out).

Personally, I feel lust over that Cirrus panel. If I had the money, a
Cirrus would definitely be in the running in aircraft I'd be looking at.

--
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"

Dylan Smith ) wrote:

Personally, I feel lust over that Cirrus panel. If I had the money, a
Cirrus would definitely be in the running in aircraft I'd be looking at.

The Garmin G1000 glass panel, found in the new C182s, C206s, and now in the
upper-end Mooney models, is actually a more feature-rich glass cockpit that
allows the AI to be reset while the aircraft is in motion, unlike the
Avidine in the Cirrus that needs the aircraft to sit stationary on the
ground for three minutes. The G1000 also has the GPS incorporated into
its system, unlike the Avidine that requires a separately installed GPS.

I have read that Avidine has risen to the competition, though, and is about
to release their next generation glass cockpit where the AI will also be
able to be reset in the air.

Nevertheless, I lust after the G1000.

--
Peter

On 11 Apr 2004 18:35:29 -0700, (Dave) wrote:

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies, life
is a bitch... 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...


I guess all the new Boeings, Airbuses and bizjets should still be
exclusively using steam guages too, then, huh?

I seriously doubt if a Cirrus (or any other "GA airplane") could leave
the ground hauling around the hardware needed to keep all the glass
lit in a "new Boeings, Airbuses", not to mention the hardware required
to drive the multiple bus electrical system, or the redundant power
sources.

Speaking from personal experience with "new" "bizjets", it ain't gonna
happen either.

The old timers have to get with it. The last 10 years have shown more
leaps and bounds in aviation technology than the previous 40.
Technology is good when used appropriately. The parachute is a
perfect example.

In proven EFIS primary instrumentation/avionics, the "last 10 years"
has been spent improving upon working knowledge derived from the
"previous 40" years. The number of giant leaps has truly been a series
of tens of thousands of baby steps, with repeated set-backs and
failures.

Talk to any major avionics company's service engineering staff that
has been involved with integrating a proven, working system into a
new/different/modified airframe. Read the trade rags about how
avionics integration has held up certification of "new" aircraft
designs.

I do agree that "technology is good when used appropriately", and I
have all the respect in the world for the companies involved in
pioneering GA "glass" technology.

But I seriously doubt that these companies have the depth of
real-world millions-of-hours-in-the-air experience that a Honeywell or
a Rockwell Collins (just for example) does.

Or staying strictly in GA, Cirrus's answer to the redundant electrical
system w/battery back-up vs. the hours spent flying behind essentially
single bus electrical systems (also with limited battery back-up)
co-existing along with instrument vacuum/pressure systems.

I am not saying it is "bad", I am simply saying that it is un-proven
in the real in-the-air world.

TC

Sounds like maybe this guy popped the chute because of turbulence?!

I really hope there's more to it than that.

mike regish

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L10433EF7

"mike regish" wrote:
Sounds like maybe this guy popped the chute because
of turbulence?!

I really hope there's more to it than that.

Hard to say from the article what the problem really was. But, yeah, it
does kind of sound like he might have panicked.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

This from another report:

"Pilot Albert Kolk used his radio to call for help.
He reported that the fuel was not burning equally from the fuel tanks,

causing the aircraft to spin."