Boat Electronics -- Junk
Ed WAgner
private, relied on boat electronics' units,
crashes would likely occur hourly. Boat
electronics would never pass FAA testing.
Argument that ocean environment (not submerging)
is major contributor to failures does not wash --
aircraft experience different environments daily
and work reliably.
How can boat electronics' purchasers insist on
better quality and reliability?
Ed Wagner
Anders Svensson
This is not a real problem.
Just leave the toy stuff alone and pay between 10 to 100 times more for
serious, ship quality gear. Then, pay some more to get a truly qualified
technician to install it, and pay even more to have a qualified person to
maintain it regularily.
Anders
Ed WAgner skrev:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ed Wagner <anch...@mediaone.net>
>
> Ed Wagner
> <anch...@mediaone.net>
> Fax: 954-785-2570
> Hem: 954-785-2470
> Ytterligare information:
> Efternamn Wagner
> Förnamn Ed
> Version 2.1
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
alcy...@hotmail.com
Ed WAgner <anch...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> If aircraft pilots, whether commercial or
> private, relied on boat electronics' units,
> crashes would likely occur hourly. Boat
> electronics would never pass FAA testing.
So? Apples and oranges. Why *should* a piece of equipment designed and sold
to the recreational boat market meet the standards for a piece of commercial
avionics gear? If want to pay for avionics, by all mean go buy it.
> Argument that ocean environment (not submerging)
> is major contributor to failures does not wash --
> aircraft experience different environments daily
> and work reliably.
>
> How can boat electronics' purchasers insist on
> better quality and reliability?
>
Hmm. I'm curious to know what particular pieces of equipment you are
complaining about. I use three very simple units on my boat: an ancient 25w
fixed mount VHF, a handheld VHF, and a beat-up, abused Garmin handheld GPS.
haven't had a single incidence of trouble with any of them in three years.
Besides, this gear is so cheap, why not have redundant systems? I just bought
a new GPS-48 to use as my primary unit, and the old 45 will serve as the back-
up.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Marcus G Bell
> How can boat electronics' purchasers insist on better quality
> and reliability?
By paying "FAA aircraft-approved" prices, I suspect.
-- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
Winston
This is subject material that is obviously waaay above your head, please go
back to drinking your "Scotch" and leave the higher thinking for those
capable of it
Ed WAgner <anch...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:36DBFB19...@mediaone.net...
>If aircraft pilots, whether commercial or
>private, relied on boat electronics' units,
>crashes would likely occur hourly. Boat
>electronics would never pass FAA testing.
>
>Argument that ocean environment (not submerging)
>is major contributor to failures does not wash --
>aircraft experience different environments daily
>and work reliably.
>
>How can boat electronics' purchasers insist on
>better quality and reliability?
>
>Ed Wagner
>
GSelken
it has anything to do with electronic reliablity.
Ed WAgner
I was commenting on GPS (DGPS) unit. I have three top rated units and main one
suddenly stopped acquiring signals. No reason or explanation for failure. I paid
dearly for the unit 3 years ago, worked reliably until last week. Reading "Please
Standby."
Tech was unable to diagnose problem with unit onboard -- removed it and is bench
testing.
In aircraft I would have crashed.
Ed Wagner
alcy...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <36DBFB19...@mediaone.net>,
> Ed WAgner <anch...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > If aircraft pilots, whether commercial or
> > private, relied on boat electronics' units,
> > crashes would likely occur hourly. Boat
> > electronics would never pass FAA testing.
>
> So? Apples and oranges. Why *should* a piece of equipment designed and sold
> to the recreational boat market meet the standards for a piece of commercial
> avionics gear? If want to pay for avionics, by all mean go buy it.
>
> > Argument that ocean environment (not submerging)
> > is major contributor to failures does not wash --
> > aircraft experience different environments daily
> > and work reliably.
> >
> > How can boat electronics' purchasers insist on
> > better quality and reliability?
> >
>
Quarterberth
not, i.e qualified maintenance for aviation electronics.
QB.
Anders Svensson wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> This is not a real problem.
>
> Just leave the toy stuff alone and pay between 10 to 100 times more for
> serious, ship quality gear. Then, pay some more to get a truly qualified
> technician to install it, and pay even more to have a qualified person to
> maintain it regularily.
>
> Anders
>
> Ed WAgner skrev:
>
> > If aircraft pilots, whether commercial or
> > private, relied on boat electronics' units,
> > crashes would likely occur hourly. Boat
> > electronics would never pass FAA testing.
> >
> > Argument that ocean environment (not submerging)
> > is major contributor to failures does not wash --
> > aircraft experience different environments daily
> > and work reliably.
> >
> > How can boat electronics' purchasers insist on
> > better quality and reliability?
> >
Joe Della Barba
I can't say how many times I have wondered why mare stuff is so much
MORE reliable than aircraft stuff, given the salt climate.
Joe Della Barba
Commercial Pilot
Steve Shelikoff
>
> All equipment on my boat is of best quality and maintained in ready state.
>
> I was commenting on GPS (DGPS) unit. I have three top rated units and main one
> suddenly stopped acquiring signals. No reason or explanation for failure. I paid
> dearly for the unit 3 years ago, worked reliably until last week. Reading "Please
> Standby."
>
> Tech was unable to diagnose problem with unit onboard -- removed it and is bench
> testing.
>
> In aircraft I would have crashed.
If you crashed your aircraft simply because the DGPS unit failed, I wouldn't
want to fly with you anytime soon.
Steve
--
/ / /
\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
/ / /
Joe Della Barba
wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------B076419A4A4B49DCBBC6E5CE
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>All equipment on my boat is of best quality and maintained in ready state.
>
>I was commenting on GPS (DGPS) unit. I have three top rated units and main one
>suddenly stopped acquiring signals. No reason or explanation for failure. I paid
>dearly for the unit 3 years ago, worked reliably until last week. Reading "Please
>Standby."
>
>Tech was unable to diagnose problem with unit onboard -- removed it and is bench
>testing.
>
>In aircraft I would have crashed.
>
>Ed Wagner
>
In an aircraft the loss of a GPS would be no big deal. You would whip
out your $100 backup and be on your way or revert to one of the other
navaids onboard or look out the window! Yes we still can fly just by
looking outside in the 1990s.
Joe DB
>
>
>alcy...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> In article <36DBFB19...@mediaone.net>,
>> Ed WAgner <anch...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > If aircraft pilots, whether commercial or
>> > private, relied on boat electronics' units,
>> > crashes would likely occur hourly. Boat
>> > electronics would never pass FAA testing.
>>
>> So? Apples and oranges. Why *should* a piece of equipment designed and sold
>> to the recreational boat market meet the standards for a piece of commercial
>> avionics gear? If want to pay for avionics, by all mean go buy it.
>>
>> > Argument that ocean environment (not submerging)
>> > is major contributor to failures does not wash --
>> > aircraft experience different environments daily
>> > and work reliably.
>> >
>> > How can boat electronics' purchasers insist on
>> > better quality and reliability?
>> >
>>
>> Hmm. I'm curious to know what particular pieces of equipment you are
>> complaining about. I use three very simple units on my boat: an ancient 25w
>> fixed mount VHF, a handheld VHF, and a beat-up, abused Garmin handheld GPS.
>> haven't had a single incidence of trouble with any of them in three years.
>>
>> Besides, this gear is so cheap, why not have redundant systems? I just bought
>> a new GPS-48 to use as my primary unit, and the old 45 will serve as the back-
>> up.
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>--------------B076419A4A4B49DCBBC6E5CE
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="anchorlt.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Ed WAgner
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="anchorlt.vcf"
>
>begin:vcard
>n:Wagner;Ed
>tel;fax:954-785-2570
>tel;home:954-785-2470
>x-mozilla-html:FALSE
>adr:;;;;;;
>version:2.1
>email;internet:anch...@mediaone.net
>fn:Ed Wagner
>end:vcard
>
>--------------B076419A4A4B49DCBBC6E5CE--
>
Winston
Ed WAgner <anch...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:36DCAA5A...@mediaone.net...
>All equipment on my boat is of best quality and maintained in ready state.
>
>I was commenting on GPS (DGPS) unit. I have three top rated units and main
one
>suddenly stopped acquiring signals. No reason or explanation for failure. I
paid
>dearly for the unit 3 years ago, worked reliably until last week. Reading
"Please
>Standby."
>
>Tech was unable to diagnose problem with unit onboard -- removed it and is
bench
>testing.
>
>In aircraft I would have crashed.
>
>Ed Wagner
>
>
>
Winston
Joe Della Barba <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:36dd1d95...@news.earthlink.net...
Rod McInnis
Ed WAgner wrote:
>Boat electronics would never pass FAA testing.
Agreed. But then, why should they?
Aircraft differ from cars or boats in that when a problem comes up,
you can't just set the parking brake or heave to and work on it. The
loss of a critical system could lead to a very dangerous situation, so
they build in redundency and build to a much stricter standard.
Military is even worse, as they want their gear to work under very
adverse conditions. But there is a price you pay for that ruggedness.
There is an old saying that goes: "An elephant is a mouse built to
military specifications". That ruggedness and reliability cost you in
$$$, size and weight.
Sometimes, the "disposable" nature of commercial gear outweighs the
benifits of ruggedness. How many of you remember the Persian Gulf war?
(OK, I know that technically we are still fighting it, but I mean the
"Mother of All Battles" in Kuwait).
The Persian Gulf war was the first time that GPS was really used
effectively in a real combat situation. The problem was that the
official military versions of the GPS receivers were rather large,
heavy, expensive, and there were simply not enough of them to go
around. Back home, however, they were just starting to flood the
boating market.
All the frustrated infantrymen in Saudi Arabia wrote home to mom and
dad and asked them to buy them a GPS and send it in their next care
package!
> How can boat electronics' purchasers insist on
> better quality and reliability?
Let me ask you this: What brand of VHF radio do you have, and why did
you choose it?
If you say ICOM, because they have the best quality, then you have
done your part for encouraging better quality gear. But if you say
"Standard, because they are half the price" then you are encouraging the
status quo.
Personally, I am very satisfied with the general quality of the marine
electronics that I purchase. In the last ten years, I think I have had
one piece of electronics fail, and that was a VHF radio. There is
definately some junk out there, which I try to avoid by not buying
something based on price alone.
Rod McInnis
John Wilson
>>and work reliably.
The last aircraft I saw that had been given a float test ( it didn't )
had very non-functional electronics afterwards.
JW
Steve Shelikoff
>
> Ed WAgner wrote:
>
> >Boat electronics would never pass FAA testing.
>
> Agreed. But then, why should they?
>
> Aircraft differ from cars or boats in that when a problem comes up,
> you can't just set the parking brake or heave to and work on it. The
> loss of a critical system could lead to a very dangerous situation, so
> they build in redundency and build to a much stricter standard.
>
> Military is even worse, as they want their gear to work under very
> adverse conditions. But there is a price you pay for that ruggedness.
> There is an old saying that goes: "An elephant is a mouse built to
> military specifications". That ruggedness and reliability cost you in
> $$$, size and weight.
On the military planes I've flown on, I rarely complete a mission where
*something* doesn't break. Sometimes we can fix it in the air, sometimes we
just make do without. But the plane is packed with so much gear that the odds
of something going wrong are high.
> Sometimes, the "disposable" nature of commercial gear outweighs the
> benifits of ruggedness. How many of you remember the Persian Gulf war?
> (OK, I know that technically we are still fighting it, but I mean the
> "Mother of All Battles" in Kuwait).
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've witnessed military gear being put into
situations that would toast a commercial equivalent in seconds. For instance,
when an S-3 lands on a carrier that's in a hot and humid environment, they are
supposed to warm up the plane first so that condensation doesn't form when you
open the door. But they rarely do, because they want to stay comfortable until
they finally park and shutdown. I've seen cases where the cabin door is opened
and it literally starts to rain in the plane. Computer equipment is laying on
the floor and operating in puddles of water. Try that with a PC.
BigfootIV
I have over 20 years of expierience flying commercially, & 15 or so years
sailing on my own boats. My expierience is 180 degrees off from your
statement. The electronics you buy off the shelf at West Marine are many times
more reliable than the avionics installed in commercial aircraft.
Harry
Bigfoot IV
Seattle(Stienhatchee Fl.)
Jeff Thompson
Ed WAgner wrote:
> If aircraft pilots, whether commercial or
> private, relied on boat electronics' units,
> crashes would likely occur hourly. Boat
> electronics would never pass FAA testing.
>
> Argument that ocean environment (not submerging)
> is major contributor to failures does not wash --
> aircraft experience different environments daily
> and work reliably.
>
> How can boat electronics' purchasers insist on
> better quality and reliability?
>
> Ed Wagner