NW_Pilot's Trans-Atlantic Flight -- All the scary details...
Jay Honeck
Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Larry Dighera
in <1159710425....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>
>Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.
Emily
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>
> Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
I've got a few hours in a 172 with G1000, but I think that's turned me
off...at least until they get the bugs worked out.
Jose
> 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.
Steam gauges don't get confused like that. While they do sometimes go
bad or give an incorrect indication, the fault is isolated to that one
gauge; it doesn't cause the entire airplane to have an apoplectic fit.
That is left to the pilot. One of the real dangers of glass is that it
usurps the pilot's perogative to panic (or not) by doing so itself.
If there's ever an argument against glass (or "advanced integrated
flight instrumentations and controls"), this is it!
ibid:
> Day 5: Shut down in Iceland with 55 knot headwinds. I make the call "No Go"!!!
NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?
ibid: (spelling note, day 11)
> After everything else that has happened, this makes me not want to every own a newer model Cessna, or anything with a G1000.
...not want to ever own...
(public service, not nitpicking)
(same day)
> Everything else was uneventful, as I went direct KAD and had a small dialogue with the tower about my permission to land.
Anything interesting in that "dialog"?
Anyway, that's quite an adventure! Would you do it again?
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.
houstondan
i noticed someone did that on an earlier edition so i guessed it was ok
to do that.
someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
he did just great. turned around, got it back on the ground, figured it
out, flew on and made the contract. i think he needs to be
congratulated for doing something really big and doing it well. i'm
about finished reading "the flying north" and i expect any of those
guys would have bought steven a beer and listened to his story.
my airplane budget looks at getting a good harness system, fuel and
engine monitors and enough gas to do some real traveling so i don't
have to worry about a G-1000 any time soon. clearly it is a cautionary
tale about putting too many avionics eggs in one glass basket.
again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.
dan
Ron A.
> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
> Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.
Garmin needs to wake up! To have out-of-bounds sensor inputs reboot the
system continuously, especially something as unreliable as fuel sensors, is
horrible system design.
Even Microsoft has awakened to this. They now have fewer browser bugs per
year than Firefox.
What do you want to bet that there is a bunch of other safety critical,
software driven devices that are prone to this?
Think about this for a second. What if there was some unexpected
transmission from a GPS satellite due to an incorrect software load to the
satellite that caused the G1000 to reboot continuously. Now extend that.
Take your Garmin portable GPS out to save your butt and it ALSO includes the
deficient algorithm and continuously reboots. Scary. I would bet the
portables share quite a bit of logic and decision trees with the panel
mounts.
Jay Honeck
It's been quite an adventure for Steven. His experiences could fill a
book already, and he's only 30!
Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that
dire situation. Stuck in IMC over the North Atlantic, in the dark, no
primary displays, a possible carbon-monoxide leak, a known fuel leak --
I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.
You did a great job keeping everything right-side up, and your head on
straight.
Paul Tomblin
>> Day 5: Shut down in Iceland with 55 knot headwinds. I make the call
>"No Go"!!!
>
>NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?
Why not? 55 knot headwinds cut into your fuel reserve, 55 knot tail winds
help it. I've flown with a 70 knot tail wind, it was great. Except when
I had to descend to land, then it was bumpy as hell.
At one point my GPS was showing a 210 knot ground speed, and I felt like
asking Buffalo Approach what they were showing as my ground speed, just to
brag at what a Cherokee can do. But then I remembered the story about
people doing that just as an SR-71 checked in on the frequency.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Windows, another fine product from the folks who gave us edlin.
nrp
rags...........
Larry Dighera
wrote in <1159716819.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
>he did just great.
There's no question Mr. Rhine did the right thing in his case.
Larry Dighera
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in <efops2$6va$1...@allhats.xcski.com>:
>>NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?
>
>Why not? 55 knot headwinds cut into your fuel reserve, 55 knot tail winds
>help it. I've flown with a 70 knot tail wind
Have you ever attempted to taxi a high-wing aircraft in 55 knot winds?
Martin Hotze
>Stuck in IMC over the North Atlantic, in the dark, no
>primary displays, a possible carbon-monoxide leak, a known fuel leak --
>I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hmm, the mother-in-law calling on the sat-phone?
#m
--
Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm>
I Am Not A Terrorist <http://itsnotallbad.com/iamnotaterrorist/>
Paul Tomblin
I thougth we were talking about winds-aloft, not surface winds?
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"If something's expensive to develop, and somebody's not going to get paid, it
won't get developed. So you decide: Do you want software to be written, or
not?" - Bill Gates doesn't foresee the FSF or Linux, 1980.
John Gaquin
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
Do you have a machine to pick those nits, or do you do it all by hand?
John Gaquin
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.
On fire?
But he did a great job, notwithstanding any Monday-morning advice givers.
He evaluated, and made a decision that resulted in the craft and pilot on
the ground safely. What else is there?
Stefan
> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting.
He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! In fact, I'm
scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
think they know better than the book.
Stefan
.Blueskies.
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:1159710425....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
See Jay, another reason to get the instrument rating!
Larry Dighera
wrote in <6c238$4520310d$544873a0$21...@news.hispeed.ch>:
What you say is true enough. And so is what I said.
Eduardo K.
LOL.
--
Eduardo K. | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://e.nn.cl |
| Yo.
Emily
You're completely right. I'm an A&P, but I'm not going to sit up there
in IMC miles from land and try to diagnose a fuel problem if the other
option is heading for land and landing ASAP.
Jim Logajan
> Stuck in IMC over the North Atlantic, in the dark, no
> primary displays, a possible carbon-monoxide leak, a known fuel leak --
> I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.
Snakes.
;-)
Mxsmanic
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>
> Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
There's no excuse for the G1000 to reboot. I guess nobody has to test
safety-of-life systems any more.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mxsmanic
> Garmin needs to wake up! To have out-of-bounds sensor inputs reboot the
> system continuously, especially something as unreliable as fuel sensors, is
> horrible system design.
It implies that the system was designed by desktop programmers,
instead of people with experience building mission-critical computer
systems. I guess people will have to die to get bugs fixed.
There is never any excuse for a safety-of-life computer to reboot,
short of a power interruption.
> What do you want to bet that there is a bunch of other safety critical,
> software driven devices that are prone to this?
Unfortunately, there are probably a great many of them, including
anything built by Garmin.
> Think about this for a second. What if there was some unexpected
> transmission from a GPS satellite due to an incorrect software load to the
> satellite that caused the G1000 to reboot continuously. Now extend that.
> Take your Garmin portable GPS out to save your butt and it ALSO includes the
> deficient algorithm and continuously reboots. Scary. I would bet the
> portables share quite a bit of logic and decision trees with the panel
> mounts.
Probably. And you can bet that nobody is verifying the generated
binaries bit by bit, the way people used to verify safety-of-life
software in the old days. If it compiles without errors, it's ready
to ship!
Montblack
> Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that dire
> situation.
"If I die out here, I'll never hear the end of it from the gang at
rec.aviation."
Montblack :-)
C. Massey
"John Gaquin" <john....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gsOdnZvVwK_TsL3Y...@comcast.com...
>
> "Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
>>
>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>
> Do you have a machine to pick those nits, or do you do it all by hand?
>
Consider the source...
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0639-4, 09/29/2006
Tested on: 10/1/2006 7:06:48 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Matt Whiting
So you think Al Haynes and crew screwed with their DC-10 improvisation?
Personally, I think it is imperative that pilots create their own ad
hoc procedures when the book is wrong or nonexistent. I'm much more
afraid of pilots who keep doing what the book says and are afraid to
think and improvise.
Matt
Matt Whiting
As an engineer, I'd do both! :-)
Matt
Matt Whiting
Yes, Jay, this is very true! You can't scare yourself nearly as well
VFR as IFR!! :-)
Matt
Larry Dighera
<rachelp2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<Db6dnY2tZvll3r3Y...@comcast.com>:
>I'm not going to sit up there in IMC miles from
>land and try to diagnose a fuel problem
Right. You'd have studied the fuel system while you were on the
ground.
Emily
> Stefan wrote:
>> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>>
>>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting.
>>
>>
>> He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
>> supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong! In fact, I'm
>> scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because
>> they think they know better than the book.
>
> So you think Al Haynes and crew screwed with their DC-10 improvisation?
Al Haynes' situation was a little different. He had multiple crew
members and a lot of backup on the ground. A single pilot doesn't
usually have the time to do troubleshooting like the United crew did.
john smith
Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
The problem with that statement is that many GA pilots haven't even read
the book to know what it says.
Jay Honeck
> > situation.
>
> "If I die out here, I'll never hear the end of it from the gang at
> rec.aviation."
Funny as that may be, Steven *was* very cognizant of how he wrote this
story up, for fear of being flamed by certain members of this group.
It shames me to think that a man brave enough to do what Steven just
did is scared of screwing up a write-up for this group. And we wonder
why aviation is a shrinking club...
Emily
>>> Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that dire
>>> situation.
>> "If I die out here, I'll never hear the end of it from the gang at
>> rec.aviation."
>
> Funny as that may be, Steven *was* very cognizant of how he wrote this
> story up, for fear of being flamed by certain members of this group.
The fact is, you're always going to get flamed, no matter what you do.
You can't worry about it.
zatatime
<rachelp2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The fact is, you're always going to get flamed, no matter what you do.
>You can't worry about it.
How true is that! Best intentions aside, the nits always get picked.
z
NW_Pilot
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:34RTg.12153$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> From NW_Pilot's adventure:
>> 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.
>
> Steam gauges don't get confused like that. While they do sometimes go bad
> or give an incorrect indication, the fault is isolated to that one gauge;
> it doesn't cause the entire airplane to have an apoplectic fit. That is
> left to the pilot. One of the real dangers of glass is that it usurps the
> pilot's perogative to panic (or not) by doing so itself.
>
> If there's ever an argument against glass (or "advanced integrated flight
> instrumentations and controls"), this is it!
>
> ibid:
>> Day 5: Shut down in Iceland with 55 knot headwinds. I make the call "No
>> Go"!!!
>
> NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?
>
>> After everything else that has happened, this makes me not want to every
>> own a newer model Cessna, or anything with a G1000.
>
> ...not want to ever own...
> (public service, not nitpicking)
>
> (same day)
>> Everything else was uneventful, as I went direct KAD and had a small
>> dialogue with the tower about my permission to land.
>
> Anything interesting in that "dialog"?
Just dialiaog about my permissions on landing.
>
> Anyway, that's quite an adventure! Would you do it again?
Hell, Yeah!!! You Bet !!
>
> 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.
NW_Pilot
"houstondan" <danjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159716819.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>i posted a link at a couple of cessna "type" clubs (c.p.a. and c.p.s.).
> i noticed someone did that on an earlier edition so i guessed it was ok
> to do that.
>
> someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
> he did just great. turned around, got it back on the ground, figured it
> out, flew on and made the contract. i think he needs to be
> congratulated for doing something really big and doing it well. i'm
> about finished reading "the flying north" and i expect any of those
> guys would have bought steven a beer and listened to his story.
>
> my airplane budget looks at getting a good harness system, fuel and
> engine monitors and enough gas to do some real traveling so i don't
> have to worry about a G-1000 any time soon. clearly it is a cautionary
> tale about putting too many avionics eggs in one glass basket.
>
> again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.
>
>
> dan
Thank, You
I would feel a bit better about the system if they put manual engine
monitors and fuel qty indicators as a back up the cost to Cessna would not
be much more they have the panel space and would make the newer models safer
with manual back up instruments.
NW_Pilot
>> again, jay, thanks for being the conduit on this. great stuff.
>
> book already, and he's only 30!
>
> Steven, I'm curious to know what your thought processes were in that
> primary displays, a possible carbon-monoxide leak, a known fuel leak --
> I simply can't imagine it getting any worse.
>
> straight.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Well, my thoughts were not to panic and keep as calm as i can and think!!
How I kept calm was saying to myself yes it can get much worse!
NW_Pilot
> On 1 Oct 2006 06:47:05 -0700, "Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote
> in <1159710425....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>>
>>Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
>
> Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.
I did study the fuel system and so did the engineer that designed it and
wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions. Once
you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
description of the now modified fuel system. They left out something very
very important in the new systems description!
NW_Pilot
> On 1 Oct 2006 08:33:39 -0700, "houstondan" <danjo...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <1159716819.4...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>someone said "a more experienced pilot would have......", well, i think
>>he did just great.
>
Thank You, Mr. Dighera
mrob...@worldnet.att.net
>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
>> Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.
>
> system continuously, especially something as unreliable as fuel sensors,
> is horrible system design.
I agree that continuous rebooting is a bad idea. Rebooting _once_ might
help, but the screen and/or manual should present it along the lines of:
"One of my inputs is flaky. I can ignore that input and keep going with
reduced capabilities, OR I can try rebooting to see if that clears up
the problem. There is no guarantee that rebooting will help, and there
is no guarantee that I will be able to keep going with reduced
capabilities after the reboot. What do you want to do?"
The idea of rebooting to fix an embedded safety system is not that great -
it shouldn't get into that state in the first place. But I think the
option should be there. If you want to work under the assumption that
you might get into an odd state, probably a better plan is to somehow
announce "I'm confused, but I'll keep going" and give the pilot the
option of rebooting by cycling power, rather than going into a reboot
loop on your own.
At work, I sometimes help engineering students who are trying to design
a (road) vehicle control system. If they are new to the subject, they
tend to want lots of lockouts and "clearly, this is always an illegal
condition" cases. I have had to give examples like "so, what if the
computer control of the 5-speed transmission decides it knows best and
cuts your thrust, right when all you can see in the rear-view mirror is
a huge chrome RENILTHGIERF"? The idea I try to get across is that a
large percentage of the time, the driver will have more information
about the situation than the computer will. Whether the driver acts
appropriately based on this extra information is a whole other
discussion, but at least the possiblity of doing the right thing is
there.
Sometime before early 1989, one Cal Keegan summed this up quite
succinctly: "It's not just a computer -- it's your ass."
> Even Microsoft has awakened to this. They now have fewer browser bugs
> per year than Firefox.
Hooray! Let's run airplane computers on Internet Explorer.
Matt Roberds
Matt Whiting
I agree. What's to worry about? Flames aren't fatal. They don't even
hurt. :-)
Matt
Matt Whiting
I agree. As we've learned and re-learned many times over the years
(Therac-25 and many others), it isn't a good idea to have all of your
eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is made of software! :-)
Matt
John Theune
decide what caused a crash, I think the same thing should be done here.
I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot. It might
be a piss poor design or it might be something else. NW_pilot has not
given us enough data to know ( because he did not have the data either )
The biggest problem is Garmin does not issue final reports but in this
cause it may be possible to find out why. I agree that a out of range
fuel sensor should not cause a system reboot. I just went back and
re-read the story and realized that this was not truly a garmin problem.
The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
outside the design envelop of the garmin system. It would appear at
first glance that the condition that caused the problem ( over pressure
in the fuel tank due to excess fuel could not happen in a standard
system and so it was not forseen in the system design) Bottom line is
that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
that are a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.
John
Gig 601XL Builder
"Montblack" <Y4-NOT...4monty4blacky@yvisiy.com> wrote in message
news:12i0k91...@corp.supernews.com...
Truly any pilots version of hell.
Larry Dighera
wrote in <FH5Ug.1579$Db4.2...@news1.epix.net>:
>... , it isn't a good idea to have all of your
>eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is made of software! :-)
It would seem that Airbus has successfully grappled with this issue.
Perhaps Cessna and Garmin should get a clue from them.
Jon Kraus
Larry Dighera
wrote in <wI6Ug.876$Pk2.497@trnddc08>:
> I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
>and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot.
Would division by zero be one of them?
>It might be a piss poor design or it might be something else. NW_pilot
>has not given us enough data to know ( because he did not have the data
>either )
Perhaps. Here's what is on Mr. Honeck's web site at the URL he
provided at the beginning of this message thread
<http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm>:
[Day 2]
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.
>The biggest problem is Garmin does not issue final reports but in this
>cause it may be possible to find out why. I agree that a[n] out of range
>fuel sensor should not cause a system reboot. I just went back and
>re-read the story and realized that this was not truly a garmin problem.
Perhaps you are correct, but It would seem that there is a lot of
corroborating evidence absent at this time.
> The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
>outside the design envelop of the garmin system.
Would you care to share the information to which you refer, detailing
the "design envelope of the Garmin system?"
>It would appear at first glance that the condition that caused the problem
>( over pressure in the fuel tank due to excess fuel could not happen in a standard
>system and so it was not forseen in the system design)
Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.
>Bottom line is that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
>that are [sic] a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.
Perhaps.
I thought you felt it would be more appropriate to reserve judgment
until more information was available.
Larry Dighera
<use...@aircraft-nospam-delivery.net> wrote in
<LcSdnSyDtZE1ML3Y...@comcast.com>:
>
>"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:srivh2paadcepqdog...@4ax.com...
>> On 1 Oct 2006 06:47:05 -0700, "Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote
>> in <1159710425....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
>>>
>>>Man, if the new details of his story doesn't chill ya, nothing will!
>>
>> A more experienced pilot who had studied the aux tank system may have
>> been able to mentally diagnose the cause of the fuel venting. But
>> Garmin's role in this incident is unforgivable.
>
>I did study the fuel system
Given the fact that the aux fuel system was a modification upon which
your safety depended, did you personally take the time to analyze its
intended operation from the schematic diagram and description of
system operation (not its use, but how it was engineered to operate)?
I believe you are intelligent enough to have done a reasonable job of
system analysis without benefit of specific training or an appropriate
college degree.
>and so did the engineer that designed it and
>wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
>inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions. Once
>you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
>description of the now modified fuel system.
If I understand your story correctly, the cause of the wing tank
venting was a result of the fuel return line pouring fuel that was
being feed from the separate aux tank fuel system into the wing
tank(s). Is that correct?
> They left out something very very important in the new systems description!
Are you referring to the necessity to burn fuel from the wing tanks
before switching to the aux tank, so that there would be adequate room
in the wing tanks to hold the fuel being returned from the fuel
injection system?
Can you provide the manufacturer's name and model number for the aux
fuel system installed in the aircraft you delivered?
How large is the documentation of the aux fuel system? Is it possible
you could make a scanned copy available? In particular, I'd like to
see a schematic drawing of the system and the description of its
operation, and its operation use instructions, in that order.
Jose
I most strenuously disagree. Systems should be designed NOT to fail
catastrophically when outside their "intended use". The problem was
=not= caused by the modified fuel system, rather, the problem was caused
by unexpected sensor input. In this case the unexpected sensor input
was caused by the modified fuel system, but it could have come from any
number of reasons, and the whole point of aviation systems is that they
be robust.
NW_Pilot
> Typically wing tanks are filled to the brim of the filler neck.
> Presumably that leaves some air trapped in the tank. Without knowing
> the exact placement of the fuel vent pipe intake within the tank, it
> is difficult to confirm an over pressure condition in this case.
> Absent knowledge of how Mr. Rhine came to his "over pressurizing"
> conclusion, it is difficult to substantiate it as fact. Might not the
> venting fuel have been merely excess fuel draining from the tank as it
> was designed to do when the tank is over filled? After all,
> presumably it is the same fuel pump operating in both the factory
> designed fuel system and the aux fuel system.
The Aux system used it's own fuel pump and it was tied in after the aircraft
fuel shut off valve.
Mxsmanic
> I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
> and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot. It might
> be a piss poor design or it might be something else.
It's always poor design, unless power is cut to the system. This is
something that many software engineers don't understand.
The aircraft does not freeze in suspended animation while the system
reboots.
> I just went back and
> re-read the story and realized that this was not truly a garmin problem.
If the G1000 rebooted, it's a Garmin problem (although there may be
others).
> The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
> outside the design envelop of the garmin system.
Rebooting is not an appropriate response to excursions outside the
envelope.
> Bottom line is
> that this was a modified system and to hold garmin responsible and use
> that are a reason not to have advanced avionics is not good idea.
Why not? Does somebody have to die first?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mxsmanic
> It would seem that Airbus has successfully grappled with this issue.
On the contrary, Airbus has shown just what a serious problem it is.
> Perhaps Cessna and Garmin should get a clue from them.
Perhaps installing a video game in place of standard avionics isn't a
good idea.
Larry Dighera
<use...@aircraft-nospam-delivery.net> wrote in
<l_KdnUWj2YaXp7zY...@comcast.com>:
So you're saying, that there was a new fuel selector valve placed in
the fuel line between the normal On/Off Cessna fuel selector valve and
the engine?
And the aux fuel system consisted of a fuel quantity indicator, the
aux fuel tank and vent, an additional fuel pump and electrical switch,
and a single fuel line leading from the aux fuel tank to the added
fuel selector valve?
Jim Logajan
> The problem with that statement is that many GA pilots haven't even
> read the book to know what it says.
What's the ISBN of this book?
Jon Kraus
> The aircraft does not freeze in suspended animation while the system
> reboots.
>
Larry Dighera
wrote in <Xns9850624D76D1...@216.168.3.30>:
I believe Mr. Smith is referring to the aircraft's POH.
Jim Logajan
> I agree that continuous rebooting is a bad idea.
Just FYI, NASA's Mars Spirit rover got itself into a continuous reboot
cycle too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_rover
I've been involved in a couple of projects where we considered adding an
external hardware watchdog reboot system. (These are simple systems that
must be sent a heartbeat pulse periodically by the application, otherwise
the watchdog assumes the app died and does a hard reset of the application
system.)
Automatic reboot is of course a last resort, but given a choice between a
distant system that freezes up entirely and all hope of recovery is lost
and one that reboots into a state long enough to allow a small chance to
salvage the situation, I think the latter is preferred.
Jose
Different application. Here we have a live pilot who can make a
decision and push the button, but the computer decides to push it for
him. There, it's completely on its own, and a last resort is
worthwhile. One just make sure the last resort doesn't get too
impatient. :)
Jay Honeck
> > You can't worry about it.
>
> I agree. What's to worry about? Flames aren't fatal. They don't even
> hurt. :-)
Well, as you know I am immune to flames, too -- but I often hear from
"lurkers" who say they don't post for fear of getting lambasted.
Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
-- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
poison pens.
Jon Kraus
little lambasting built character...
Now get out there and get your freakn' Instrument Rating!! ;-)
Jon Kraus
Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP
Steve Foley
news:r6f2i2hu5stqteaf7...@4ax.com...
> John Theune writes:
>
> > I'm a software engineer and I've dabbled a little in real time systems
> > and there are many things that can cause a system to reboot. It might
> > be a piss poor design or it might be something else.
>
> It's always poor design, unless power is cut to the system.
Your absolutes are simply amazing.
NW_Pilot
> Given the fact that the aux fuel system was a modification upon which
> your safety depended, did you personally take the time to analyze its
> intended operation from the schematic diagram and description of
> system operation (not its use, but how it was engineered to operate)?
> I believe you are intelligent enough to have done a reasonable job of
> system analysis without benefit of specific training or an appropriate
> college degree.
Yes, I looked at the system!
>
>>and so did the engineer that designed it and
>>wrote the instructions for it's usage! I would also assume so did the faa
>>inspector that approved the system description and usage instructions.
>>Once
>>you go changing the factory fuel system design you go from the engineered
>>description of the now modified fuel system.
>
> If I understand your story correctly, the cause of the wing tank
> venting was a result of the fuel return line pouring fuel that was
> being feed from the separate aux tank fuel system into the wing
> tank(s). Is that correct?
The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks. The
description also stated that it was connected after the aircraft fuel
system.
>
>> They left out something very very important in the new systems
>> description!
>
> Are you referring to the necessity to burn fuel from the wing tanks
> before switching to the aux tank, so that there would be adequate room
> in the wing tanks to hold the fuel being returned from the fuel
> injection system?
Correct, They failed to mention this the description and instruction
provided!
therir instruction basicaly short and simple! Climb to altitude on both
tanks aircraft tanks once at altitude switch to ferry tank until specified
mark on aux tank near empty then switch back to aircraft fuel.
Now!! If the instructions stated to run on the left tank till near empty
then switch to the ferry tank and monitor the left tank fuel quantity and
return to aircraft fuel and switch ferry tank off when left tank was almost
full about 2 hours flight time this little problem would not have happened.
The Greenland CAA took a copy of the instructions and fuel system
description and copy of Cessna description of the problem and will be
contacting the ferry tank mfg and installer telling them to correct their
system instructions.
>
> Can you provide the manufacturer's name and model number for the aux
> fuel system installed in the aircraft you delivered?
The Ferry tank was Manufactured And Installed By Telford Aviation In Bangor,
Maine. In the future I will try and avoid this company or flying with this
company's installed equipment if at all possible and if I am to use them
(Not Likely) I will require them to provide a full schematic of the system
and talk with them more to support their documentation. Another thing that
pisses me off when I called the company (telford) to help with the problem
they were rude and said there instruction were correct and that it was not
their problem! Cessna support and the weekend A&P in Greenland were the best
they had a solution with in a few hours after faxing the instructions to
them and are also writing a letter to Telford explaining the problem with
their instructions.
>
> How large is the documentation of the aux fuel system? Is it possible
> you could make a scanned copy available? In particular, I'd like to
> see a schematic drawing of the system and the description of its
> operation, and its operation use instructions, in that order.
No schematic was available only textual description of the fuel system and
its operation. All paperwork was given to new owner and there was no photo
copy machine available in Beirut at time of delivery for me to make a copy
for myself. The Greenland CAA made copies of all paperwork and said they
will forward me copies of all paperwork.
>
Paul Tomblin
>mrob...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> I agree that continuous rebooting is a bad idea.
>
>Just FYI, NASA's Mars Spirit rover got itself into a continuous reboot
>cycle too:
And even then they only way they fixed it was to figure out a way to stop
it rebooting long enough to listen to some commands.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Pity stayed his hand. "It's a pity I've run out of bullets", he thought.
-- Bored of the Rings
NW_Pilot
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:CQaUg.7725$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Don't think it was just one error causing the system to fail and reboot I
think it was multiple problems compounded by 1 problem. But still the system
should not reboot itself. When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
Garmin support they said they had a similar problem during stalls and slow
flight.
NW_Pilot
The 172 SP has a fuel slector Valve L - B - R Plus A Fuel shut off Valve!
The Ferry Tank had a shut off valve fuel pump a hose that connected after
the aircraft fuel system shut off valve.
See Photo! Look by the aircraft fuel Selector You will see a Fuel Shut Off
Valve and The Fuel Pump with Switch.
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/NWPilots-Transatlantic/2006-9-12-SurvivalGear.jpg
Jose
> system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
> description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks.
How would the fuel get to the main tanks in the first place? Is the
engine the only connection? (if so, with the fuel selector OFF that
should block fuel flow to the main tanks). Is there a vent line that
connects them?
Larry Dighera
in <1159811120.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>> I agree. What's to worry about? Flames aren't fatal. They don't even
>> hurt. :-)
>
>Well, as you know I am immune to flames, too
We see few actual flames in this newsgroup. Most acrimonious
responses are more in the nature of heated discussion and
disagreements. Here's an example of what I consider a classic flame:
> You know - they say that people with
> I.Q.'s over 40-points apart are pretty
> much unintelligible to each other.
> That's just a random observation with no
> ulterior meaning attached to it :P
> As I read it, stupidity installed itself long
> before you clocked three score and ten,
> you are merely coming out, in bloom.
> Let's pretend that you really are not an
> obnoxious ignorant, cowardly, motor-mouthed
> cretin exuding digital diarrhea as a pretext
> to seeking a Life? About as topical as the
> man who thinks its cool to jam garden gnomes
> headlong up his ass to prove a qualified
> opinion on de rigueur art decor, your puerile
> attempt at self adulation is hilarious!
> Unfortunately my having no respect for you
> means your opinion of what I or anyone else
> needs to respect means absolutely nothing.
>
> Don't forget to fuck yourself on your way
> out, moron.
We don't see much in the way of that sort of "creative writing" in
this newsgroup (thankfully).
>-- but I often hear from "lurkers" who say they don't post for fear of getting lambasted.
If the lurkers post USEFUL INFORMATION, that is correct and supported
by independent citations, they have nothing to fear. Otherwise, it
would appear that the 'flameage' is working.
>Not everyone is a thick-skinned as we are, and -- if we want GA to grow
>-- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
>poison pens.
Welcoming EVERYONE? You feel critical thinking* is misplaced? You
would recommend welcoming the likes of Mohammed Atta, AOL users, Ted
Kaczynski, Ted Bundy, John W. Hinckley, Jr, ...? Welcoming EVERYONE
could reduce Usenet to a the status of FidoNet. If you don't mean
'everyone,' don't use absolute language.
I have no tacit agenda to entice the timid to indulge in aviation.
If they are afraid of public response to their words, they are
probably much too fearful to become airmen.
Although you apparently believe Usenet was intended for kibitzing,
inane prattle, and chit chat, it is actually for the sharing of
INFORMATION.
This fellow put it well:
In my opinion, it is a very helpful (and in some instances quite
necessary) virtue to be able to take criticism even if it is
offensive or insulting. In fact, even the most offensive
criticism might (and hopefully does!) contain insights that are
valuable, and by disregarding the entire criticism, you are
throwing away that insight. You may not like it, but it sometimes
does pay to listen to a person that is not as friendly as you'd
like her to be.
-- Tobias Dussa <tdu...@sdhs.de>
</rant>
Jose
> Garmin support they said they had a similar
> problem during stalls and slow flight.
Sheesh, and they marketed it anyway?
Larry Dighera
<use...@aircraft-nospam-delivery.net> wrote in
<R4WdnTcON5yww7zY...@comcast.com>:
> When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
>Garmin support they said they had a similar problem
>during stalls and slow flight.
So, the uncommanded FIS rebooting was a known issue, and both
manufactures chose to release their products for use? One would have
thought Cessna would have learned not to do that from their seat-rail
issue. I hope the premiums are paid current on their errors and
omissions insurance policies.
Larry Dighera
wrote in <3kdUg.8335$vJ2....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>How would the fuel get to the main tanks in the first place?
Read Mr. Rhine's narrative. The FI system has a fuel return line to
return unused fuel pumped to the engine back to the wing tank(s).
Jose
> return unused fuel pumped to the engine back to the wing tank(s).
Is this dumb, or is there a good reason not to return fuel to the tank
whence it came, in this case, the ferry tank?
Gig 601XL Builder
> Here's an example of what I consider a classic flame:
>
> > You know - they say that people with
> > I.Q.'s over 40-points apart are pretty
> > much unintelligible to each other.
> > That's just a random observation with no
> > ulterior meaning attached to it :P
> > As I read it, stupidity installed itself long
> > before you clocked three score and ten,
> > you are merely coming out, in bloom.
> > Let's pretend that you really are not an
> > obnoxious ignorant, cowardly, motor-mouthed
> > cretin exuding digital diarrhea as a pretext
> > to seeking a Life? About as topical as the
> > man who thinks its cool to jam garden gnomes
> > headlong up his ass to prove a qualified
> > opinion on de rigueur art decor, your puerile
> > attempt at self adulation is hilarious!
> > Unfortunately my having no respect for you
> > means your opinion of what I or anyone else
> > needs to respect means absolutely nothing.
> >
> > Don't forget to fuck yourself on your way
> > out, moron.
>
Larry,
Who'd you piss off over in alt.languages.english? :)
Andrey Serbinenko
modern avionics. In particular, one thing that I believe is different between
Garmin's baby and what they have in B-s and A-s is redundancy. The whole thing
there is doubled, and some critical components are tripled. And then there's
a whole body of software that takes care of voting-elimination among inputs.
By design, the event of the computer reboot (i.e. all three redundant computers
reboot) is perhaps as likely as the event of all four engines quitting at the
same time. What surprises me is that Garmin got FAA approval for such a system,
whereas it doesn't even come close to what "normal" glass cockpit is supposed
to be like in terms of robustness of system design. I understand it's all done
in the name of affordability, but this is clearly a dangerous game to play.
If you think about it, just to be able to claim any kind of "robustness",
you should be reasonably sure that there's no single failure that will take
the whole system out, right? And there we go: excessive fuel venting took
airspeed indicator out completely, and CO indication out completely. And this
is aside from any software bugs; this is the way G1000 is supposed to work
by design!
So, I guess my point is: you can't just take a steam-gauge-type airplane,
replace all the individual *independent* instrument systems with one
electronic box, and claim you've got an equally reliable plane. No way. By
tying everything together and establishing inter-system dependencies that
never existed before, you increase your likelihood of a catastrophic failure
by orders of magnitude. If you want to use an all-in-one instrument system,
you need to redesign the airplane and fit it with redundant systems to
compensate for that loss of overall reliability.
That's the book, btw:
http://www.amazon.com/Avionics-Handbook-Cary-R-Spitzer/dp/084938348X/sr=1-2/qid=1159814793/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-3654151-1914542?ie=UTF8&s=books
Andrey
Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:18:13 GMT, Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net>
> wrote in <FH5Ug.1579$Db4.2...@news1.epix.net>:
>
>>... , it isn't a good idea to have all of your
>>eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is made of software! :-)
>
> It would seem that Airbus has successfully grappled with this issue.
Allen
>> The aux tank was connected directly to the engine after the aircraft fuel
>> system, Not to the wing and the provided documentation and system
>> description mentioned nothing about the fuel return to the main tanks.
>
> How would the fuel get to the main tanks in the first place? Is the
> engine the only connection? (if so, with the fuel selector OFF that
> should block fuel flow to the main tanks). Is there a vent line that
> connects them?
Excess fuel from the engine is returned to the main tanks. Twin Cessna's
are the same way; if you switch to the aux tanks before burning a certain
amount out of the mains (90 minutes for the large aux tanks) the mains will
overfill and vent overboard before the aux tanks are empty.
Allen
Gig 601XL Builder
>> The FI system has a fuel return line to
>> return unused fuel pumped to the engine back to the wing tank(s).
>
> Is this dumb, or is there a good reason not to return fuel to the tank
> whence it came, in this case, the ferry tank?
>
> Jose
There would probably be a significant amount of under the cowling work that
would have to be done. So the good reason is cost.
NW_Pilot
Yea, its a scary thought! The G1,000 System is nice when it works "Great IFR
platform for situational awareness" But they do need some manual back up of
some critical items for safe IFR flight. I know I would not fly into IFR
conditions in a G1000 equipped airplane with my family or a passenger on
board. After sitting for 70 hours on Cessna version of the G1000 Scares the
hell out of me and it takes a lot to scare me! To many bugs and failure in
70 hours of flight! Look at my finial day the Tach. even failed!
Montblack
> If the lurkers post USEFUL INFORMATION, that is correct and supported by
> independent citations, they have nothing to fear. Otherwise, it would
> appear that the 'flameage' is working.
"Bloviating idiot" is still my favorite ...flameage.
Montblack
Montblack
> Adventure like this was made for adrenaline junkie like you ;-)
> Congratulations for an exceedingly well done job. Actions speak louder
> than words, it takes both a cool head and good piloting skill to handle
> this scary event. I don't think that you can ever silent net armchair
> critics, Monday morning quarterbacks etc but I hope that you have erased
> some doubts in the mind of some of your 'frequent' critics.
Agreed.
Congratulations! Well done.
Montblack
NW_Pilot
"Allen" <ha_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3PdUg.935$NE6...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
And there is a note in the description of that fuel system that explains
that! Which was not included in the description of the modified fuel system
on the 172.
Gig 601XL Builder
"NW_Pilot" <use...@aircraft-nospam-delivery.net> wrote in message
news:I-qdnZJiB86u8bzY...@comcast.com...
>
> Yea, its a scary thought! The G1,000 System is nice when it works "Great
> IFR platform for situational awareness" But they do need some manual back
> up of some critical items for safe IFR flight. I know I would not fly into
> IFR conditions in a G1000 equipped airplane with my family or a passenger
> on board. After sitting for 70 hours on Cessna version of the G1000 Scares
> the hell out of me and it takes a lot to scare me! To many bugs and
> failure in 70 hours of flight! Look at my finial day the Tach. even
> failed!
>
>
I think you did good. This whole adventure and your handling of it has IMHO
wiped away the stain on your reputation that was the 150 roll.
Stefan
> Yea, its a scary thought! The G1,000 System is nice when it works "Great IFR
> platform for situational awareness" But they do need some manual back up of
> some critical items for safe IFR flight. I know I would not fly into IFR
> conditions in a G1000 equipped airplane with my family or a passenger on
Not that I want to excuse those system failures the least bit, and not
that I would not have an adrenaline rush in that situation, but there
*are* manual back ups for the critical items! At least in those planes
I've seen so far, there has always been a "steam" AI, a "steam" ASI, a
"steam" altimeter and a whisky compass. You can perfectly fly in IMC
with this equipment.
> Look at my finial day the Tach. even failed!
Hardly a critical item.
Stefan
Larry Dighera
wrote in <AGdUg.8341$vJ2....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>Is this dumb, or is there a good reason not to return fuel to the tank
>whence it came, in this case, the ferry tank?
I suppose it was an engineering expedient to simplify the
installation.
NW_Pilot
"Andrey Serbinenko" <rsa...@gmail.spam-me-not.com> wrote in message
news:452167fa$0$25773$22fe...@news.thorn.net...
The G1000 system If you buy one or intend to fly one in the Soup be current
and really proficient on you partial panel skill because in the event of a
G1000 failure or even partial failure you will be left with and Compass,
Altimeter, Attitude Indicator, and Airspeed Indicator and a bunch of useless
knobs and buttons or questionable reading from a partial failure. It's
almost an IFR pilots worst nightmare yea a Vacuum and Electrical System
Failure as when the G1000 goes radios, navigation, & transponder go along
with it!
I don't think it would cost Cessna much $$$ to put some manual back up
instruments in the panel even if they are the small ones they already charge
to much for a skyhawk why not add 3k or 4k if even that much to the price
and add some redundancy to the system!
Larry Dighera
<rsa...@gmail.spam-me-not.com> wrote in
<452167fa$0$25773$22fe...@news.thorn.net>:
>So, I guess my point is: you can't just take a steam-gauge-type airplane,
>replace all the individual *independent* instrument systems with one
>electronic box, and claim you've got an equally reliable plane. No way.
Obviously you are not a member of the Cessna marketing team. :-)
Thanks for the link to the book. If I knew the appropriate
individuals at Garmin and Cessna to send it to, I would.
Neil Gould
>> The FI system has a fuel return line to
>> return unused fuel pumped to the engine back to the wing tank(s).
>
> Is this dumb, or is there a good reason not to return fuel to the tank
> whence it came, in this case, the ferry tank?
>
I think it's short-sighted, as it didn't consider the entire fuel system.
From the description that NW_Pilot gave, the aux fuel system seems more
like a kludge than something that was designed.
Neil
Larry Dighera
wrote in <3PdUg.935$NE6...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>:
> Twin Cessna's
>are the same way; if you switch to the aux tanks before burning a certain
>amount out of the mains (90 minutes for the large aux tanks) the mains will
>overfill and vent overboard before the aux tanks are empty.
Are you saying that Cessna designed the fuel system that way, and the
FAA certified it? Or are you referring to a ferry tank?
It makes you wonder if the FAA would certify kinking the fuel line
instead of providing a valve to shut off fuel flow. :-)
Allen
That is true, I am not inferring anything. You would think the tank company
would be familiar enough with the aircraft they are installing tanks into to
have a working (correct) procedure manual. Surely you are not the first to
ferry this particular combination.
Allen
Larry Dighera
<use...@aircraft-nospam-delivery.net> wrote in
<I-qdnZJiB86u8bzY...@comcast.com>:
>After sitting for 70 hours on Cessna version of the G1000 Scares the
>hell out of me and it takes a lot to scare me! To many bugs and failure in
>70 hours of flight! Look at my finial day the Tach. even failed!
Was that a mechanical tach?
I would write a report of your experience detailing the equipment
failures that occurred, and politely and respectfully send copies to
Cessna and Garmin. If you word it, so that it contains implicit
references to their exposure to civil liability, and express your
disappointment with the performance of their products, who knows how
they may respond. They may try to appease you with a perk or two. If
not, forward the report to AOPA, FSDO, and AvWeb. :-)
NW_Pilot
"Stefan" <stefan@mus._INVALID_.ch> wrote in message
news:340b7$452170e8$54487310$18...@news.hispeed.ch...
I would not say perfectly you can hold straight and level and do climbs and
descents but without a reliable source of navigation except for a compass
(which has it's errors) and the deviations in Greenland area can be as much
as 40 degrees then add the wind correction makes for challenging navigation
for a few hundred miles with only a compass. Now when the only approach you
have is an NDB and the indicator don't work hahahaha!!! Trust me you don't
want to be there it's not fun but, it is a rush up until the moment you turn
on your portable gps and it downloads your present position and draws a line
to the nearest airport 200+ miles away!
Larry Dighera
<use...@aircraft-nospam-delivery.net> wrote in
<vOGdnUOQ2J1Fw7zY...@comcast.com>:
What position was the position of the Cessna fuel shut off valve while
you were running on the aux tank?
Michael
> He did everything by the book, but the book was wrong. A pilot is not
> supposed to assume that an FAA approved book is wrong!
On the contrary. When flying an aircraft that has just had major
modifications to critical componets and/or systems, one becomes a test
pilot. There is nothing wrong with this - SOMEONE has to be a test
pilot.
However, there is a difference between flying proven production
aircraft and being a test pilot. The pilot flying proven production
aircraft need only study the approved guidance and procedures (the
book!) and fly by the book - and usually all will be well. This is not
because the
book is FAA approved, but because it is time-tested. The FAA approval
is pretty much irrelevant.
When one becomes a test pilot, the world changes. Now the pilot must
study the system in detail (pulling off the cowls and tracing the lines
if necessary) and understand exactly how it works. He must consider
the normal operation and the failure modes. This will give him an edge
in troubleshooting if something should go wrong in flight, but that is
secondary. More importantly, it makes things going wrong in flight far
less likely.
Reading the book and flying by the book is not enough in this
situation. The fact that the book and the system are FAA-approved is
irrelevant. Neither the book nor the system are time-proven. Unless
you are prepared to trust a bunch of federal bureaucrats who couldn't
find better work with your life, you need to understand what it is they
approved.
> In fact, I'm
> scared of pilots who establish their own ad hoc procedures because they
> think they know better than the book.
Being a test pilot is often all about coming up with an ad-hoc
procedure, because the book is wrong - because someone didn't think of
something.
Now for our adventurer:
Once the emergency developed, you did a good job flying the emergency.
I don't want to take anything away from you there.
Your preparation for the flight, though, was incomplete. You knew that
you had a highly modified fuel system which is rarely installed on this
sort of airplane. You also knew that you had an injected engine. The
FIRST question you should have asked is - is there a vapor return line
(not all fuel injected engines have them) and if there is, where does
it go? I'm guessing you didn't ask the question because you didn't
have experience with other airplanes where this was an issue. That's
the value of breadth of experience when it comes to being a test pilot.
I accept that your documentation did not answer that question. But the
problem is, you didn't even ask it. Had you asked, you could have
gotten some sort of answer - and in any case, even a cursory
examination of the plumbing would have told you that it wasn't going
back to the ferry tank (they never do, you know) and would have forced
you to consider the problem - and to develop an operating procedure a
lot more correct than the approved one.
In theory I suppose it could be possible to become a capable,
proficient, experienced pilot without making mistakes like this and
scaring yourself. I've never seen it happen. Every experienced,
capable, proficient pilot I know got there the same way - by going out
and doing stuff, amking mistakes, and scaring himself. The difference
between the ones who get there and the ones who drop out along the way
is basically this - the ones who get there learn from the experience,
and learn not to make the same class of mistake again. You see, while
you handled the emergency, that's not the sort of thing you can count
on handling 100 times out of 100.
I'm sure you won't make the exact same mistake again - not
understanding what your modified fuel system really does - but the
lesson to learn is broader. If you are flying something that has been
modified from the norm, make sure you understand the full extent of the
modifications and their implications before you launch.
Michael
NW_Pilot
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3cp2i2dpv3jrkuln1...@4ax.com...
The aircraft shut off valve was pulled straight out "Aircraft Fuel Off"
NW_Pilot
Larry, That's a great Idea and the Tach. was part of the G1000 system I am
not sure of the cause of the failure did not hang around in Beirut long
enough to find out the diagnostics.
Stefan
> for a few hundred miles with only a compass. Now when the only approach you
> have is an NDB and the indicator don't work hahahaha!!! Trust me you don't
> want to be there it's not fun but,
I trust you. All I said is that there are all the backup instrument
needed to keep the plane flying. Now if your mission *relies* on
electronic navigation aids, then it's a good idea to have such a backup
handy. But not all missions rely on them, so I don't see the need to add
them by default.
Stefan
Jay Honeck
> >-- we need to be welcoming everyone into this group with open arms, not
> >poison pens.
>
> Welcoming EVERYONE? You feel critical thinking* is misplaced? You
> would recommend welcoming the likes of Mohammed Atta, AOL users, Ted
> Kaczynski, Ted Bundy, John W. Hinckley, Jr, ...? Welcoming EVERYONE
> could reduce Usenet to a the status of FidoNet. If you don't mean
> 'everyone,' don't use absolute language.
You know, imitating Steven McNicoll won't get you anywhere with me,
Larry...
;-)
Seriously, you need to develop a method of filtering language so you
can detect mild hyperbole. In this case "Everyone" doesn't mean
"Adolph Hitler" or "Sadaam Hussein", or "Bill Clinton" -- but it DOES
mean guys like NW_Pilot, who is CLEARLY not a timid soul.
Incidentally, to give you some idea of the intimidation factor you (and
others) cause in this 'group, in the name of "keeping the
signal-to-noise ratio high", I have received quite a few off-line
emails THANKING me for bringing up the flaming in this group.
Ironically -- sadly -- they sent the messages to me off-group, for fear
of the reaction they might generate by posting.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Mxsmanic
> When on the phone with Cessna engineering and
> Garmin support they said they had a similar problem during stalls and slow
> flight.
I guess reboots are to be expected during stalls and slow flight,
given how incredibly rare and improbable these things are, eh?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mxsmanic
> Sheesh, and they marketed it anyway?
That's the standard PC mindset. If it compiles without errors, ship
it. Works great for Excel. If it kills anybody, his kin can call
technical support and get the first 10 minutes free.
Mxsmanic
> So, the uncommanded FIS rebooting was a known issue, and both
> manufactures chose to release their products for use?
Money talks.
> I hope the premiums are paid current on their errors and
> omissions insurance policies.
Software seems to be mysteriously immune to this sort of lawsuit.
NW_Pilot
"Michael" <usenet...@thisoldairplane.com> wrote in message
news:1159822236.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Oh! Yea I learned a bunch from this trip.... I did ask questions about the
fuel system prior to launch "I have flown other tanked airplanes" and the
answer from them was the same that was written on paper when the aircraft
fuel system is completely disconnected "In the off position" the aircraft is
running only on the ferry tank system connected directly to the engine after
the aircraft fuel shut off valve.
The chances of myself refering or using this company for tanking is slim I
did not pick this company the customer did and the customer was not happy
with their services anyway they did a piss poor job at cutting the panel
when they installed the ADF and PS eng. entertainment system. (I could have
done a better job with a hack saw and a drill) and the painting on the
Horton kit they installed looked like orange peal!
I myself prefer the turtlepac bag systems (Used Them A Few Times) they are
set up to transfer fuel form a fuel bag to a main aircraft tank they are
really simple and work great! http://www.turtlepac.com/collapsibleair.htm
and http://www.turtlepac.com/aircraftferry.htm