Glass Cockpit Failures

  • Thread starter Ted Spitzmiller
  • Start date
T

Ted Spitzmiller

Guest
Hi, I'm a CFII and author who is new to POA. I am preparing an article on the problems and pitfalls of handlng in-flight failures with the glass cockpit environment. I am interested in any situations you have encountered or have heard about that might be helpful in understanding the problems posd by this aspect of the TAA.

Thank you,

Ted
 
I verified Ted's credentials in the Airman Database. Yup, he exists with the credential stated; sorry, Ted, we have to check--we sometimes get lawyers or newspaper reporters posing to be other than they say to get "dirt" to use against GA.
 
Last edited:
Troy Whistman said:
Yup, that person exists with the credential stated; sorry, Ted, we have to check--we sometimes get lawyers or newspaper reporters posing to be other than they say to get "dirt" to use against GA.
Click to expand...
Troy, you know that comes from a gubmint site. You can't trust them! :D

In all seriousness, there have been complaints about the Garmin G-1000 blanking out. Someone said it happen to them in one our three G-1000 equipped Skyhawks. No one else has seen it.

Cessna and Garmin are aware of it but cannot duplicate the problem. Right now, their only speculation is it may be interference by cell phones left on. I've gotten well over fifty hours between the three and have never had a problem. But, on IFR flights I am conscious of turning off my cell phone.

Cessna may have more information on the issue. I'd love to know more.
 
Nav8tor said:
Was that both screens at once?
Click to expand...
I don't know any of the details of what they experienced. There didn't appear to be a lot of detail from the pilot who flew it. These are primarily training birds so it's mostly low-time solo students or certificated pilots who fly them. I'm one of the few beyond PPL who takes the Skyhawks on a XC. Again, I've never experienced an issue. I flew one bird for fourteen hours over this last Christmas weekend and she was perfect with exception of the dang tail number; 822TK (owner's wife's initials and birth date).

I'm now recalling... there was another thread recently on this board regarding an issue of the electronic altimeter sensors having to be shipped off for recalibration at one school. You can find it through a search.

It might be worth getting in touch with Max Trescott. His site is www.g1000book.com. He wrote the book about six months or so into the release of G-1000. Now, some are coming into the two-year point of equipment inspection & calibration such as the altimeter and static system.

These are all non-official sources so take them with a grain of salt. I'd like to see something from Garmin on the issues.
 
I might add that I currently have about 100 hours in the C-182T NAV III as a CAP check pilot and have reviewed the Garmin manuals to include the DPE directives regarding simulating failures. I went through the Cessna FITS training in Independence. It took about 30 hours before I felt reasonably comfortable to consider hard IFR. So far the G-1000 has been the perfect lady.

Ted
 
Ted,
All I can add is more anecdotal evidence. In my 10 hours or so in G1000-equipped Diamondstars, I've not experienced any problems with failures. I think Ken's idea of getting in touch with Max is a good one. As I recall, he's been on the board here a time or two, but is not a regular.

Outside the scope of your article is the expense of the altimiter check. I've heard that it's expensive (four figures) and difficult to find someone qualified to do one. That said, I love flying behind one, as long as the XM subscription and GPS database are up-to-date!
 
Rio Rancho, eh? There's something there other than one of my employer's fabs?

Welcome to POA. Stick around, we're a reasonably friendly bunch. Just watch out for the spin zone. :D
 
Ted,

Get in touch with Rob Honeycutt at Zuluworks. He had an in-flight AHARS failure on his G1000 about a year ago and can give you some first-hand perspective.

Regards,
Joe
 
Ted Spitzmiller said:
I might add that I currently have about 100 hours in the C-182T NAV III as a CAP check pilot and have reviewed the Garmin manuals to include the DPE directives regarding simulating failures. I went through the Cessna FITS training in Independence. It took about 30 hours before I felt reasonably comfortable to consider hard IFR. So far the G-1000 has been the perfect lady.

Ted
Click to expand...

Ted, I've got about a 120 hours in a CAP C-182T NAV III as well and have not experienced any problems with the G1000 in flight.
We did have the screens go black a couple of times on the ground though but that turned out to be the dimmer. The screens only lit up when the switch was turned to full bright and it only happened when it was really cold. We cleaned the switch and have not had a problem since.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
An Airbus got into an upset situation & the displays reset themselves when the pilot needed them most. IIRC, the system thought an extreme bank was indicative of a system failure.

FAA link:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8400/hbat/media/hbat9810.doc
Click to expand...
Gosh, that's just plain dangerous. A flight management system should never be able to suddenly shut down or restart on its own. Perhaps notice of a problem and need to restart but only if activated by the pilot. Otherwise, it should keep running until there's simply no electrical power.
 
KennyFlys said:
Gosh, that's just plain dangerous. A flight management system should never be able to suddenly shut down or restart on its own.
Click to expand...

That's apparently not Airbus' design philosophy... The pilots are not entirely in command. :hairraise:
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Hi Ted-

An Airbus got into an upset situation & the displays reset themselves when the pilot needed them most. IIRC, the system tought an extreme bank was indicative of a system failure.

FAA link:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8400/hbat/media/hbat9810.doc
Click to expand...

This problem was in the flight management system and not the glass panel. We need to separate those since the glass panel itself does not fly the aircraft. The G1000 equipped aircraft I fly has a Bendix autopilot that is not coupled to the G1000. That autopilot can fail and get me in to trouble wether I've got a glass panel or steam gauges. I hear this common misconception all the time. People are afraid the glass cockpit will "take the aircraft away from them" and that is not correct....:)
 
Ted Spitzmiller said:
Hi, I'm a CFII and author who is new to POA. I am preparing an article on the problems and pitfalls of handlng in-flight failures with the glass cockpit environment. I am interested in any situations you have encountered or have heard about that might be helpful in understanding the problems posd by this aspect of the TAA.
Click to expand...

Ted,

Have a look at this accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050131X00119&key=1

According to maintenance records, the PFD was replaced on June 4, 2004, at 12.2 hours, on September 14, 2004, at 55.2 hours, and on December 20, 2004, at 80.6 hours.
Click to expand...

If you read further in the full narrative, you'll see that there was an additional un-logged PFD replacement in October. So, that means that the aircraft was on its fifth PFD when it crashed. The pilot stated to ATC that he was having "avionics problems" before "I'm losin' it..." :eek:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The pilot stated to ATC that he was having "avionics problems" before "I'm losin' it..." :eek:
Click to expand...

Wow, here's a similar one. Instrument problems, requested return to field, cleared for such, no acknowledgment, radar indicates they probably crashed into the ocean. No plane or survivors found.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060208X00177&key=1

Heck, just looking through the Florida incidents with Cirri indicates that some of the non-fatals were having "instrument problems" too.
 
Capflyer said:
This problem was in the flight management system and not the glass panel. We need to separate those since the glass panel itself does not fly the aircraft. The G1000 equipped aircraft I fly has a Bendix autopilot that is not coupled to the G1000. That autopilot can fail and get me in to trouble wether I've got a glass panel or steam gauges. I hear this common misconception all the time. People are afraid the glass cockpit will "take the aircraft away from them" and that is not correct....:)
Click to expand...


I'm sorry- but the system as a whole failed. The pilots only saw a line on the screens- their primary instruments were removed from view. The pilots still had control, but they lost the ability to see that they were making the appropriate control inputs on the glass panels. They had to read off the secondary gauges. The system decided the bank angles were impossible values and shut off the flight displays. This certainly counts as a documented glass cockpit failure. I suggest you re-read the link.
 
Capflyer said:
This problem was in the flight management system and not the glass panel. We need to separate those since the glass panel itself does not fly the aircraft. The G1000 equipped aircraft I fly has a Bendix autopilot that is not coupled to the G1000. That autopilot can fail and get me in to trouble wether I've got a glass panel or steam gauges. I hear this common misconception all the time. People are afraid the glass cockpit will "take the aircraft away from them" and that is not correct....:)
Click to expand...

Not according to what I read. The initial upset may have been an FMS issue, but the fact that the sensors and computer feeding the info to the PFD couldn't accept the >40 degree per second roll and shut down the displays for a reboot and self check, that's all in the display system.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I'm sorry- but the system as a whole failed. The pilots only saw a line on the screens- their primary instruments were removed from view. The pilots still had control, but they lost the ability to see that they were making the appropriate control inputs on the glass panels. They had to read off the secondary gauges. The system decided the bank angles were impossible values and shut off the flight displays. This certainly counts as a documented glass cockpit failure. I suggest you re-read the link.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on the display issue. But, the initial problem was in the FMS and the computer feeding the displays so the glass panel itself did not cause the problem but was a result. It was the computer that shut down the displays (which I think is a big issue with Airbus). My point is that GA aircraft with glass panels (without FMS systems) will not "get a life their own" while flying as many pilots believe....:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top