Anyone who reads about me and my airplane should have figured out by now that I am a committed Glass Cockpit IFR pilot. I believe that the use of integrated avionics, advanced displays, and reliable solid-state gyro platforms (along with good pilot training and judgment) can make GA flying safer and more reliable. I make that pre-amble so that folks don't take this to be a "bashing" thread - rather, this is an item of interest that points out a fundamental requirement when we implement new technology - rock-solid, dissimilar backup systems. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Plan for failure. Have a system or plan that gets you out of it without breaking a sweat.
And with that said, here is a little report that crossed my desk the other day. This is real, it happened just a couple of weeks ago, and goes to show that no matter how much money and time you have to spend on development, you will still never have a perfectly reliable system. And you handle that by.....having a backup plan!
BTW, the software problem mentioned below has been fixed and already implemented in the fleet. It is hard to to think of everythign to test in a multi-billion-dollar development program - and somehow, the longitude goign from +180 to -180 (or somethign like that) didn't occur to anyone. RV pilot's being who they are, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't' have one or two F-22 drivers among us that have already been exposed to this...(and fortunately, this flight was on the wing of a tanker at the time!)
Subject: F-22 AEF Deployment
Date: 12 Feb 07
Narrative:
1. A 1st Fighter Wing AEF 6-ship (Petro 91) departed Hickam AFB
enroute to AEF location on 10 Feb. Approximately 4 hours into the
mission and coincidental with crossing over the International Date
Line, all six aircraft experienced a significant avionics failure
including:
Both GINS 1 and 2 Fail
FLCS Degrade
Radar Fail
Fuel Degrade
Loss of all attitude references
Loss of Flight Path marker
Loss of all navigation aides (TACAN, ILS, Computed, etc.)
Loss of all heading indications
2. Aircraft communications were available via backup radio only.
Only navigation available was via cockpit airspeed and altitude
indications (both deemed accurate). All other aircraft systems, to
include engines, electrical system and air refueling, were nominal.
3. Flight Lead, initiated via the tanker a
CONFERENCE HOTEL (CH) call with LM Aero. All CH team recommended
workarounds (avionics restarts, date and time resets, etc.) did not
resolve the problem.
4. Flight Lead assessed pressing to the AEF location but decided
to turn back and return to Hickam. He also directed the second
deployment cell, a 2-ship approximately one hour behind him, to return
to Hickam. NOTE: This 2-ship never crossed the International Date
Line.
5. Enroute back to Hickam, after crossing back over the International
Date Line, avionics restarts were unsuccessfully attempted.
6. All aircraft successfully recovered at Hickam, shut down (cold
iron), restarted engines and all avionics malfunctions cleared.
And with that said, here is a little report that crossed my desk the other day. This is real, it happened just a couple of weeks ago, and goes to show that no matter how much money and time you have to spend on development, you will still never have a perfectly reliable system. And you handle that by.....having a backup plan!
BTW, the software problem mentioned below has been fixed and already implemented in the fleet. It is hard to to think of everythign to test in a multi-billion-dollar development program - and somehow, the longitude goign from +180 to -180 (or somethign like that) didn't occur to anyone. RV pilot's being who they are, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't' have one or two F-22 drivers among us that have already been exposed to this...(and fortunately, this flight was on the wing of a tanker at the time!)
Subject: F-22 AEF Deployment
Date: 12 Feb 07
Narrative:
1. A 1st Fighter Wing AEF 6-ship (Petro 91) departed Hickam AFB
enroute to AEF location on 10 Feb. Approximately 4 hours into the
mission and coincidental with crossing over the International Date
Line, all six aircraft experienced a significant avionics failure
including:
Both GINS 1 and 2 Fail
FLCS Degrade
Radar Fail
Fuel Degrade
Loss of all attitude references
Loss of Flight Path marker
Loss of all navigation aides (TACAN, ILS, Computed, etc.)
Loss of all heading indications
2. Aircraft communications were available via backup radio only.
Only navigation available was via cockpit airspeed and altitude
indications (both deemed accurate). All other aircraft systems, to
include engines, electrical system and air refueling, were nominal.
3. Flight Lead, initiated via the tanker a
CONFERENCE HOTEL (CH) call with LM Aero. All CH team recommended
workarounds (avionics restarts, date and time resets, etc.) did not
resolve the problem.
4. Flight Lead assessed pressing to the AEF location but decided
to turn back and return to Hickam. He also directed the second
deployment cell, a 2-ship approximately one hour behind him, to return
to Hickam. NOTE: This 2-ship never crossed the International Date
Line.
5. Enroute back to Hickam, after crossing back over the International
Date Line, avionics restarts were unsuccessfully attempted.
6. All aircraft successfully recovered at Hickam, shut down (cold
iron), restarted engines and all avionics malfunctions cleared.
Last edited: