Fly2hmo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5216 times:
Are today's, or yesterday's cockpits designed to withstand, say, coffee, water, etc... on the instruments? What would happen in a modern glass cockpit or in an older analog cockpit?
I know they're not 100% waterproof, but it makes sense to me that this is taken into consideration when a cockpit is designed. You never know when you could puddle the FMC with coffee because of severe clear air turbulence.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14716 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4958 times:
An airline I used to regularly jumpseat on had a custom:
Drinks (coffee, tea, soda) were handed to the pilots NOT through the middle, over the centre pedestal, but around the outside, along the windows, over the flight bags. Makes sense!
I´ve seen enough audio panels and com panels suffering of the "Pepsi-syndrome"
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17430 posts, RR: 66
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4907 times:
Sounds like you guys have never owned an IBM Thinkpad (qualifier, a model built for travel like the 600, the T series or the X series). A colleague of mine spilled coffee with milk all over his keyb while in Virgin Upper Class. He calmly removed a small screwdriver from his bag (blunt one ok for post-9/11 flying), flipped the Thinkpad and unscrewed the keyboard. He then washed it off in the bathroom and allowed it to dry for two hours. That was a year ago and he's still using it. No problem...
As for paperclips, that's why Thinkpads have the lip around the screen. It protects against penetration by paperclip.
This goes to prove that it IS possible to build sturdy, spill-proof electronics.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1599 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4845 times:
"An airline I used to regularly jumpseat on had a custom:
Drinks (coffee, tea, soda) were handed to the pilots NOT through the middle, over the centre pedestal, but around the outside, along the windows, over the flight bags. Makes sense!"
Thats what we do when beverages served to us in cockpit.Although I had coffee spilled over me twice during my frlights I have menaged to keep the centre padestal and the FMC clean until today.One of the captains I flew told me a cup of cofee spilled over the radios caused one to mulfunction during the days he flew 727.
follow me on my facebook page" captain wing's journey log"
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14716 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4824 times:
For me coffe / drinks spilled over the instruments and dirt (food left-overs) around the seats are a BIG pet peeve, same as rubbish in the sun shade boxes and around the seats. The cleaners are not allowed to enter the cockpits except for changing rubbish bags, so we have to clean up the mess. Sometimes I think the houses of the pilots must look the same.
Skyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4811 times:
Ha, I accidentally put my cell phone in the washing machine the other day. The darn thing went through an entire cycle and worked just fine the next day. I'd like to think airline instruments are at least as durable as my phone
Avioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4600 times:
Airline instruments are just as durable as your cell phone. They are NOT, however, as lucky (normally).
Few things can find nooks, crannies, or cracks as well as Coke or Sugared coffee. And the Sugar is an excellent conductor.
I don't care how well sealed a panel is the wet stuff will find its way into the display and circuits eventually.
I worked for a company that banned liquids forward of the seat backs. It didn't matter. We still changed panels regularly for liquid intrusion.
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4285 times:
The specs that we usually deal with require environmental qualification for a whole host of undesirable situations. However, most of them quote mist tests (i.e., being sprayed with a liquid) rather than waterproof tests (being immersed in a liquid). This means that spraying a liquid (for example, when the Captain tells you the story about that woman in Bankok in 1974, while you are sipping your coffee) is OK, because it's only a spray and it won't penetrate the covers. On the other hand, if you leave a standing liquid (for example, when the Captain tells you the story of that woman in Bankok and her mother in 1975, making you drop your coffee on the FMS), it may well soak through the covers, into the electronics. At which point either the FMS directs you to Bankok or doesn't let you leave.
Once more, it comes down to economics and risk assessments. The qualification requirements are (obviously) far more stringent and taxing for waterproof equipment than for water resistant equipment. Since the risk of a malfunction and its associated costs are small, the manufacturer (directed by the FAA/CAA/other governing body) only uses the water resistant tests.
Just out of curiosity, were you thinking of coffee with or without sugar and with or without milk? Each variable will have an effect. Sugared coffee, for example, will have a significantly greater effect on a mechanical control or instrument than unsugared.
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4143 times:
Handing the drinks around the outboard side of the pilot seats is called the "check airman pass" around here. It is really a good idea because the center pedestal is probably most vulnerable to spills.
Not likely that anyone will set a drink cup on the glareshield. It has quite a slope. Have seen pilots do it though, set the coffee down far enough forward that the top is held by the slope of the windshield. Won't work for a full cup. Makes me uncomfortable. Spilling coffee on the boot surrounding the Airbus sidestick is another goof worthy of a thorough cleanup.
I have no personal experience with coffee's effects on airplanes, but having dropped a very expensive video camera in Utah's Virgin River I'm guessing it would be a bad thing.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 38
Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3828 times:
Liquid will not cause a short circuit as long as we are talking about 28V systems, will be a problem with 115V systems though.
Years ago we had a big modification program which involved taping all the covers of the control panels mounted in the pedestal because those pilots don't use there cup holders underneath the window but the pedestal instead with the obvious results of course.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Megaptera From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3586 times:
I know it's going slightly off topic but not long after it opened, the new high tech computer controlled signalling centre that looked after train movements in and out of London's Paddington station ground to a halt when the cursor ball became jammed and prevented any movements being made. The cause of the jam was revealed to be a build-up of toast crumbs.