Narrative:

I was flying to mkg and was in solid IMC for at least 90 miles of the flight. Serious WX (but no ts and no ice) was moving in; so as it turned out; the VMC I had left would be quickly disappearing. About 50 miles from mkg the pfd started to fade to white -- then flickered; then became solid white with multicolored lines throughout. I was flying GPS direct to mkg. Though surprised; I decided to calmly consider my options. With a pfd failure in the cirrus; the ap communication with the pfd is unavailable; so autoplt headings (vectoring) and VOR/localizer apches are not available. However; the autoplt can continue to fly the waypoints from the garmin #1 on GPS steer mode. As we all have been trained to fly with a pfd failure; the first thing I did was look for a t-style GPS approach. I checked my destination; mkg; no joy. I checked grr; ditto. While checking; the pfd 'restored' but I certainly didn't trust it. In fact; it did this several times then stayed on. While it was offline; I considered declaring an emergency but wanted to wait until I could 'say intentions.' I was concerned that ATC would not understand the nature of my problem and I wanted to be sure that if/when I declared an emergency that I had a very specific set of options. Mkg was using the localizer back course 14 -- definitely didn't want to plan on that; so when I checked in with them; I requested GPS runway 14. I knew I would be vectored to the FAF. But without the pfd; vectoring would be out. The GPS 14 at mkg has a hold for the procedure turn -- not an option in my opinion. In training we were told to avoid procedure turns. Turning off a perfectly working autoplt and trying to hand fly a hold with the compass was also not an attractive option. I also expected an approach close to minimums. The recommended procedure for handling this is to request and fly a t-type GPS approach. This allows waypoint to waypoint garmin to autoplt directed flying. It is the easiest; simplest; and therefore safest. Because my destination and alternate did not have a t-type approach (I could have kept looking; but I didn't; I formulated an alternative); I determined that I could 'create' a t-type entry by using or creating a waypoint perpendicular to the IAF of the approach and skip the course reversal hold. My plan was to propose this to controllers after I had informed them of the problem (and possibly declared an emergency). As it turned out the pfd remained on; we started vectoring and I was able to comply. I was ever ready to declare; but didn't have to. I am confident that the actions I took were safe and my preparation was appropriate in the event I could no longer use my pfd. However; I have since conferred with a number of cirrus pilots who have mostly agreed with me; but many have questioned why I didn't tell ATC of my problem and/or declare an emergency. I chose not to declare an emergency for two reasons: 1) I was able to continue to fly as directed and 2) I was concerned that the controllers might not understand my problem and perhaps cause me more complications.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was not sure that if an emergency was declared that ATC would understand the problem. The reporter relied on the GPS for autoplt control and navigation with the pfd inoperative. The reporter indicated that during training they were advised to continue with GPS approach and as along as navigation was available it was not an emergency situation. The reporter reaffirmed that he felt the ATC controller would not understand about a pfd and that it would cause more problems than if the flight was continued.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CIRRUS PLT HAS FAILURE OF THE PFD (PRIMARY FLT DISPLAY) WHILE OPERATING IN IMC CONDITIONS. PLT USES THE GPS FOR NAVIGATION AND AUTOPLT INPUT.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING TO MKG AND WAS IN SOLID IMC FOR AT LEAST 90 MILES OF THE FLT. SERIOUS WX (BUT NO TS AND NO ICE) WAS MOVING IN; SO AS IT TURNED OUT; THE VMC I HAD LEFT WOULD BE QUICKLY DISAPPEARING. ABOUT 50 MILES FROM MKG THE PFD STARTED TO FADE TO WHITE -- THEN FLICKERED; THEN BECAME SOLID WHITE WITH MULTICOLORED LINES THROUGHOUT. I WAS FLYING GPS DIRECT TO MKG. THOUGH SURPRISED; I DECIDED TO CALMLY CONSIDER MY OPTIONS. WITH A PFD FAILURE IN THE CIRRUS; THE AP COMMUNICATION WITH THE PFD IS UNAVAILABLE; SO AUTOPLT HDGS (VECTORING) AND VOR/LOC APCHES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. HOWEVER; THE AUTOPLT CAN CONTINUE TO FLY THE WAYPOINTS FROM THE GARMIN #1 ON GPS STEER MODE. AS WE ALL HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO FLY WITH A PFD FAILURE; THE FIRST THING I DID WAS LOOK FOR A T-STYLE GPS APCH. I CHKED MY DEST; MKG; NO JOY. I CHKED GRR; DITTO. WHILE CHKING; THE PFD 'RESTORED' BUT I CERTAINLY DIDN'T TRUST IT. IN FACT; IT DID THIS SEVERAL TIMES THEN STAYED ON. WHILE IT WAS OFFLINE; I CONSIDERED DECLARING AN EMER BUT WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL I COULD 'SAY INTENTIONS.' I WAS CONCERNED THAT ATC WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF MY PROBLEM AND I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT IF/WHEN I DECLARED AN EMER THAT I HAD A VERY SPECIFIC SET OF OPTIONS. MKG WAS USING THE LOC BC 14 -- DEFINITELY DIDN'T WANT TO PLAN ON THAT; SO WHEN I CHKED IN WITH THEM; I REQUESTED GPS RWY 14. I KNEW I WOULD BE VECTORED TO THE FAF. BUT WITHOUT THE PFD; VECTORING WOULD BE OUT. THE GPS 14 AT MKG HAS A HOLD FOR THE PROC TURN -- NOT AN OPTION IN MY OPINION. IN TRAINING WE WERE TOLD TO AVOID PROC TURNS. TURNING OFF A PERFECTLY WORKING AUTOPLT AND TRYING TO HAND FLY A HOLD WITH THE COMPASS WAS ALSO NOT AN ATTRACTIVE OPTION. I ALSO EXPECTED AN APCH CLOSE TO MINIMUMS. THE RECOMMENDED PROC FOR HANDLING THIS IS TO REQUEST AND FLY A T-TYPE GPS APCH. THIS ALLOWS WAYPOINT TO WAYPOINT GARMIN TO AUTOPLT DIRECTED FLYING. IT IS THE EASIEST; SIMPLEST; AND THEREFORE SAFEST. BECAUSE MY DEST AND ALTERNATE DID NOT HAVE A T-TYPE APCH (I COULD HAVE KEPT LOOKING; BUT I DIDN'T; I FORMULATED AN ALTERNATIVE); I DETERMINED THAT I COULD 'CREATE' A T-TYPE ENTRY BY USING OR CREATING A WAYPOINT PERPENDICULAR TO THE IAF OF THE APCH AND SKIP THE COURSE REVERSAL HOLD. MY PLAN WAS TO PROPOSE THIS TO CTLRS AFTER I HAD INFORMED THEM OF THE PROBLEM (AND POSSIBLY DECLARED AN EMER). AS IT TURNED OUT THE PFD REMAINED ON; WE STARTED VECTORING AND I WAS ABLE TO COMPLY. I WAS EVER READY TO DECLARE; BUT DIDN'T HAVE TO. I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE ACTIONS I TOOK WERE SAFE AND MY PREPARATION WAS APPROPRIATE IN THE EVENT I COULD NO LONGER USE MY PFD. HOWEVER; I HAVE SINCE CONFERRED WITH A NUMBER OF CIRRUS PLTS WHO HAVE MOSTLY AGREED WITH ME; BUT MANY HAVE QUESTIONED WHY I DIDN'T TELL ATC OF MY PROBLEM AND/OR DECLARE AN EMER. I CHOSE NOT TO DECLARE AN EMER FOR TWO REASONS: 1) I WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE TO FLY AS DIRECTED AND 2) I WAS CONCERNED THAT THE CTLRS MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND MY PROBLEM AND PERHAPS CAUSE ME MORE COMPLICATIONS.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS NOT SURE THAT IF AN EMER WAS DECLARED THAT ATC WOULD UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. THE RPTR RELIED ON THE GPS FOR AUTOPLT CTL AND NAVIGATION WITH THE PFD INOP. THE RPTR INDICATED THAT DURING TRAINING THEY WERE ADVISED TO CONTINUE WITH GPS APCH AND AS ALONG AS NAVIGATION WAS AVAILABLE IT WAS NOT AN EMER SITUATION. THE RPTR REAFFIRMED THAT HE FELT THE ATC CTLR WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT A PFD AND THAT IT WOULD CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IF THE FLT WAS CONTINUED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.