Question on Aivdyne / Garmin Integrated Avionics Packages

[Jon]

I'm trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated
avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere
that although these systems are very capable, they don't have the
"mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin
systems are ok for recreational flights but can't ever be used for
regular commercial service.

After looking at the functions of these systems, I can't understand why
this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21
offers that the less expensive systems don't....

Thanks in advance,

Jon

[Matt Barrow]

"Jon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated
> avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere
> that although these systems are very capable, they don't have the
> "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21.

How much is the Proline?

> I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin
> systems are ok for recreational flights but can't ever be used for
> regular commercial service.

Where in hell did you get that?

> After looking at the functions of these systems, I can't understand why
> this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21
> offers that the less expensive systems don't....

I think someone is jerking your chain.

[turbo]

> I'm trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated
> avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere
> that although these systems are very capable, they don't have the
> "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin
> systems are ok for recreational flights but can't ever be used for
> regular commercial service.
>
> After looking at the functions of these systems, I can't understand why
> this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21
> offers that the less expensive systems don't....
>

In the versions for single piston engine planes, both the Avidyne Entegra
and Garmin G1000 are lacking the full FMS and aircraft systems monitoring.
The versions for the Eclipse and Mustang will be as capable as those in any
other small business jet.

What do you think you mean by 'regular commercial service' ? Neither of
these systems are marketed at part 121 aircraft.

[Kai Glaesner]

Jon,

> I'm trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated
> avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere
> that although these systems are very capable, they don't have the
> "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin
> systems are ok for recreational flights but can't ever be used for
> regular commercial service.

> After looking at the functions of these systems, I can't understand why
> this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21
> offers that the less expensive systems don't....

May be Autothrottle, VNAV, real FMC's (able of computing optimized climb,
cruise and descent based on cost indexes) and these kind of things?

Proline is a very sophisticated, integrated package consisting of far more
than what's visible to the eye ;-)

Perhaps one day Garmin, Avidyne et al will be on par, but today they are
not. I don't think they intend to be.

Best Regards

Kai

[Dude]

"Jon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated
> avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere
> that although these systems are very capable, they don't have the
> "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin
> systems are ok for recreational flights but can't ever be used for
> regular commercial service.
>
> After looking at the functions of these systems, I can't understand why
> this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21
> offers that the less expensive systems don't....
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jon
>

The current installations of the G1000 and Avidyne systemes only have a
single AHRS. You could still likely use them for charter though a redundant
AHRS, as planned for the Mustang, would be a good idea.

[[email protected]]

Dude wrote:

> "Jon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > I'm trying to understand how capable the new breed of integrated
> > avionics suites are (Aviyne Eclipse, Garmin G1000), and read somewhere
> > that although these systems are very capable, they don't have the
> > "mission capabilities" of a Proline 21. I.e., the Eclipse and Garmin
> > systems are ok for recreational flights but can't ever be used for
> > regular commercial service.
> >
> > After looking at the functions of these systems, I can't understand why
> > this would be so? Would appreciate any input on what the Proline 21
> > offers that the less expensive systems don't....
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Jon
> >
>
> The current installations of the G1000 and Avidyne systemes only have a
> single AHRS. You could still likely use them for charter though a redundant
> AHRS, as planned for the Mustang, would be a good idea.

Any equippage for jets less than at least a single Flight Management System
(FMS) is rudimentary and probably lacks RSVM and other important capabilities.
A G-1000 is great in a Cessna 182, but not so red hot in a jet that goes to
flight levels.

[Dude]

>> The current installations of the G1000 and Avidyne systemes only have a
>> single AHRS. You could still likely use them for charter though a
>> redundant
>> AHRS, as planned for the Mustang, would be a good idea.
>
> Any equippage for jets less than at least a single Flight Management
> System
> (FMS) is rudimentary and probably lacks RSVM and other important
> capabilities.
> A G-1000 is great in a Cessna 182, but not so red hot in a jet that goes
> to
> flight levels.
>

I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. The Mustang G1000 system
will not be as limited as the 182's.

I have a lot to say about Cessna that is negative, but I haven't yet seen
anything that would lead me to believe that they are going to produce an
unsafe jet.

[Scott Skylane]

wrote:


>
> Any equippage for jets less than at least a single Flight Management System
> (FMS) is rudimentary and probably lacks RSVM and other important capabilities.
> A G-1000 is great in a Cessna 182, but not so red hot in a jet that goes to
> flight levels.
>

Tim,

An FMS has absolutely nothing to do with *RVSM* capability. I fly
around in the flight levels all day in jets that have nothing more than
dual VOR's and a very rudimentary IFR GPS.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[[email protected]]

Scott Skylane wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Any equippage for jets less than at least a single Flight Management System
> > (FMS) is rudimentary and probably lacks RSVM and other important capabilities.
> > A G-1000 is great in a Cessna 182, but not so red hot in a jet that goes to
> > flight levels.
> >
>
> Tim,
>
> An FMS has absolutely nothing to do with *RVSM* capability. I fly
> around in the flight levels all day in jets that have nothing more than
> dual VOR's and a very rudimentary IFR GPS.
>
>

That's why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."

[Scott Skylane]

wrote:

>>
>
>
> That's why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."
>
>
Tim,

O.K., I see your original point, now.

As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM
equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[[email protected]]

Scott Skylane wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."
> >
> >
> Tim,
>
> O.K., I see your original point, now.
>
> As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM
> equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities.
>
>

Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are RVSM
compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with
when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so.

I don't know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs
RVSM-compliant won't be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at
all.

With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press
FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required to
be RVSM-compliant.

[Dude]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Scott Skylane wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > That's why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."
>> >
>> >
>> Tim,
>>
>> O.K., I see your original point, now.
>>
>> As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM
>> equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are RVSM
> compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with
> when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so.
>
> I don't know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs
> RVSM-compliant won't be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at
> all.
>
> With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press
> FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required to
> be RVSM-compliant.
>

The G1000 application in the Mustang has been announced to be RVSM
compliant. I am not sure whether a full FMS is in the cards right now, but
it wouldn't appear to be as tough to add as it is to older a less modern,
less integrated system.

Where, specifically, do you think the challenge will be? I can't figure out
what you think the bugaboo is.

[[email protected]]

Dude wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Scott Skylane wrote:
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That's why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Tim,
> >>
> >> O.K., I see your original point, now.
> >>
> >> As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM
> >> equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are RVSM
> > compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with
> > when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so.
> >
> > I don't know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs
> > RVSM-compliant won't be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at
> > all.
> >
> > With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press
> > FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required to
> > be RVSM-compliant.
> >
>
> The G1000 application in the Mustang has been announced to be RVSM
> compliant. I am not sure whether a full FMS is in the cards right now, but
> it wouldn't appear to be as tough to add as it is to older a less modern,
> less integrated system.
>
> Where, specifically, do you think the challenge will be? I can't figure out
> what you think the bugaboo is.

I know FMS's are far less expensive today because they are basically a software
package instead of a clunky box for that express purpose.

The bugaboo I wonder about is air data processing, which is still no small feat.

I also wonder about computed steering and flight guidance, and all such things
that even have issues with the high-end systems, such as EPIC.

And, I wonder most of all about a single-pilot managing all of this. But, I
digress. ;-)

[Dude]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Scott Skylane wrote:
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > That's why I joined "FMS" and "RVSM" with an "and."
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Tim,
>> >>
>> >> O.K., I see your original point, now.
>> >>
>> >> As a data point, I fly jets all day that do not have FMS, but are RVSM
>> >> equipped and do not lack any other "important" capabilities.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Oh, I know. There are lots of air carrier round dial birds that are
>> > RVSM
>> > compliant. But, they had the requiste air data computers to begin with
>> > when they rolled off the assembly lines circa 1970-80, or so.
>> >
>> > I don't know for a fact, but it seems that making one of these VLJs
>> > RVSM-compliant won't be an easy task, and may not be done by the OEM at
>> > all.
>> >
>> > With a bird coming off the assembly line today without a full-press
>> > FMS/LNAV suite, I would wonder about the other expensive stuff required
>> > to
>> > be RVSM-compliant.
>> >
>>
>> The G1000 application in the Mustang has been announced to be RVSM
>> compliant. I am not sure whether a full FMS is in the cards right now,
>> but
>> it wouldn't appear to be as tough to add as it is to older a less modern,
>> less integrated system.
>>
>> Where, specifically, do you think the challenge will be? I can't figure
>> out
>> what you think the bugaboo is.
>
> I know FMS's are far less expensive today because they are basically a
> software
> package instead of a clunky box for that express purpose.
>
> The bugaboo I wonder about is air data processing, which is still no small
> feat.
>
> I also wonder about computed steering and flight guidance, and all such
> things
> that even have issues with the high-end systems, such as EPIC.
>
> And, I wonder most of all about a single-pilot managing all of this. But,
> I
> digress. ;-)

The way the G1000 system is designed takes a lot of the problems out of FMS.
In the past, there were many integration issues that the G1000 makes much
simpler because you only need to integrate with your own product. Also, you
don't have to build your own custom chip anymore, as many off the shelf
chips will work. The bottom line is that math is no longer a problem. If
your math is too intense for a single box, you add one for your new feature.

When I flew the G1000 I found it easier to manage than seperate boxes once I
learned the system. It does change you from pilot to system manager, but
you can pretty well manage everything by exception because all the faults
show up in one place.

[[email protected]]

That's silly. RSVM has nothing to do with the FMS. Every day
thousands of people and millions of boxes fly all over the world in
jets with just two vors and an ILS.

The G1000 includes a flight director and (unlike the Avidyne) can show
attitude information on any of the displays. It has all the same
capablities as other FMS systems. The only it is missing is an
integrated autopilot, but that's coming real soon now.