Re: Garmin takes over

[Richard Kaplan]

"FISHnFLY" > wrote in message
om...


> http://www.garmin.com/products/g1000/
>
> Looks like we'll eventually be down to one avionics manufacturer to
> choose from. I don't neccessarily think this is a good thing. Anyone
> else's take on this?

At least there are currently competing vendors to replace your GPS or
Nav/com or audio panel or engine instruments or whatever.

If you were to fly an airplane with the new Garmin G1000, the entire
avionics and engine instrumentation system is certified en block and thus
for the life of the airplane you would be dependent on Garmin for parts and
repairs. If the integrated tachometer broke, for example, you could not
buy one from a competing source. Etc. for all the parts.

Imagine if 20 years ago you bought a computer or audio system or whatever
electronic device and now you had to rely on the original vendor to keep the
equipment operating. Now imagine that that original computer system
operates a $250,000+ piece of machinery... that would not be a pleasant
situation to be in, yet that is exactly the situation owners of G1000
airplanes will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. The G1000 is the ENTIRE
panel! Third-party modifications are likely to be very difficult since that
would involve modifying proprietary software.

Look at the space shuttle for a comparable example; even NASA is starting to
have difficulty obtaining parts for the 1970s era computers on the space
shuttle.

A glass cockpit is great, but in order for this not to involve unreasonable
economic risk on the part of the airplane owners the design needs to be be
more modular and open-ended, just like the PC industry and in fact just like
our existing system of "steam gauge" instruments and avionics installations.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

>
> Look at the space shuttle for a comparable example; even NASA is starting to
> have difficulty obtaining parts for the 1970s era computers on the space
> shuttle.
>

Well....there were only 5 shuttles built, and for a very limited purpose. Even
then, they did do a major upgrade on the "avionics" several years ago.

A better model is the Boeing 767. It was the first glass cockpit aircraft that
Boeing sent out the door. The early ships are now 23 years old. They don't
have GPS sensing and they have very limited database memory and slow processor
speed. But, the owners of those early birds have been provided the option to
upgrade the weaker components of the system without gutting the system.

Hopefully, the same will happen with Cessna, et al. I would be far more
concerned buying a Diamond with the G-1000 than a Cessna with the G-1000.

It is pretty tough to integrate all this stuff without being married to a
vendor. Honeywell or Smith "own" much of that suite in the 767.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> >
> > Look at the space shuttle for a comparable example; even NASA is
starting to
> > have difficulty obtaining parts for the 1970s era computers on the space
> > shuttle.
> >
>
> Well....there were only 5 shuttles built, and for a very limited purpose.
Even
> then, they did do a major upgrade on the "avionics" several years ago.
>
> A better model is the Boeing 767. It was the first glass cockpit aircraft
that
> Boeing sent out the door. The early ships are now 23 years old. They
don't
> have GPS sensing and they have very limited database memory and slow
processor
> speed. But, the owners of those early birds have been provided the option
to
> upgrade the weaker components of the system without gutting the system.
>
> Hopefully, the same will happen with Cessna, et al.

The AS9100 squeeze is on and you will find many less options to come.

[Mike Rapoport]

All modern jets have the same issue. It is a natural byproduct of
integration. My first plane, a Turbo Lance, had independent avionics and
instrument and no integration. My current plane, a Mitubishi MU-2 Marquise
has a SPZ500 flight director/autopilot system which is more integrated..
The altimeter is merely a display for an airdata computer located in the
nose for instance. The trend is not new. If there are enough G1000s in
service, other companies will start making boxes which will interface with
them.

Mike
MU-2



"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "FISHnFLY" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>
> > http://www.garmin.com/products/g1000/
> >
> > Looks like we'll eventually be down to one avionics manufacturer to
> > choose from. I don't neccessarily think this is a good thing. Anyone
> > else's take on this?
>
> At least there are currently competing vendors to replace your GPS or
> Nav/com or audio panel or engine instruments or whatever.
>
> If you were to fly an airplane with the new Garmin G1000, the entire
> avionics and engine instrumentation system is certified en block and thus
> for the life of the airplane you would be dependent on Garmin for parts
and
> repairs. If the integrated tachometer broke, for example, you could not
> buy one from a competing source. Etc. for all the parts.
>
> Imagine if 20 years ago you bought a computer or audio system or whatever
> electronic device and now you had to rely on the original vendor to keep
the
> equipment operating. Now imagine that that original computer system
> operates a $250,000+ piece of machinery... that would not be a pleasant
> situation to be in, yet that is exactly the situation owners of G1000
> airplanes will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. The G1000 is the
ENTIRE
> panel! Third-party modifications are likely to be very difficult since
that
> would involve modifying proprietary software.
>
> Look at the space shuttle for a comparable example; even NASA is starting
to
> have difficulty obtaining parts for the 1970s era computers on the space
> shuttle.
>
> A glass cockpit is great, but in order for this not to involve
unreasonable
> economic risk on the part of the airplane owners the design needs to be be
> more modular and open-ended, just like the PC industry and in fact just
like
> our existing system of "steam gauge" instruments and avionics
installations.
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> All modern jets have the same issue. It is a natural byproduct of
> integration. My first plane, a Turbo Lance, had independent avionics and
> instrument and no integration. My current plane, a Mitubishi MU-2
Marquise
> has a SPZ500 flight director/autopilot system which is more integrated..
> The altimeter is merely a display for an airdata computer located in the
> nose for instance. The trend is not new. If there are enough G1000s in
> service, other companies will start making boxes which will interface with
> them.

If you have a jet, but small GA is going sole source.

[C J Campbell]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > All modern jets have the same issue. It is a natural byproduct of
> > integration. My first plane, a Turbo Lance, had independent avionics
and
> > instrument and no integration. My current plane, a Mitubishi MU-2
> Marquise
> > has a SPZ500 flight director/autopilot system which is more integrated..
> > The altimeter is merely a display for an airdata computer located in the
> > nose for instance. The trend is not new. If there are enough G1000s in
> > service, other companies will start making boxes which will interface
with
> > them.
>
> If you have a jet, but small GA is going sole source.

The G1000 is not being installed only in small GA, so that assumption dies
right there. The Citation Mustang will have it, and it appears that the
Caravan and some other Cessna jets will offer it at least as an option.

I suppose that when Sperry came out with the first steam gauges that there
were people complaining about being locked into a sole supplier and that
those new-fangled gauges would never replace seat-of-the-pants flying.

Most of the objections to the G1000 so far sound like so much ignorant
squawking. It is hard to take any of them seriously. I doubt if the
complainers have so much as even seen one of the installations, let alone
tried to use it. When we get some people who know what they are talking
about, then maybe I will pay attention.

I myself like the G1000 at first blush, but only because it is pretty. It
does not appear to add any real capability other than WAAS, dual
glideslopes, etc., which you could get just as easily from the CNX-80 and
MX-20 displays.

[[email protected]]

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> I myself like the G1000 at first blush, but only because it is pretty. It
> does not appear to add any real capability other than WAAS, dual
> glideslopes, etc., which you could get just as easily from the CNX-80 and
> MX-20 displays.

I'd go for the G-1000 over a mix-and-match. If for no other reason that it
comes from the factory with all components truly talking to each other.

[[email protected]]

>
>
> The AS9100 squeeze is on and you will find many less options to come.

Could you translate that into pilot-speak Mr. Engine Ear?

[Tarver Engineering]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > All modern jets have the same issue. It is a natural byproduct of
> > > integration. My first plane, a Turbo Lance, had independent avionics
and
> > > instrument and no integration. My current plane, a Mitubishi MU-2
Marquise
> > > has a SPZ500 flight director/autopilot system which is more
integrated..
> > > The altimeter is merely a display for an airdata computer located in
the
> > > nose for instance. The trend is not new. If there are enough G1000s
in
> > > service, other companies will start making boxes which will interface
with
> > > them.
> >
> > If you have a jet, but small GA is going sole source.
>
> The G1000 is not being installed only in small GA, so that assumption dies
> right there. The Citation Mustang will have it, and it appears that the
> Caravan and some other Cessna jets will offer it at least as an option.

As long as small GA operators are willing to pay jet prices for avionics
they will be available. The new AS9100 requirement will eliminate most of
the small players that are not already frightened away from small GA by
liability issues.

> I suppose that when Sperry came out with the first steam gauges that there
> were people complaining about being locked into a sole supplier and that
> those new-fangled gauges would never replace seat-of-the-pants flying.

Honeywell is expensive.

> Most of the objections to the G1000 so far sound like so much ignorant
> squawking. It is hard to take any of them seriously. I doubt if the
> complainers have so much as even seen one of the installations, let alone
> tried to use it. When we get some people who know what they are talking
> about, then maybe I will pay attention.

There is no problem with Garmin's products. In fact, the high quality and
reasonable price is part of why they are headed toward owning the market.

> I myself like the G1000 at first blush, but only because it is pretty. It
> does not appear to add any real capability other than WAAS, dual
> glideslopes, etc., which you could get just as easily from the CNX-80 and
> MX-20 displays.

The free flight Garmin equipment flying in Alaska is excellent and cheap.
so cheap that you can get the entire system for less than a Honeywell TCAS.
Honeywell has a digital display offering, but it can not compete at the
price Garmin is offering.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...

> > The AS9100 squeeze is on and you will find many less options to come.
>
> Could you translate that into pilot-speak Mr. Engine Ear?

Free ACSEP inspections are being replaced by $10,000 per annum private
inspections. The MMF is no more, so the price will have to go up. No small
shop can support AS9100 in any real way.

[Scott Skylane]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> The free flight Garmin equipment flying in Alaska is excellent and cheap.
> so cheap that you can get the entire system for less than a Honeywell TCAS.
> Honeywell has a digital display offering, but it can not compete at the
> price Garmin is offering.
>
>

John,

If you are referring to the "Capstone" project currently underway here,
it is merely one component of the "free flight" concept, and
absolutely none of the hardware is provided by Garmin.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > The free flight Garmin equipment flying in Alaska is excellent and
cheap.
> > so cheap that you can get the entire system for less than a Honeywell
TCAS.
> > Honeywell has a digital display offering, but it can not compete at the
> > price Garmin is offering.
> >
> >
>
> John,
>
> If you are referring to the "Capstone" project currently underway here,
> it is merely one component of the "free flight" concept, and
> absolutely none of the hardware is provided by Garmin.

The story I saw in the trade journals was 100% UPSAT.

Do you have a different reference?

[Earl]

> > The free flight Garmin equipment flying in Alaska is excellent and
cheap.
> > so cheap that you can get the entire system for less than a Honeywell
TCAS.
> > Honeywell has a digital display offering, but it can not compete at the
> > price Garmin is offering.
> >
> >
>
> John,
>
> If you are referring to the "Capstone" project currently underway here,
> it is merely one component of the "free flight" concept, and
> absolutely none of the hardware is provided by Garmin.
>

Garmin bought UPSAT, remember ?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Earl" > wrote in message
...
> > > The free flight Garmin equipment flying in Alaska is excellent and
> cheap.
> > > so cheap that you can get the entire system for less than a Honeywell
> TCAS.
> > > Honeywell has a digital display offering, but it can not compete at
the
> > > price Garmin is offering.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > If you are referring to the "Capstone" project currently underway here,
> > it is merely one component of the "free flight" concept, and
> > absolutely none of the hardware is provided by Garmin.
> >
>
> Garmin bought UPSAT, remember ?

Isn't that in part what the thread title is about?

[Scott Skylane]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Scott Skylane" > wrote in message

>>John,
>>
>>If you are referring to the "Capstone" project currently underway here,
>> it is merely one component of the "free flight" concept, and
>>absolutely none of the hardware is provided by Garmin.
>
>
> The story I saw in the trade journals was 100% UPSAT.
>
> Do you have a different reference?
>
>


See:

http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/

I guess some clarification is in order. The Phase I hardware was
provided by UPSAT, long before Garmin bought them. Development on Phase
I has ended, and to say that Garmin built those boxes is akin to saying
Boeing built the DC-3. I just don't think that way.

Phase II, the current project, is powered by Chelton displays, and the
same UAT boxes supplied under Phase I. So, yes, I guess I was incorrect
to exclude Garmin from the mix.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:

> I guess some clarification is in order. The Phase I hardware was
> provided by UPSAT, long before Garmin bought them. Development on Phase
> I has ended, and to say that Garmin built those boxes is akin to saying
> Boeing built the DC-3. I just don't think that way.

Garmin bought UPSAT to prevent itself from being frozen out of the GPS
market. Boeing never wabted anything from Douglas.

> Phase II, the current project, is powered by Chelton displays, and the
> same UAT boxes supplied under Phase I. So, yes, I guess I was incorrect
> to exclude Garmin from the mix.

Paying $160 million for UPSAT is a pretty nice compliment from Garmin.

[FiPe]

>From: "Tarver Splapsgineering"

>Paying $160 million for UPSAT is a pretty nice compliment from Garmin.
>

$32 million.

Fidel

[Thomas Borchert]

Richard,

as I said elsewhere: Your theory doesn't hold. There's Avidyne, Chelton
and others.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tarver Engineering]

"FiPe" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Splapsgineering"
>
> >Paying $160 million for UPSAT is a pretty nice compliment from Garmin.
> >
>
> $32 million.

EAA says we are both wrong:

Garmin Buys UPS Aviation Technologies
Garmin International announced it would acquire UPS Aviation Technologies,
Inc. for $38 million in cash. Once approved and completed, UPSAT will become
Garmin AT and will continue operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of Garmin
International. UPS AT, Salem, Oregon, is the acknowledged leader in
Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) technology and is working
with the FAA in developing the Safe Flight 21 and Alaskan Capstone programs.
www.garmin.com www.upsat.com

[John R. Copeland]

> wrote in message ...
>=20
>=20
> .... If for no other reason that it
> comes from the factory with all components truly talking to each =
other.
>=20
>=20
Naturally, that part about "talking to each other" is hugely important.
But it isn't mystical at all.
My new Honeywell ART 2000, and my old Ryan 9900BX talk very well to,
and also are digitally controlled by, my new Apollo MX20.
And my new Apollo CNX80, besides talking to 3 other Apollo boxes,
also talks quite well to my old Collins FD112V Flight Director.
That's what documented protocols and interfaces are for.

(Unfortunately, my ancient Hoskins fuel totalizer can't talk to =
anything.)
---JRC---

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message ...
> speed. But, the owners of those early birds have been provided the option
to
> upgrade the weaker components of the system without gutting the system.

Exactly.... at the cost and under the terms dictated solely by the original
maufacturer.

Look at all the non-Cessna modifications available for my P210 or look at
all the third party mods avilable for any other production airplane. Do
you wish Cessna were the sole source supplier of parts and modifications to
your Cessna airplane? Among other things, the cost of maintaining my
airplane would rise notably. Any airplane owner cringes when a mechanic
tells him a needed part is a Cessna-only or Beech-only item.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> All modern jets have the same issue. It is a natural byproduct of
> integration.

Exactly... Pilots who buy a Cessna 182 with the Garmin G1000 will pay jet
or turbine avionics support prices for a piston airplane.




--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
I doubt if the
> complainers have so much as even seen one of the installations, let alone
> tried to use it. When we get some people who know what they are talking
> about, then maybe I will pay attention.

I didn't say I did not like it, just that I question the economic viability
long-term.

I suspect the initial owners will love the system now. They will probably
start to complain in 5 years when there is some new steam-gauge avionics
feature not in the G1000. Then they may really start to complain in 10 or
15 years when support gets harder and/or more expensive.

Bottom line: The G1000 may look and act terrific, but no doubt it is more
of an economic risk than buying an airplane with individual, modular
components in the panel. I would not want to risk 6 digits on that type of
uncertainty -- YMMV.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> as I said elsewhere: Your theory doesn't hold. There's Avidyne, Chelton
> and others.

Are their components modular? If Chelton adds a new feature to their glass
EFIS system can I install that feature in my Garmin G1000? Not more easily
than running Mac software on a PC.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
>
>
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> I doubt if the
> > complainers have so much as even seen one of the installations, let
alone
> > tried to use it. When we get some people who know what they are talking
> > about, then maybe I will pay attention.
>
> I didn't say I did not like it, just that I question the economic
viability
> long-term.

The bottom rungs of the ladder are being cut off, you should be concerned.

> I suspect the initial owners will love the system now. They will probably
> start to complain in 5 years when there is some new steam-gauge avionics
> feature not in the G1000. Then they may really start to complain in 10 or
> 15 years when support gets harder and/or more expensive.
>
> Bottom line: The G1000 may look and act terrific, but no doubt it is more
> of an economic risk than buying an airplane with individual, modular
> components in the panel. I would not want to risk 6 digits on that type
of
> uncertainty -- YMMV.
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Richard,

> Are their components modular? If Chelton adds a new feature to their glass
> EFIS system can I install that feature in my Garmin G1000? Not more easily
> than running Mac software on a PC.
>

So? Is a Garmin 430 modular? Is an AI modular?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, writes:

>I myself like the G1000 at first blush, but only because it is pretty. It
>> does not appear to add any real capability other than WAAS, dual
>> glideslopes, etc., which you could get just as easily from the CNX-80 and
>> MX-20 displays.
>
>I'd go for the G-1000 over a mix-and-match. If for no other reason that it
>comes from the factory with all components truly talking to each other.
>

Garmin rep at a meeting last week suggested that the G1000 would not be
available for retrofit for at least 2 years and would go for $100,000 or so.
If you want the G1000, you will have to go new plane. The CNX-80 etc you can
get now.

Chuck

[Richard Kaplan]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> So? Is a Garmin 430 modular? Is an AI modular?

My avionics panel as a whole is modular.

Garmin does not manufacturer or support my AI. I can upgrade from a Garmin
430 to whatever other GPS I like without having to consider whether the new
avionics are compatible with my AI.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Richard,

what I meant to say was that, at a certain level, everything is
integrated. When the 430 was new, many people feared that kind of
integration of GPS, NAV and COMM, citing all sorts of reasons.

A PFD takes that kind of integration further. Bigger aircraft have had
that for years - and very succesfully.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> I think the #1 risk with "GA priced"
> glass cockpits is whether the designers actually know that these
> products are being used in aeroplanes and not sitting on a home cinema
> shelf, and building them accordingly.

Uh, have you missed the 430/530 "revolution" these last years?

>
> Glass cockpits are a great opportunity to make GA avionics reliable;
> the question is whether anyone is actually going to do it.
>

See above. People have picked up these units at an absolutely
astonishing rate, putting them in planes often not worth much more than
the ensuing avionics install.

Don't worry - this is definitely in the "build it and they will come"
category.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Peter
> writes:

>When the 430 was new, many people feared that kind of
>>integration of GPS, NAV and COMM, citing all sorts of reasons.
>>

When the display on my 430 went out, the GPS, NAV AND COM were unusable.

Chuck

[Doug]

This is why I like my setup. A standalone IFR/GPS, and a standalone
NavCom, each with their own indicator head. And a handheld radio,
handheld GPS....
IFR flying is all about having backups.
I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
there's nothing I can do....

(PaulaJay1) wrote in message >...
> In article >, Peter
> > writes:
>
> >When the 430 was new, many people feared that kind of
> >>integration of GPS, NAV and COMM, citing all sorts of reasons.
> >>
>
> When the display on my 430 went out, the GPS, NAV AND COM were unusable.
>
> Chuck

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> This is why I like my setup. A standalone IFR/GPS, and a standalone
> NavCom, each with their own indicator head. And a handheld radio,
> handheld GPS....
> IFR flying is all about having backups.
> I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
> there's nothing I can do....
>

If a wing falls off I'm okay because the airplane has two.

[John R. Copeland]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> om...
> > This is why I like my setup. A standalone IFR/GPS, and a standalone
> > NavCom, each with their own indicator head. And a handheld radio,
> > handheld GPS....
> > IFR flying is all about having backups.
> > I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
> > there's nothing I can do....
> >
>=20
> If a wing falls off I'm okay because the airplane has two.
>=20
>=20
And that's why I have three-bladed props. Two of them, in fact. :-\
---JRC---

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-03-03, John R. Copeland > wrote:
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > This is why I like my setup. A standalone IFR/GPS, and a standalone
>> > NavCom, each with their own indicator head. And a handheld radio,
>> > handheld GPS....
>> > IFR flying is all about having backups.
>> > I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
>> > there's nothing I can do....
>> >
>>
>> If a wing falls off I'm okay because the airplane has two.
>>
>>
> And that's why I have three-bladed props. Two of them, in fact. :-\
> ---JRC---
>
I've got four wings AND three blades... but only one vertical stab;
perhaps adapting a Connie tail...But then there's always the parachute!

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> f you put a hundred GNSx30 units into planes
> parked outside in northern European weather for say five years, how
> many will still be working after that?
>

Those five years are over. Have you read about massive complaints
anywhere, either here in Europe or in the US (where weather is probably
more extreme and diverse)? I sure haven't. Reliability seems to be a
total non-issue, from what I observe.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Doug,

> I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
> there's nothing I can do....
>

Well, count the number of single-point failure modes your plan has -
and then stop flying, by that logic. There is no such thing as
zero-risk.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Richard Kaplan]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> A PFD takes that kind of integration further. Bigger aircraft have had
> that for years - and very succesfully.


Successfully? Yes.

On an economic scale which is practical for piston general aviation? No.

Just the thought that the new Garmin G1000 will be in the C182 and the
Mustang Jet is exciting aerodynamically and frightening economically. Do
you think Mustang owners will be paying C182 prices for their maintenance or
do you think C182 owners will be paying Mustang prices.

Again, I think the G1000 sounds terrific and it enough to make any IFR pilot
drool. I just think the economics will be impractical, not only in the
short-term but especially for long-term maintenance.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> Well, count the number of single-point failure modes your plan has -
> and then stop flying, by that logic. There is no such thing as
> zero-risk.

As long as the G1000 is backed up by a portable GPS and a vacuum AI, the
single-point failure risk is reduced to a reasonable level.

Again, the real risk is economic.... have you ever had to order a
dealer-only component on an electronically controlled automobile
transmission or engine? That should give you a sense of what G1000 owners
could face in 10 years.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[ind.sbcglobal.net]

Nothing is foolproof. That's why pilots train to handle emergencies, and
that's why prudent pilots provide backups in their avionics and flight
systems (especially serious IFR folks). Cirrus aircraft provide 2nd
alternators, 2 battery systems, provide separation between a main and
essential electrical bus, and even provide a parachute as standard
equipment, and offer transition training to all Cirrus owners. The Garmin
GNS 430 is standard equipment for both the SR20 and SR22 with at least 1
multifuction display (see me flying on my website at
http://members.iquest.net/~jlevy).

Jack Levy
CFI/AIM

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > A PFD takes that kind of integration further. Bigger aircraft have had
> > that for years - and very succesfully.
>
>
> Successfully? Yes.
>
> On an economic scale which is practical for piston general aviation? No.
>
> Just the thought that the new Garmin G1000 will be in the C182 and the
> Mustang Jet is exciting aerodynamically and frightening economically. Do
> you think Mustang owners will be paying C182 prices for their maintenance
or
> do you think C182 owners will be paying Mustang prices.
>
> Again, I think the G1000 sounds terrific and it enough to make any IFR
pilot
> drool. I just think the economics will be impractical, not only in the
> short-term but especially for long-term maintenance.
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>