IPC G1000

[[email protected]]

I'm in the midst of doing two things....
1)Becoming instrument recurrent. (Steam guage airplanes)

2)Getting checked out in a G1000 182.

I'm planning to do the IPC in the Steam guage airplane with some additional instrument work in the G1000.


My real question is how would you do the partial panel approach part of an IPC in the G1000?

There are several ways I know of to simulate a failure on the G1000,
none of which allows one do do a partial panel approach:

1)Dim the display to the point of not being readable.
This leaves the backup instruments for aircraft control, but no source of nav infomation.
If your IPC partial panel approach is anything other than GPS you have no guidance at all.
If it is GPS then all you have is the moving map.


2)Dim the PFD display then switch to revisonary mode...
Just like flying with no failure only reading the instruments from the
co-pilot side. Good practice, but no where near as hard as flying a
partial panel approach with steam guages.


3)Pull the breakers for AHARS/ADC breakers, this simulates AHARS and ADC failures and leaves nav indicators,
but it kills Mode C so ATC is not happy.


For training purposes it would be real nice if you could articicially fail individual
parts of the G1000 AHRS, NAV1, air data etc...




Paul

[Jose[_1_]]

> My real question is how would you do the partial panel approach part of an IPC in the G1000?

I'm not familiar with glass, but it seems that one should simulate
likely failure modes, and dangerous failure modes. An electrical
contact could go bad, and you'd lose the whole screen, for example.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

It would be nice to fail each unit. However, a standard test is to fail
one screen at a time by dimming it to be unreadable. Once in reversion
mode you can do anything on either screen. I'm not sure what you mean
by dimming the display leaves no source of nav info. You can still fly
GPS and ILS and VOR etc with a failure. There are two nav sources on
the plane (two nav radios), if you truely lost the left or right
computer you would still have nav #1 or nav #2 (depending on which side
failed) for VOR, ILS, etc. If the left side fails nav #1 and com #1 die
but you can still use nav #2 and com #2. If both sides die the radios
go to 121.5. The G1000 system has two GPSs on board and part of a
reasonable pre-takeoff checklist is to check the signal strength of
each. In revision mode you don't have a moving map but you can still
select "direct to", "vectors to the approach", "gps direct approach"
etc. Also, you do have your inset map, which is mostly the same as the
MFD map, just much smaller.
However, other than the display, the "main" computer and the GPSs there
is not much redudant in the G1000. For instance, if the Air Data
Computer were to fail, you would just get X's across the driven
instruments. However, that is why you have 3 round dials between the
screens.

-Robert, CFI


wrote:
> I'm in the midst of doing two things....
> 1)Becoming instrument recurrent. (Steam guage airplanes)
>
> 2)Getting checked out in a G1000 182.
>
> I'm planning to do the IPC in the Steam guage airplane with some additional instrument work in the G1000.
>
>
> My real question is how would you do the partial panel approach part of an IPC in the G1000?
>
> There are several ways I know of to simulate a failure on the G1000,
> none of which allows one do do a partial panel approach:
>
> 1)Dim the display to the point of not being readable.
> This leaves the backup instruments for aircraft control, but no source of nav infomation.
> If your IPC partial panel approach is anything other than GPS you have no guidance at all.
> If it is GPS then all you have is the moving map.
>
>
> 2)Dim the PFD display then switch to revisonary mode...
> Just like flying with no failure only reading the instruments from the
> co-pilot side. Good practice, but no where near as hard as flying a
> partial panel approach with steam guages.
>
>
> 3)Pull the breakers for AHARS/ADC breakers, this simulates AHARS and ADC failures and leaves nav indicators,
> but it kills Mode C so ATC is not happy.
>
>
> For training purposes it would be real nice if you could articicially fail individual
> parts of the G1000 AHRS, NAV1, air data etc...
>
>
>
>
> Paul

[[email protected]]

>I'm not familiar with glass, but it seems that one should simulate
>likely failure modes, and dangerous failure modes. An electrical
>contact could go bad, and you'd lose the whole screen, for example.
>


That is sort of the whole point of my post, As it is currently set up
it's hard to simulate the kind of failures you would have in the real world.

Under stress in real IMC is not the palce to try and figure it out.

Paul

[[email protected]]

>It would be nice to fail each unit. However, a standard test is to fail
>one screen at a time by dimming it to be unreadable.

That is failure #2 in my orgional post.
It dones not seem to be a realistic failure as all the information is still there,
just in a differnt spot. A simulated AHRS or Air Data failure would be
a more realistic senario.

Paul

Once in reversion
>mode you can do anything on either screen. I'm not sure what you mean
>by dimming the display leaves no source of nav info. You can still fly
>GPS and ILS and VOR etc with a failure. There are two nav sources on
>the plane (two nav radios), if you truely lost the left or right
>computer you would still have nav #1 or nav #2 (depending on which side
>failed) for VOR, ILS, etc. If the left side fails nav #1 and com #1 die
>but you can still use nav #2 and com #2. If both sides die the radios
>go to 121.5. The G1000 system has two GPSs on board and part of a
>reasonable pre-takeoff checklist is to check the signal strength of
>each. In revision mode you don't have a moving map but you can still
>select "direct to", "vectors to the approach", "gps direct approach"
>etc. Also, you do have your inset map, which is mostly the same as the
>MFD map, just much smaller.
>However, other than the display, the "main" computer and the GPSs there
>is not much redudant in the G1000. For instance, if the Air Data
>Computer were to fail, you would just get X's across the driven
>instruments. However, that is why you have 3 round dials between the
>screens.
>
>-Robert, CFI
>
>
wrote:
>> I'm in the midst of doing two things....
>> 1)Becoming instrument recurrent. (Steam guage airplanes)
>>
>> 2)Getting checked out in a G1000 182.
>>
>> I'm planning to do the IPC in the Steam guage airplane with some additional instrument work in the G1000.
>>
>>
>> My real question is how would you do the partial panel approach part of an IPC in the G1000?
>>
>> There are several ways I know of to simulate a failure on the G1000,
>> none of which allows one do do a partial panel approach:
>>
>> 1)Dim the display to the point of not being readable.
>> This leaves the backup instruments for aircraft control, but no source of nav infomation.
>> If your IPC partial panel approach is anything other than GPS you have no guidance at all.
>> If it is GPS then all you have is the moving map.
>>
>>
>> 2)Dim the PFD display then switch to revisonary mode...
>> Just like flying with no failure only reading the instruments from the
>> co-pilot side. Good practice, but no where near as hard as flying a
>> partial panel approach with steam guages.
>>
>>
>> 3)Pull the breakers for AHARS/ADC breakers, this simulates AHARS and ADC failures and leaves nav indicators,
>> but it kills Mode C so ATC is not happy.
>>
>>
>> For training purposes it would be real nice if you could articicially fail individual
>> parts of the G1000 AHRS, NAV1, air data etc...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul

[rps]

wrote:
>
> For training purposes it would be real nice if you could articicially fail individual
> parts of the G1000 AHRS, NAV1, air data etc...
>

Maybe put yellow sticky notes or other covers on the sections you want
to fail? This may not train the student to detect and diagnose such
failures, but at least he or she will learn to fly without the failed
components.

[Jim Macklin]

I haven't looked, but are there CB that can be pulled to
fail components of the G1000 package?




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"rps" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| wrote:
| >
| > For training purposes it would be real nice if you could
articicially fail individual
| > parts of the G1000 AHRS, NAV1, air data etc...
| >
|
| Maybe put yellow sticky notes or other covers on the
sections you want
| to fail? This may not train the student to detect and
diagnose such
| failures, but at least he or she will learn to fly without
the failed
| components.
|

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I haven't looked, but are there CB that can be pulled to
> fail components of the G1000 package?

There are but our procedures prohibit us from pulling them. I"m not
sure if Cessna things it can be bad to pull them in flight or what the
reason is.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

There is a train of thought that pulling CB as switches can
weaken the springs and latches that make the CB function. I
doubt that is a problem with modern designs. I'd have to
look at the TSO, but imagine they are good for thousands of
cycles.

At one time Cessna and Piper were using flush CB. I do know
that in the Beech aircraft we pulled CB all the time, on the
landing gear, flaps, radios, and never had a CB failure.

If I were instructing in a G1000 airplane, I would first use
aux. power and run the G1000 on the ground, pulling CB and
noting what failed and what did not. I would then start the
engine and do the same while on the ground. Then I'd repeat
it in-flight, noting any differences and creating my own
checklist and reversion list.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I haven't looked, but are there CB that can be pulled to
| > fail components of the G1000 package?
|
| There are but our procedures prohibit us from pulling
them. I"m not
| sure if Cessna things it can be bad to pull them in flight
or what the
| reason is.
|
| -Robert
|

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> There is a train of thought that pulling CB as switches can
> weaken the springs and latches that make the CB function. I
> doubt that is a problem with modern designs. I'd have to
> look at the TSO, but imagine they are good for thousands of
> cycles.
>
> At one time Cessna and Piper were using flush CB. I do know
> that in the Beech aircraft we pulled CB all the time, on the
> landing gear, flaps, radios, and never had a CB failure.
>
> If I were instructing in a G1000 airplane, I would first use
> aux. power and run the G1000 on the ground, pulling CB and
> noting what failed and what did not. I would then start the
> engine and do the same while on the ground. Then I'd repeat
> it in-flight, noting any differences and creating my own
> checklist and reversion list.
>
>
I would sure clear that with both Garmin and the aircraft manufacturer
first. You might reduce the life of certain components by doing that.
These are not electromechanical devices at rest like flaps or landing
gear. Some of this electronic stuff likes to go through a shutdown
sequence. This may, or may not, apply to the G-1000.

My experience with Garmin stuff is limited to the 530. I would never
pull the CB for it without first turning the unit off.

[Peter Clark]

FWIW, Cessna's training specifically states that it's not recommended
to pull breakers to simulate failures.

It really boils down to finding the single points of failure. In the
Cessna piston G1000 package the AHARS and ADC are the only single
boxes that matter in the system. The GIAs are duplicated (giving you
2 independent NAV/COMs and 2 GPS units), the engine analyzer and
transponder are a nuisance to lose at best, and the screens are
duplicated and have manual and automatic failover. With all the
redundancy there really aren't many failure modes I can think of which
will leave you with nothing at all. PFD and master electric failure
at the same time? Even if the AHARS kicks out you have the backup AI
and both screens with MFD, wet compass, and inset maps for heading.
ADC kicks out you lose your speed tape, TAS, and altitude display.
Standby ASI and altimeter, move along, nothing to see here.

Perhaps during training some of the partial panel training could be
conducted in steam gauge aircraft or simulators which IMHO would be
better than attempting to concoct multiple system failures in
combinations which wouldn't appear for the 1st time in IMC?

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:26:53 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>I haven't looked, but are there CB that can be pulled to
>fail components of the G1000 package?

[Peter Clark]

On 24 Aug 2006 21:14:17 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>
>Jim Macklin wrote:
>> I haven't looked, but are there CB that can be pulled to
>> fail components of the G1000 package?
>
>There are but our procedures prohibit us from pulling them. I"m not
>sure if Cessna things it can be bad to pull them in flight or what the
>reason is.

When I took the factory training they said "they're circuit breakers,
not switches."

Captain Obvious to the rescue........

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:24:40 -0700, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> There is a train of thought that pulling CB as switches can
>> weaken the springs and latches that make the CB function. I
>> doubt that is a problem with modern designs. I'd have to
>> look at the TSO, but imagine they are good for thousands of
>> cycles.
>>
>> At one time Cessna and Piper were using flush CB. I do know
>> that in the Beech aircraft we pulled CB all the time, on the
>> landing gear, flaps, radios, and never had a CB failure.
>>
>> If I were instructing in a G1000 airplane, I would first use
>> aux. power and run the G1000 on the ground, pulling CB and
>> noting what failed and what did not. I would then start the
>> engine and do the same while on the ground. Then I'd repeat
>> it in-flight, noting any differences and creating my own
>> checklist and reversion list.
>>
>>
>I would sure clear that with both Garmin and the aircraft manufacturer
>first. You might reduce the life of certain components by doing that.
>These are not electromechanical devices at rest like flaps or landing
>gear. Some of this electronic stuff likes to go through a shutdown
>sequence. This may, or may not, apply to the G-1000.
>
>My experience with Garmin stuff is limited to the 530. I would never
>pull the CB for it without first turning the unit off.

The G1000 simulator sells on Garmin's website for like $3 and some
change and allows the user to create combinations of failures of the
variety of components in the system.

[Sam Spade]

Peter Clark wrote:

> transponder (is)a nuisance to lose at best...
I wonder whether the VLJ folks who are using the G-1000 plan on
transponder redundancy. Loss of a transponder can result in ATC booting
an airplane out of Class A airspace.

[Robert M. Gary]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 21:14:17 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jim Macklin wrote:
> >> I haven't looked, but are there CB that can be pulled to
> >> fail components of the G1000 package?
> >
> >There are but our procedures prohibit us from pulling them. I"m not
> >sure if Cessna things it can be bad to pull them in flight or what the
> >reason is.
>
> When I took the factory training they said "they're circuit breakers,
> not switches."

That's not so obvious though. When training in the Mooneys the
procedure is to pull the gear actuator breaker to ensure the student
not only puts the gear down but also checks that its down. In most
cases the students notice the lack the Mooney "thud" sounds when the
gear locks down. However, pulling the gear warning horn is prohibited.
So there are cases where CFIs are instructed to pull breakers.

-Robert, CFII

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 07:23:20 -0700, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>
>> transponder (is)a nuisance to lose at best...
>I wonder whether the VLJ folks who are using the G-1000 plan on
>transponder redundancy. Loss of a transponder can result in ATC booting
>an airplane out of Class A airspace.

Which is why I was specifically referencing the NAV III (piston)
setup. I believe the Mustang is equipped with dual GTX, AHARS, and
ADCs in addition to a weather radar and additional (larger?) third
screen as it's MFD, the other (standard) GDUs are configured for PFD
in that setup.

[Sam Spade]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 07:23:20 -0700, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>transponder (is)a nuisance to lose at best...
>>
>>I wonder whether the VLJ folks who are using the G-1000 plan on
>>transponder redundancy. Loss of a transponder can result in ATC booting
>>an airplane out of Class A airspace.
>
>
> Which is why I was specifically referencing the NAV III (piston)
> setup. I believe the Mustang is equipped with dual GTX, AHARS, and
> ADCs in addition to a weather radar and additional (larger?) third
> screen as it's MFD, the other (standard) GDUs are configured for PFD
> in that setup.

I see that you did. But, that still left a hole in my education about
what they are up to with this stuff in the VLJs. Thanks for the
clarification.

[[email protected]]

>It really boils down to finding the single points of failure. In the
>Cessna piston G1000 package the AHARS and ADC are the only single
>boxes that matter in the system.

I agree that a AHARS or ADC failure are the scary ones in IMC (AHRS more than ADC)
It would be nice to be able to simulate thoose failures for training.
In the 182 I'm flying the ADC and AHRS are on the same CB,
if you pull the CB you loose Mode C as the transponder uses the ADC to know altitude.

One can use the G1000 PC simulator to see what a failure looks like, but it
does not really help you test your scan and ability to navigate and control the aircraft in IMC.


Paul

[Al[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:slzHg.8138$cw.5587@fed1read03...
>
>> There is a train of thought that pulling CB as switches can

snip...

> My experience with Garmin stuff is limited to the 530. I would never pull
> the CB for it without first turning the unit off.

Why Sam? I'm just starting to play with one, and I'm curious.

Al G

[Sam Spade]

Al wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:slzHg.8138$cw.5587@fed1read03...
>
>>>There is a train of thought that pulling CB as switches can
>
>
> snip...
>
>
>>My experience with Garmin stuff is limited to the 530. I would never pull
>>the CB for it without first turning the unit off.
>
>
> Why Sam? I'm just starting to play with one, and I'm curious.
>
> Al G
>
>
It is a complex piece of electronics. When you turn it off with the
power switch it might shut down in stages. That is stuff only Garmin
and a savvy avionics tech knows. When you pull the circuit breaker there
is no opportunity for the device to power down.

[Denny]

And what happens in the real world in IMC when you have a complete
electrical loss for a few seconds that abruptly shuts down the G1000?

The G1000 is then brain dead afterwards? (I know it could not be
certified if so)... So, knowing the certification requirements I am
comfortable that pulling the CB on the G1000 will not harm it in any
fashion... Now a reboot may take longer than you like...

That said, whatm frequency of 'partial' failure of the G1000 is
reasonable to expect? <no peeking at the answer>
Give up? OK, the answer is very rarely... Partial failure of a CPU
driven device is rare... If it fails it will go toes up, blank screen -
just as you pass the outer marker usually.. The only failure that is
likely partial is if the antenna breaks off the NAV radio, the headset
shorts out, etc..

So how do you practice a partial panel with something like the G1000?
<no peeking again>
You pull the CB on the G1000 and fly the plane on what little is left
on the panel - because that is what is more likely to happen in the
real world than just losing your DG screen, etc...

think about it...

denny

[Sam Spade]

Denny wrote:
> And what happens in the real world in IMC when you have a complete
> electrical loss for a few seconds that abruptly shuts down the G1000?

My point is harming the very expensive avionics by pulling a circuit
breaker.

I did not intend to suggest that a sudden loss of electrical power would
suddenly render the components forever dead.

It is a whole lot of money to be playing games with.

[Steven Barnes]

A year ago, while flying a G1000 equipped Diamond DA-40, I accidentally hit
the master/alt switch with my map book. We were VFR, but the panel going
black scared me for a sec. When I realized the plane was still chugging
along I flipped the switch back up. Perhaps a little too quickly. The PFD
came online & booted pretty quickly. The GPS would not hook up, though.
Radios worked, VORs worked. Just no GPS. Weird.
Got a quick refresher in pilotage. :-)

I never heard from the FBO about any problems afterwards & flew the plane a
few times after that with no trouble. No clue why the GPS wouldn't find
itself, but the primary stuff & engine gauges came back very fast.

They need to move the master/alt switch, though.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:Ix5Jg.2450$c07.2370@fed1read04...
> Denny wrote:
> > And what happens in the real world in IMC when you have a complete
> > electrical loss for a few seconds that abruptly shuts down the G1000?
>
> My point is harming the very expensive avionics by pulling a circuit
> breaker.
>
> I did not intend to suggest that a sudden loss of electrical power would
> suddenly render the components forever dead.
>
> It is a whole lot of money to be playing games with.

[Jim Macklin]

Or put a guard on it, can be as simple as a metal or
plastic wall.

Was the GPS totally dead or just not locked on the
satellites?



"Steven Barnes" > wrote in message
. com...
|A year ago, while flying a G1000 equipped Diamond DA-40, I
accidentally hit
| the master/alt switch with my map book. We were VFR, but
the panel going
| black scared me for a sec. When I realized the plane was
still chugging
| along I flipped the switch back up. Perhaps a little too
quickly. The PFD
| came online & booted pretty quickly. The GPS would not
hook up, though.
| Radios worked, VORs worked. Just no GPS. Weird.
| Got a quick refresher in pilotage. :-)
|
| I never heard from the FBO about any problems afterwards &
flew the plane a
| few times after that with no trouble. No clue why the GPS
wouldn't find
| itself, but the primary stuff & engine gauges came back
very fast.
|
| They need to move the master/alt switch, though.
|
| "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
| news:Ix5Jg.2450$c07.2370@fed1read04...
| > Denny wrote:
| > > And what happens in the real world in IMC when you
have a complete
| > > electrical loss for a few seconds that abruptly shuts
down the G1000?
| >
| > My point is harming the very expensive avionics by
pulling a circuit
| > breaker.
| >
| > I did not intend to suggest that a sudden loss of
electrical power would
| > suddenly render the components forever dead.
| >
| > It is a whole lot of money to be playing games with.
|
|

[Al[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:Ix5Jg.2450$c07.2370@fed1read04...
> Denny wrote:
>> And what happens in the real world in IMC when you have a complete
>> electrical loss for a few seconds that abruptly shuts down the G1000?
>
> My point is harming the very expensive avionics by pulling a circuit
> breaker.
>

I don't think you can "harm" the avionics by removing power, by CB or
otherwise.

> I did not intend to suggest that a sudden loss of electrical power would
> suddenly render the components forever dead.
>
> It is a whole lot of money to be playing games with.

True, but your safety may depend on your knowledge of just how those
expensive avionics will respond. For instance, in case of smoke it is my
intention to secure all electrical power. I should know what happens when I
do this, and then restore power.

Al G

[[email protected]]

The problem with pulling the breakers:

Loosing a display does not seem to be a big deal, jsut fly via the other one.
So pulling a PFD breaker is no big deal.

The one failure that does seem to be a big deal is to loose the AHRS (gyros)
or ADC (airspeed altitude etc..)
Both AHARS and ADC are on the same breaker in a 182, so the logical thing to do is
pull hte breaker and simulate a failure. However the ADC data provides the altitude to
the transponder, so pulling the breaker kills mode C.
I have not asked, but it seems that flying around with no mode-C will no be allowed by ATC in so-cal.

Paul

[Robert M. Gary]

Denny wrote:
> The G1000 is then brain dead afterwards? (I know it could not be
> certified if so)... So, knowing the certification requirements I am
> comfortable that pulling the CB on the G1000 will not harm it in any
> fashion... Now a reboot may take longer than you like...

Even when Garmin (at least in the factory training courses) says not
to? I think Garmin would tell you that you are trying to simulate the
wrong things, the result of old school thinking about things that have
total failures. The odds of the two buses and the stdby battery bus all
dieing at the same time are about nill. If an individual LRU were to
fail, there is always a backup (which is what you should be testing).
For many items the backup kicks in without you knowing (GPS), if the
main computer/display dies you go into reversion mode, if the airspeed
computer dies you use the steam gauge below. They would probably argue
that you should spend more time practicing shooting approaches with the
PFD dead and the MFD in rever mode or using the airspeed off the steam
gauge and less time trying to come up with your own scenarios.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

> True, but your safety may depend on your knowledge of just how those
> expensive avionics will respond. For instance, in case of smoke it is my
> intention to secure all electrical power. I should know what happens when I
> do this, and then restore power.

But Cessna has given us an entire FITS training syllabus to train from.
Don't you think their training scenarios would be more realistic than
yours? It just seems odd to me that you are trying to "out smart" them.
During FITS training we do some work with the system in reversion mode
but we also do some with the back up steam gauges. If the airspeed
computer fails you just get red X's across the screen and you read the
steam gauge. Not sure why using the Cessna training method of having
the student use the steam gauges doesn't meet your needs.

-Robert, CFII

[Peter Clark]

On 30 Aug 2006 15:44:44 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>
>Denny wrote:
>> The G1000 is then brain dead afterwards? (I know it could not be
>> certified if so)... So, knowing the certification requirements I am
>> comfortable that pulling the CB on the G1000 will not harm it in any
>> fashion... Now a reboot may take longer than you like...
>
>Even when Garmin (at least in the factory training courses) says not
>to? I think Garmin would tell you that you are trying to simulate the
>wrong things, the result of old school thinking about things that have
>total failures. The odds of the two buses and the stdby battery bus all
>dieing at the same time are about nill. If an individual LRU were to
>fail, there is always a backup (which is what you should be testing).
>For many items the backup kicks in without you knowing (GPS), if the
>main computer/display dies you go into reversion mode, if the airspeed
>computer dies you use the steam gauge below. They would probably argue
>that you should spend more time practicing shooting approaches with the
>PFD dead and the MFD in rever mode or using the airspeed off the steam
>gauge and less time trying to come up with your own scenarios.

Heck, Garmin would probably be cheering for people to fry their GIAs,
once out of warranty they're ~10k each to replace. I haven't seen an
AHARS invoice yet.

[Sam Spade]

wrote:

> The problem with pulling the breakers:
>
> Loosing a display does not seem to be a big deal, jsut fly via the other one.
> So pulling a PFD breaker is no big deal.
>
> The one failure that does seem to be a big deal is to loose the AHRS (gyros)
> or ADC (airspeed altitude etc..)
> Both AHARS and ADC are on the same breaker in a 182, so the logical thing to do is
> pull hte breaker and simulate a failure. However the ADC data provides the altitude to
> the transponder, so pulling the breaker kills mode C.
> I have not asked, but it seems that flying around with no mode-C will no be allowed by ATC in so-cal.
>
You don't have to check, just read the transponder requirements in Part 91.

[Sam Spade]

Al wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:Ix5Jg.2450$c07.2370@fed1read04...
>
>>Denny wrote:
>>
>>>And what happens in the real world in IMC when you have a complete
>>>electrical loss for a few seconds that abruptly shuts down the G1000?
>>
>>My point is harming the very expensive avionics by pulling a circuit
>>breaker.
>>
>
>
> I don't think you can "harm" the avionics by removing power, by CB or
> otherwise.
>
>
>>I did not intend to suggest that a sudden loss of electrical power would
>>suddenly render the components forever dead.
>>
>>It is a whole lot of money to be playing games with.
>
>
> True, but your safety may depend on your knowledge of just how those
> expensive avionics will respond. For instance, in case of smoke it is my
> intention to secure all electrical power. I should know what happens when I
> do this, and then restore power.
>
> Al G
>
>
Pulling circuit breakers when there is smoke is prudent. Pulling them
for training is not.

[Al[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:waGJg.2571$c07.626@fed1read04...
> Al wrote:
>
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> news:Ix5Jg.2450$c07.2370@fed1read04...
>>
>>>Denny wrote:
>>>
>>>>And what happens in the real world in IMC when you have a complete
>>>>electrical loss for a few seconds that abruptly shuts down the G1000?
>>>
>>>My point is harming the very expensive avionics by pulling a circuit
>>>breaker.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think you can "harm" the avionics by removing power, by CB or
>> otherwise.
>>
>>
>>>I did not intend to suggest that a sudden loss of electrical power would
>>>suddenly render the components forever dead.
>>>
>>>It is a whole lot of money to be playing games with.
>>
>>
>> True, but your safety may depend on your knowledge of just how those
>> expensive avionics will respond. For instance, in case of smoke it is my
>> intention to secure all electrical power. I should know what happens when
>> I do this, and then restore power.
>>
>> Al G
>>
>>
> Pulling circuit breakers when there is smoke is prudent. Pulling them for
> training is not.

So, when you pull it "prudently", it is your first time? And, you'll wait
until you have a real emergency to find out what else you'll have to deal
with?
I thought that we trained so that in an emergency it won't be your first
time.

Al G

[Roy Smith]

Sam Spade > wrote:
> I have not asked, but it seems that flying around with no mode-C will
> no be allowed by ATC in so-cal.
>
> You don't have to check, just read the transponder requirements in Part 91.

91.215 has one of those "Unless otherwise authorized or directed by
ATC" clauses. I've had conversations like this more than once:

"New York, I'm doing some avionics testing, and would like to shut
down my transponder for a while".

"Approved as requested".

That's all it takes.

[Roy Smith]

Sam Spade > wrote:
> Pulling circuit breakers when there is smoke is prudent. Pulling them
> for training is not.

I pull breakers all the time on students. Instrument breakers. Gear
breakers. A/P breakers.

You'd be amazed how many times I pull a gear breaker and watch a
student not notice that they didn't get three green lights. Sometimes
they even mumble "three green" out of habit.

[Steven Barnes]

I don't remember seeing any specific error message. I hate to admit it, but
I don't remember looking for the satellites page. The pretty little map was
just frozen on the last place it knew it was (which was right under the St.
Louis class B shelf. :-D).
Ah, well. That DA-40 has now been sold & our FBO has a shiny used Warrior...


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:pC6Jg.6334$SZ3.3462@dukeread04...
> Or put a guard on it, can be as simple as a metal or
> plastic wall.
>
> Was the GPS totally dead or just not locked on the
> satellites?
>
>
>
> "Steven Barnes" > wrote in message
> . com...
> |A year ago, while flying a G1000 equipped Diamond DA-40, I
> accidentally hit
> | the master/alt switch with my map book. We were VFR, but
> the panel going
> | black scared me for a sec. When I realized the plane was
> still chugging
> | along I flipped the switch back up. Perhaps a little too
> quickly. The PFD
> | came online & booted pretty quickly. The GPS would not
> hook up, though.
> | Radios worked, VORs worked. Just no GPS. Weird.
> | Got a quick refresher in pilotage. :-)
> |
> | I never heard from the FBO about any problems afterwards &
> flew the plane a
> | few times after that with no trouble. No clue why the GPS
> wouldn't find
> | itself, but the primary stuff & engine gauges came back
> very fast.
> |
> | They need to move the master/alt switch, though.
> |
> | "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> | news:Ix5Jg.2450$c07.2370@fed1read04...
> | > Denny wrote:
> | > > And what happens in the real world in IMC when you
> have a complete
> | > > electrical loss for a few seconds that abruptly shuts
> down the G1000?
> | >
> | > My point is harming the very expensive avionics by
> pulling a circuit
> | > breaker.
> | >
> | > I did not intend to suggest that a sudden loss of
> electrical power would
> | > suddenly render the components forever dead.
> | >
> | > It is a whole lot of money to be playing games with.
> |
> |
>
>

[jbskies]

Sam Spade wrote:
> My experience with Garmin stuff is limited to the 530. I would never
> pull the CB for it without first turning the unit off.

My GNS530 is connected to a Avionic Master Switch. It is fine to turn
off the AMS without turn off the 530. It won't hurt anything. GN
S530 is a solid state computer. There is no hard drive inside that is
needed to be shutdown and park the reading heads.

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>I have not asked, but it seems that flying around with no mode-C will
>>no be allowed by ATC in so-cal.
>>
>>You don't have to check, just read the transponder requirements in Part 91.
>
>
> 91.215 has one of those "Unless otherwise authorized or directed by
> ATC" clauses. I've had conversations like this more than once:
>
> "New York, I'm doing some avionics testing, and would like to shut
> down my transponder for a while".
>
> "Approved as requested".
>
> That's all it takes.
>
>
I didn't glean that he wanted to ask. Depends where he is in SoCal
airspace whether they would say yes.

[Sam Spade]

Al wrote:


>>
>>Pulling circuit breakers when there is smoke is prudent. Pulling them for
>>training is not.
>
>
> So, when you pull it "prudently", it is your first time? And, you'll wait
> until you have a real emergency to find out what else you'll have to deal
> with?
> I thought that we trained so that in an emergency it won't be your first
> time.

Not necessarily so.

If you own the airplance with the G1000 and want to practice pulling CBs
for complex electronic gear, have at it.

[Sam Spade]

jbskies wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>My experience with Garmin stuff is limited to the 530. I would never
>>pull the CB for it without first turning the unit off.
>
>
> My GNS530 is connected to a Avionic Master Switch. It is fine to turn
> off the AMS without turn off the 530. It won't hurt anything. GN
> S530 is a solid state computer. There is no hard drive inside that is
> needed to be shutdown and park the reading heads.
>

If you are comfortable doing it that way, have at it.