G1000 vs Steam guages initial thoughts...

[[email protected]]

I have just finished two concurent aircraft learning programs

1)Getting my instrument currency back.
doing some paractice, taking a IPC.
All done in a round dial 172.

2)Getting checked out in a G1000 182.
I've finished the King G1000 VFR and IFR course and spent about
6 hours in the G1000, I've also finished theG1000 182 VFR checkout.


Today we went up and did some IFR work in the G1000 182.
My prior three flights were doing some instrument practice in the
round dial 172.

I'd been doing quite well at mastering the G1000, but putting the
hood on at 700 ft in the G1000 was really hard after flying my IPC
yesterday in a round dial 172.

Holding altitude is hard the Altitude bug is too small and the rate of
climb indicator is such a different presentaion tha tI find it hard to
track.

I t feels like transitioning back and froth from G1000 to round dials
is going to be hard.

When one uses the autopilot in the G1000 182, everything is easier,
one has lots of time to think and the situational awareness is
awesome.

I'm begining to believe that 90% of this is the autopilot and that the
super G1000 integration is not that big of a benift.

The things I really like:
1)Rock solid autopilot.
2)The terrain display.
3)The big map situational awareness.
4)Traffic.

If one upgraded an airplane to

1)Good autopilot
2)Big screen GPS with traffic and terrain
3)HSI

I believe that you will have gaind 90% of the benifit of a G1000 at a
fraction of the cost

One could probably get 75% of the way there with an Autopilot S mode
xponder and Garmin 496.

[Jim Macklin]

The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe manufacturer to
install. The big screens and moving maps are easy to
interpret and getting lost in the middle of an approach will
be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you learn to
navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train your mind
to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.

The pilots who learn from zero time with a glass cockpit
will have to be cross trained in some way to use the windows
and a sectional, or their partial panel procedures will be
reduced to hoping radar vectors are available to an airport,
since even in VFR, they may not be able to navigate.

The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the weakness
in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the displays.
If you get to fly a King Air class airplane, with a gyro
package and displays that cost more than a new G1000 Cessna
172, you'll see 5 or 6 inch AI and HSI, in a dual
[independent] panel. It is easy to control and steady.
There is real performance monitoring of the gyros, not just
a failure on the power flag.


> wrote in message
...
|I have just finished two concurent aircraft learning
programs
|
| 1)Getting my instrument currency back.
| doing some paractice, taking a IPC.
| All done in a round dial 172.
|
| 2)Getting checked out in a G1000 182.
| I've finished the King G1000 VFR and IFR course and spent
about
| 6 hours in the G1000, I've also finished theG1000 182 VFR
checkout.
|
|
| Today we went up and did some IFR work in the G1000 182.
| My prior three flights were doing some instrument practice
in the
| round dial 172.
|
| I'd been doing quite well at mastering the G1000, but
putting the
| hood on at 700 ft in the G1000 was really hard after
flying my IPC
| yesterday in a round dial 172.
|
| Holding altitude is hard the Altitude bug is too small and
the rate of
| climb indicator is such a different presentaion tha tI
find it hard to
| track.
|
| I t feels like transitioning back and froth from G1000 to
round dials
| is going to be hard.
|
| When one uses the autopilot in the G1000 182, everything
is easier,
| one has lots of time to think and the situational
awareness is
| awesome.
|
| I'm begining to believe that 90% of this is the autopilot
and that the
| super G1000 integration is not that big of a benift.
|
| The things I really like:
| 1)Rock solid autopilot.
| 2)The terrain display.
| 3)The big map situational awareness.
| 4)Traffic.
|
| If one upgraded an airplane to
|
| 1)Good autopilot
| 2)Big screen GPS with traffic and terrain
| 3)HSI
|
| I believe that you will have gaind 90% of the benifit of a
G1000 at a
| fraction of the cost
|
| One could probably get 75% of the way there with an
Autopilot S mode
| xponder and Garmin 496.
|
|
|
|
|
|

[Roy Smith]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
> The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the weakness
> in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
> accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the displays.
> If you get to fly a King Air class airplane, with a gyro
> package and displays that cost more than a new G1000 Cessna
> 172, you'll see 5 or 6 inch AI and HSI, in a dual
> [independent] panel. It is easy to control and steady.
> There is real performance monitoring of the gyros, not just
> a failure on the power flag.

Once you've got all electronic data in one place like a G1000 does, I would
think it would fairly straight forward to do some basic data consistency
checking.

For example, if the AI says you're in a 10 degree nose-up attitude, but
airspeed is near the top of the green arc and increasing (and altitude is
decreasing), something has to be wrong. Likewise, if the AI says you're
wings level, but your heading keeps changing, something has to be wrong (I
know, you need to factor in the slip/skid data, but you've got that too).

It's all the same cross-check we learned to do in instrument training, but
done by a machine that never gets bored, distracted, or confused. It may
have other failure modes, but bordom, distraction, and confusion are not
among them. Those are reserved for the wetware.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
> The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe manufacturer to
> install. The big screens and moving maps are easy to
> interpret and getting lost in the middle of an approach will
> be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you learn to
> navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train your mind
> to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
....
> The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the weakness
> in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
> accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the displays.

Something like this might be more better!
http://www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid=59

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
>> The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe manufacturer to
>> install. The big screens and moving maps are easy to
>> interpret and getting lost in the middle of an approach will
>> be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you learn to
>> navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train your mind
>> to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
> ...
>> The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the weakness
>> in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
>> accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the displays.
>
> Something like this might be more better!
> http://www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid=59
>
<Too quick on the SEND button>

I was wondering if these could replace the mechanical gyros even if you're
still running steam gauges?

[Sam Spade]

The G-1000 probably works best when you either use it exclusively or
have a lot of total time and experience in going back and forth.

Your idea of upgrading an airplance with a good autopilot, big screen
GPS with traffic and terrain, and HSI is a good option. But, the HSI
should be an electronic, slewable display, otherwise you have lost a lot
of the real benefit of the G-1000's nav data situational awareness.

And, those standalone electronic HSIs are expensive puppies.

I think I would still opt for the new G600, with the Garmin autopilot.
The AHRS alone is so much better than the lousy gyros light aircraft
have been using for years.

The Garmin autopilot is truly integrated with the avionics and will be
ready to do RF legs when they come along in a couple of years, or so.

wrote:

> I have just finished two concurent aircraft learning programs
>
> 1)Getting my instrument currency back.
> doing some paractice, taking a IPC.
> All done in a round dial 172.
>
> 2)Getting checked out in a G1000 182.
> I've finished the King G1000 VFR and IFR course and spent about
> 6 hours in the G1000, I've also finished theG1000 182 VFR checkout.
>
>
> Today we went up and did some IFR work in the G1000 182.
> My prior three flights were doing some instrument practice in the
> round dial 172.
>
> I'd been doing quite well at mastering the G1000, but putting the
> hood on at 700 ft in the G1000 was really hard after flying my IPC
> yesterday in a round dial 172.
>
> Holding altitude is hard the Altitude bug is too small and the rate of
> climb indicator is such a different presentaion tha tI find it hard to
> track.
>
> I t feels like transitioning back and froth from G1000 to round dials
> is going to be hard.
>
> When one uses the autopilot in the G1000 182, everything is easier,
> one has lots of time to think and the situational awareness is
> awesome.
>
> I'm begining to believe that 90% of this is the autopilot and that the
> super G1000 integration is not that big of a benift.
>
> The things I really like:
> 1)Rock solid autopilot.
> 2)The terrain display.
> 3)The big map situational awareness.
> 4)Traffic.
>
> If one upgraded an airplane to
>
> 1)Good autopilot
> 2)Big screen GPS with traffic and terrain
> 3)HSI
>
> I believe that you will have gaind 90% of the benifit of a G1000 at a
> fraction of the cost
>
> One could probably get 75% of the way there with an Autopilot S mode
> xponder and Garmin 496.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

I guess I'm an old fart, I think that making it so easy that
mental skills might degrade. Just as PC users get used to
having spell-check, G1000 users might become so dependent
and "lazy" that they would have real problem with a failure
of the G1000 and the comm. radios.


"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
| > The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
weakness
| > in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
| > accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
displays.
| > If you get to fly a King Air class airplane, with a gyro
| > package and displays that cost more than a new G1000
Cessna
| > 172, you'll see 5 or 6 inch AI and HSI, in a dual
| > [independent] panel. It is easy to control and steady.
| > There is real performance monitoring of the gyros, not
just
| > a failure on the power flag.
|
| Once you've got all electronic data in one place like a
G1000 does, I would
| think it would fairly straight forward to do some basic
data consistency
| checking.
|
| For example, if the AI says you're in a 10 degree nose-up
attitude, but
| airspeed is near the top of the green arc and increasing
(and altitude is
| decreasing), something has to be wrong. Likewise, if the
AI says you're
| wings level, but your heading keeps changing, something
has to be wrong (I
| know, you need to factor in the slip/skid data, but you've
got that too).
|
| It's all the same cross-check we learned to do in
instrument training, but
| done by a machine that never gets bored, distracted, or
confused. It may
| have other failure modes, but bordom, distraction, and
confusion are not
| among them. Those are reserved for the wetware.

[Jim Macklin]

Looks like a good application, the system drives what type
of display, a mechanical or electronic?


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
| > The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe manufacturer
to
| > install. The big screens and moving maps are easy to
| > interpret and getting lost in the middle of an approach
will
| > be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you
learn to
| > navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train your
mind
| > to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
| ...
| > The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
weakness
| > in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
| > accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
displays.
|
| Something like this might be more better!
| http://www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid=59
|
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

You'd need ARNIC or remote AI and HSI, either mechanical or
electronic, that appears to be a cabin class piece of
equipment.



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| > news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
| >> The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe manufacturer
to
| >> install. The big screens and moving maps are easy to
| >> interpret and getting lost in the middle of an approach
will
| >> be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you
learn to
| >> navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train your
mind
| >> to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
| > ...
| >> The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
weakness
| >> in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
| >> accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
displays.
| >
| > Something like this might be more better!
| > http://www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid=59
| >
| <Too quick on the SEND button>
|
| I was wondering if these could replace the mechanical
gyros even if you're
| still running steam gauges?
|
|
|
|

[Robert Chambers]

Probably microsoft under the covers.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Looks like a good application, the system drives what type
> of display, a mechanical or electronic?
>
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
> | > The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe manufacturer
> to
> | > install. The big screens and moving maps are easy to
> | > interpret and getting lost in the middle of an approach
> will
> | > be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you
> learn to
> | > navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train your
> mind
> | > to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
> | ...
> | > The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
> weakness
> | > in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
> | > accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
> displays.
> |
> | Something like this might be more better!
> | http://www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid=59
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

More likely Linux or a machine code.


"Robert Chambers" > wrote in
message
om...
| Probably microsoft under the covers.
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Looks like a good application, the system drives what
type
| > of display, a mechanical or electronic?
| >
| >
| > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
| > | > The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe
manufacturer
| > to
| > | > install. The big screens and moving maps are easy
to
| > | > interpret and getting lost in the middle of an
approach
| > will
| > | > be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you
| > learn to
| > | > navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train
your
| > mind
| > | > to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
| > | ...
| > | > The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
| > weakness
| > | > in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity
and
| > | > accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
| > displays.
| > |
| > | Something like this might be more better!
| > |
http://www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid=59
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
ration is not that big of a benift.
>
> The things I really like:
> 1)Rock solid autopilot.
> 2)The terrain display.
> 3)The big map situational awareness.
> 4)Traffic.
>
Traffic isn't an effective option unless you have TCAS. That is a long
ways off for light birds.

[Robert M. Gary]

I also fly a C-182 with G1000 although my personal airplane in an M20.
The glass cockpit is nice but it sure seems to suck the useful load out
of a C-182. I have more useful load in my Mooney and the 182 burns 3
gals/hr more to go 20% slower than the Mooney.
However, I love being able to download METARs from across the country
and listen to XM radio in the cockpit. Also the C-182's TIS traffic
system is better than the PCAS I have in the M20.

-Robert


wrote:
> I have just finished two concurent aircraft learning programs
>
> 1)Getting my instrument currency back.
> doing some paractice, taking a IPC.
> All done in a round dial 172.
>
> 2)Getting checked out in a G1000 182.
> I've finished the King G1000 VFR and IFR course and spent about
> 6 hours in the G1000, I've also finished theG1000 182 VFR checkout.
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I guess I'm an old fart, I think that making it so easy that
> mental skills might degrade. Just as PC users get used to
> having spell-check, G1000 users might become so dependent
> and "lazy" that they would have real problem with a failure
> of the G1000 and the comm. radios.

The computer does all the cross checking for you and presents you with
giant red X's if anything doesn't check. It would be extreamly unlikely
for the AHRS to fail in a mode that showed you 10degrees pitch up.
There are no moving parts in the computer.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:
> wrote:
> ration is not that big of a benift.
> >
> > The things I really like:
> > 1)Rock solid autopilot.
> > 2)The terrain display.
> > 3)The big map situational awareness.
> > 4)Traffic.
> >
> Traffic isn't an effective option unless you have TCAS. That is a long
> ways off for light birds.

The integrated TIS in the G1000 works 100% as well as TCAS when you are
flying in major metro areas. However, the coverage area is limited.
Personally, as a pilot I cannot tell the difference between TIS and
TCAS from looking at the display.

-Robert, CFII G1000 instructor

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:
> The G-1000 probably works best when you either use it exclusively or
> have a lot of total time and experience in going back and forth.

Amen! The procedural training required for the G1000 is much more
complex than for round dials. If you don't fly it regularly its very
easy to accidentally miss a step or do things in the wrong order.
Especially when setting up an approach or programming the autopilot.
Can't tell you home many times students have set the VS in the
autopilot and set the target altitude and forgotten to arm the altitude
and flown right through it.
Unfortunately the Cessna implementation of the G1000 and the KAP 150
does not integrate altitude so the altitude you set in the G1000 is not
used by the autopilot. Mooney did a better job with the G1000 driving
the autopilot target altitude so your bug and the autopilot are in
agreement.

-Robert, G1000 CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> I'd been doing quite well at mastering the G1000, ...

I hope after 1000 hours teaching in the G1000 I'll be able to say the
same. I still will occasionally get into a situation where I'm saying
"why isn't it doing what I want". Granted, its now rare but it can
still happen to me.

-Robert, CFII

[Jim Macklin]

That's all great, but the battery and alternator run it all.
I want myself and my students to have their minds actively
involved, not just a spectator.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I guess I'm an old fart, I think that making it so easy
that
| > mental skills might degrade. Just as PC users get used
to
| > having spell-check, G1000 users might become so
dependent
| > and "lazy" that they would have real problem with a
failure
| > of the G1000 and the comm. radios.
|
| The computer does all the cross checking for you and
presents you with
| giant red X's if anything doesn't check. It would be
extreamly unlikely
| for the AHRS to fail in a mode that showed you 10degrees
pitch up.
| There are no moving parts in the computer.
|
| -Robert
|

[Jim Macklin]

I want to fly a G36 and G59 Beech. No corner or cost limits.



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Sam Spade wrote:
| > The G-1000 probably works best when you either use it
exclusively or
| > have a lot of total time and experience in going back
and forth.
|
| Amen! The procedural training required for the G1000 is
much more
| complex than for round dials. If you don't fly it
regularly its very
| easy to accidentally miss a step or do things in the wrong
order.
| Especially when setting up an approach or programming the
autopilot.
| Can't tell you home many times students have set the VS in
the
| autopilot and set the target altitude and forgotten to arm
the altitude
| and flown right through it.
| Unfortunately the Cessna implementation of the G1000 and
the KAP 150
| does not integrate altitude so the altitude you set in the
G1000 is not
| used by the autopilot. Mooney did a better job with the
G1000 driving
| the autopilot target altitude so your bug and the
autopilot are in
| agreement.
|
| -Robert, G1000 CFII
|

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:


>
>
> The integrated TIS in the G1000 works 100% as well as TCAS when you are
> flying in major metro areas. However, the coverage area is limited.
> Personally, as a pilot I cannot tell the difference between TIS and
> TCAS from looking at the display.
>
> -Robert, CFII G1000 instructor
>
I've never used TIS, but I heard before what you state. Problem is the
limited coverage and I understand the feds can turn it off if the need
arises. They can't fiddle with TCAS.

[Jim Macklin]

Sorry, G58 typo.
"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:Jo_Jg.6567$SZ3.5312@dukeread04...
|I want to fly a G36 and G59 Beech. No corner or cost
limits.
|
|
|
| "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
||
|| Sam Spade wrote:
|| > The G-1000 probably works best when you either use it
| exclusively or
|| > have a lot of total time and experience in going back
| and forth.
||
|| Amen! The procedural training required for the G1000 is
| much more
|| complex than for round dials. If you don't fly it
| regularly its very
|| easy to accidentally miss a step or do things in the
wrong
| order.
|| Especially when setting up an approach or programming the
| autopilot.
|| Can't tell you home many times students have set the VS
in
| the
|| autopilot and set the target altitude and forgotten to
arm
| the altitude
|| and flown right through it.
|| Unfortunately the Cessna implementation of the G1000 and
| the KAP 150
|| does not integrate altitude so the altitude you set in
the
| G1000 is not
|| used by the autopilot. Mooney did a better job with the
| G1000 driving
|| the autopilot target altitude so your bug and the
| autopilot are in
|| agreement.
||
|| -Robert, G1000 CFII
||
|
|

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> That's all great, but the battery and alternator run it all.
> I want myself and my students to have their minds actively
> involved, not just a spectator.

You would have to lose the alternator and 2 batteries (the G1000 has
its own emergency supply). In anycase if you did lose power you
wouldn't get 10 degrees pitch up, you'd be a blank screen, in which
case you use the 3 emergency round dials below the Garmin system. My
point is that failures in the G1000 should be very, very obvious and
teaching students to second guess the pitch attitude from the AHRS is
probably not as big a bang for the buck as the suggested training layed
out in the FITS manuals.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:
> I've never used TIS, but I heard before what you state. Problem is the
> limited coverage and I understand the feds can turn it off if the need
> arises. They can't fiddle with TCAS.

They can also turn of GPS. The Europeans are very concerned about this.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> More likely Linux or a machine code.

I would be surprised if they wrote their own OS but its possible. We
often use Embedded Windows in our products (electronic test equipment).
We could use Linux but Embedded Windows is more stable. There is no way
for the customer to tell its Windows though. I bet there are a lot of
devices out there running embedded Windows that customers don't know
about (self-checkouts, gas pumps, etc).

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

Mt point is that the G1000 is easy that the pilot WILL
become totally dependent on the nav display for situational
awareness. If it fails, the pilot will not have any idea on
how or where to go. Backup battery is fine, but in many
areas there isn't an airport of any king within 30 minutes,
and an IFR approach will be difficult. I'm not worried
about the control being lost, I'm worried about the pilot
being lost.




"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > That's all great, but the battery and alternator run it
all.
| > I want myself and my students to have their minds
actively
| > involved, not just a spectator.
|
| You would have to lose the alternator and 2 batteries (the
G1000 has
| its own emergency supply). In anycase if you did lose
power you
| wouldn't get 10 degrees pitch up, you'd be a blank screen,
in which
| case you use the 3 emergency round dials below the Garmin
system. My
| point is that failures in the G1000 should be very, very
obvious and
| teaching students to second guess the pitch attitude from
the AHRS is
| probably not as big a bang for the buck as the suggested
training layed
| out in the FITS manuals.
|
| -Robert
|

[Jim Macklin]

Very possible, Windows is the OS of choice on the desktop
because it is windows. But the code can do a lot, and when
limited inputs and no network connection, NT code is secure
and stable. But these "black boxes" that run FAA TSO and
ARINC hardware have been around a while and they pre-date NT
so backward compatibility is an issue.

The manual is downloadable, it would probably have the
specs.



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > More likely Linux or a machine code.
|
| I would be surprised if they wrote their own OS but its
possible. We
| often use Embedded Windows in our products (electronic
test equipment).
| We could use Linux but Embedded Windows is more stable.
There is no way
| for the customer to tell its Windows though. I bet there
are a lot of
| devices out there running embedded Windows that customers
don't know
| about (self-checkouts, gas pumps, etc).
|
| -Robert
|

[Roy Smith]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
>Jim Macklin wrote:
>> More likely Linux or a machine code.
>
>I would be surprised if they wrote their own OS but its possible. We
>often use Embedded Windows in our products (electronic test equipment).
>We could use Linux but Embedded Windows is more stable. There is no way
>for the customer to tell its Windows though. I bet there are a lot of
>devices out there running embedded Windows that customers don't know
>about (self-checkouts, gas pumps, etc).

Often, the best way to tell is to watch it boot. Our MX-20 prints
some window-ish things on the screen when it powers up.

I've also seen ATMs in banks dispaying blue screens of death.

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Mt point is that the G1000 is easy that the pilot WILL
> become totally dependent on the nav display for situational
> awareness. If it fails, the pilot will not have any idea on
> how or where to go. Backup battery is fine, but in many
> areas there isn't an airport of any king within 30 minutes,
> and an IFR approach will be difficult. I'm not worried
> about the control being lost, I'm worried about the pilot
> being lost.

But again, I think you would notice both screens going blank. Teaching
students to look for errors in displayed pitch is probably not useful
(or probable).

An IFR approach with a totally dead G1000 isn't possible under any
situation. You have no VORs, no GPSs, and only can talk on 121.5. You
just can't shoot an approach with the backup A/S, altimeter, and
attitude indicator.

The chance of a total failure of the G1000 is much less than the chance
that my Mooney loses its only electrical bus and my handheld GPS fails
at the same time.

All that being said, I really don't see a situation where a student
becomes dis-engaged from the system. Flying the G1000 system can be
demanding. Flying an ILS in my old Mooney is (in many ways) much easier
than programming the approach sequence in the G1000. The G1000 may be
safer but the Mooney does not require as much pilot attention.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Roy Smith wrote:
> I've also seen ATMs in banks dispaying blue screens of death.

I'll take the blue screen of death over the "sad Mac" any day (old Mac
users know what I'm talking about).

-Robert

[Roy Smith]

In article m>,
Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
>Roy Smith wrote:
>> I've also seen ATMs in banks dispaying blue screens of death.
>
>I'll take the blue screen of death over the "sad Mac" any day (old Mac
>users know what I'm talking about).

I'm certainly familiar with sad Macs. On the other hand, these days I
run OSX, which is about as rock solid an OS as I've ever seen.

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>I've never used TIS, but I heard before what you state. Problem is the
>>limited coverage and I understand the feds can turn it off if the need
>>arises. They can't fiddle with TCAS.
>
>
> They can also turn of GPS. The Europeans are very concerned about this.
>
> -Robert
>

But, they have turned off TIS whereas they haven' turned off GPS. The
former is low-level tactical stuff at the air traffic facility level;
the latter is at the presidential and joint chiefs staff level.

The Europeans have been known to cry about falling sky on more than one
occasion. Their "concerns" about GPS defy logic for those involved in
aviation planning and system risk assessment.

[Jim Macklin]

But when it all goes TU, a heading and time to find by DR,
the place within fuel endurance that is VFR, and being
prepared to just hold an altitude and heading, and have an
idea of where you are when you break out an hour or two
later at 8,000 feet 300 miles from you last knew your
position and then find an airport.
I would expect ATC to notice the transponder failed and try
to call, and after no response, track raw returns and clear
everything out of your path. I would expect 2 F-16s to
joint up and lead the way to someplace or shoot my ass down
if I was headed toward a major target, er city.



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Mt point is that the G1000 is easy that the pilot WILL
| > become totally dependent on the nav display for
situational
| > awareness. If it fails, the pilot will not have any
idea on
| > how or where to go. Backup battery is fine, but in many
| > areas there isn't an airport of any king within 30
minutes,
| > and an IFR approach will be difficult. I'm not worried
| > about the control being lost, I'm worried about the
pilot
| > being lost.
|
| But again, I think you would notice both screens going
blank. Teaching
| students to look for errors in displayed pitch is probably
not useful
| (or probable).
|
| An IFR approach with a totally dead G1000 isn't possible
under any
| situation. You have no VORs, no GPSs, and only can talk on
121.5. You
| just can't shoot an approach with the backup A/S,
altimeter, and
| attitude indicator.
|
| The chance of a total failure of the G1000 is much less
than the chance
| that my Mooney loses its only electrical bus and my
handheld GPS fails
| at the same time.
|
| All that being said, I really don't see a situation where
a student
| becomes dis-engaged from the system. Flying the G1000
system can be
| demanding. Flying an ILS in my old Mooney is (in many
ways) much easier
| than programming the approach sequence in the G1000. The
G1000 may be
| safer but the Mooney does not require as much pilot
attention.
|
| -Robert
|

[Roy Smith]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
> I would expect 2 F-16s to joint up

Not within 50 feet of the aircraft or for 8 hours before engine start.

[Jim Macklin]

You can see 50 feet in a formation, even in a cloud.


"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
| > I would expect 2 F-16s to joint up
|
| Not within 50 feet of the aircraft or for 8 hours before
engine start.

[John R. Copeland]

That's not what Roy meant.
He must know more about "jointing up" than we senior citizens. :-)

My late brother-in-law said a SAC rule was:
"No smoking within 24 hours of flying, and
No drinking within 50 feet of an airplane."

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message news:WS5Kg.6624$SZ3.5252@dukeread04...
> You can see 50 feet in a formation, even in a cloud.
>
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> | "Jim Macklin" >
> wrote:
> | > I would expect 2 F-16s to joint up
> |
> | Not within 50 feet of the aircraft or for 8 hours before
> engine start.
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

It is hard to proofread your own work. I didn't see the
typo, joint instead of join. Missed his humor, too.


"John R. Copeland" > wrote in
message .. .
That's not what Roy meant.
He must know more about "jointing up" than we senior
citizens. :-)

My late brother-in-law said a SAC rule was:
"No smoking within 24 hours of flying, and
No drinking within 50 feet of an airplane."

"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:WS5Kg.6624$SZ3.5252@dukeread04...
> You can see 50 feet in a formation, even in a cloud.
>
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> | "Jim Macklin" >
> wrote:
> | > I would expect 2 F-16s to joint up
> |
> | Not within 50 feet of the aircraft or for 8 hours before
> engine start.
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> But when it all goes TU, a heading and time to find by DR,
> the place within fuel endurance that is VFR, and being
> prepared to just hold an altitude and heading, and have an
> idea of where you are when you break out an hour or two
> later at 8,000 feet 300 miles from you last knew your
> position and then find an airport.

That's just basic IFR training. The same thing can happen in a steam
gauge airplane. The only difference is that G1000 has more backups. If
you lose your single alternator in a Bonanza and you're IMC for an hour
or so, short of a handheld, you're in the same situation.
However, the original discussion was about second guessing the accuracy
of the information. That is critical in steam gauges since they often
fail in strange ways (like my night IMC "tilted but functional AI").
However, its MUCH less likely in the G1000. In the G1000 you'll either
get red X's or, worse case, blank screen, but not slightly off data.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
"basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
thinking is done by the machine.



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > But when it all goes TU, a heading and time to find by
DR,
| > the place within fuel endurance that is VFR, and being
| > prepared to just hold an altitude and heading, and have
an
| > idea of where you are when you break out an hour or two
| > later at 8,000 feet 300 miles from you last knew your
| > position and then find an airport.
|
| That's just basic IFR training. The same thing can happen
in a steam
| gauge airplane. The only difference is that G1000 has more
backups. If
| you lose your single alternator in a Bonanza and you're
IMC for an hour
| or so, short of a handheld, you're in the same situation.
| However, the original discussion was about second guessing
the accuracy
| of the information. That is critical in steam gauges since
they often
| fail in strange ways (like my night IMC "tilted but
functional AI").
| However, its MUCH less likely in the G1000. In the G1000
you'll either
| get red X's or, worse case, blank screen, but not slightly
off data.
|
| -Robert
|

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:04:22 -0700, wrote:

>I have just finished two concurent aircraft learning programs
>
>1)Getting my instrument currency back.
>doing some paractice, taking a IPC.
>All done in a round dial 172.

<snip>

>I'd been doing quite well at mastering the G1000, but putting the
>hood on at 700 ft in the G1000 was really hard after flying my IPC
>yesterday in a round dial 172.
>
>Holding altitude is hard the Altitude bug is too small and the rate of
>climb indicator is such a different presentaion tha tI find it hard to
>track.

It depends on the person to some extent. I find the G-1000 very easy
to interpret even after all the years on the mechanical gages. What I
find difficult is when I have to switch functions, or
change/insert/delete way points. Where I need the time is punching
switches, meaning when to push which switch to get where I want to be.
The first thing to learn is how to get back to the basic screens. Then
work from there.

>
>I t feels like transitioning back and froth from G1000 to round dials
>is going to be hard.

Again it depends on the individual, how much you fly on each and how
often you change back and forth. If you change a lot is should soon
become a relatively easy transition.

>
>When one uses the autopilot in the G1000 182, everything is easier,
>one has lots of time to think and the situational awareness is
>awesome.

I already have a good autopilot that couples to Nav 1 & 2, the DG, and
has altitude hold. I love it. However I'd dearly love to replace all
of that *stuff* with the dual Garmin set up. Unfortunately that would
run close to the actual value of the Deb. I think they figure to
install and check out the whole works in an older plane is around 75
to 80 grand.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:_bYJg.6559$SZ3.6391@dukeread04...
> You'd need ARNIC or remote AI and HSI, either mechanical or
> electronic, that appears to be a cabin class piece of
> equipment.

(Is that two sentences there?)

Not at all. Compare this AHRS to the ones that do, in fact, typically go
into cabin class/turbine stuff.


> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> | >> The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
> weakness
> | >> in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity and
> | >> accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
> displays.
> | >
> | > Something like this might be more better!
> | > http://www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid=59
> | >
> | <Too quick on the SEND button>
> |
> | I was wondering if these could replace the mechanical
> gyros even if you're
> | still running steam gauges?

[Robert M. Gary]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
> information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
> come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
> "basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
> the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
> to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
> thinking is done by the machine.

Fair enough, but what is the goal? Is the student "thinking" to second
guess the computer or is the student "thinking" in order to handle a
situation where both computers shut down? Second guessing the PFD is
not as necessary as old gauges because the computer shows a red X for
any fault (vs. the slow death roll of the old gauges). However, the
student still has 3 steam gauges to look at if he wishes (airspeed,
altimeter, attitude).
If the student is "thinking" in case the system shuts down, I think the
proper answer to that is always to carry a portable GPS when flying
IFR. The days of keep track of an emergency heading and time to head
towards an airport in IMC are probably gone. Flying against a portable
GPS is much safer. That applies equally to steam and glass. A full
electrical failure in my steam Mooney is much more likely than in the
glass so a 296 sits right on my yoke.

-Robert

[Judah]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
$SZ3.4096@dukeread04:

> You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
> information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
> come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
> "basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
> the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
> to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
> thinking is done by the machine.


The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and any
modern full screen GPS...

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:07:38 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
>$SZ3.4096@dukeread04:
>
>> You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
>> information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
>> come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
>> "basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
>> the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
>> to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
>> thinking is done by the machine.
>
>
>The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and any
>modern full screen GPS...

Yup and there are a *lot* of pilots who end up depending on the GPS
without realizing it. The same is true for a good autopilot in IFR
versus hand flying. If you spend a lot of time in the soup you spend
a lot of time on autopilot. Enough time that if it fails it can be a
shock. Still, the competent pilot practices hand flying in IFR,
flying by map, watch and compass, and flying the back up instruments.

I wonder what the percentages are of dependent pilots versus those who
stay competent on the backups?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Macklin]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:07:38 GMT, Judah >
wrote:
|
| >"Jim Macklin" >
wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
| >$SZ3.4096@dukeread04:
| >
| >> You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
| >> information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost
certainly
| >> come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
| >> "basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to
check
| >> the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is
forced
| >> to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
| >> thinking is done by the machine.
| >
| >
| >The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam
Guages and any
| >modern full screen GPS...
|
| Yup and there are a *lot* of pilots who end up depending
on the GPS
| without realizing it. The same is true for a good
autopilot in IFR
| versus hand flying. If you spend a lot of time in the
soup you spend
| a lot of time on autopilot. Enough time that if it fails
it can be a
| shock. Still, the competent pilot practices hand flying
in IFR,
| flying by map, watch and compass, and flying the back up
instruments.
|
| I wonder what the percentages are of dependent pilots
versus those who
| stay competent on the backups?
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Macklin]

Higher than it should be [zero percent], probably 20-30%
"Roger" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:07:38 GMT, Judah >
wrote:
|
| >"Jim Macklin" >
wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
| >$SZ3.4096@dukeread04:
| >
| >> You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
| >> information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost
certainly
| >> come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
| >> "basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to
check
| >> the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is
forced
| >> to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
| >> thinking is done by the machine.
| >
| >
| >The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam
Guages and any
| >modern full screen GPS...
|
| Yup and there are a *lot* of pilots who end up depending
on the GPS
| without realizing it. The same is true for a good
autopilot in IFR
| versus hand flying. If you spend a lot of time in the
soup you spend
| a lot of time on autopilot. Enough time that if it fails
it can be a
| shock. Still, the competent pilot practices hand flying
in IFR,
| flying by map, watch and compass, and flying the back up
instruments.
|
| I wonder what the percentages are of dependent pilots
versus those who
| stay competent on the backups?
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

[Robert M. Gary]

Judah wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
> $SZ3.4096@dukeread04:
> The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and any
> modern full screen GPS...

Sure, and there is nothing wrong with that. Today most pilots would say
a moving map is MEL for serious IFR (more than just local approaches).
Sure you can fly IFR with a compass and a cat ala the 1930's but who
wants to do that. A handheld, self powered, back up moving map GPS
(296, etc) should be carried aboard any GA IFR flight.

-Robert, CFII

[Judah]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Judah wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>> news:1_9Kg.6638 $SZ3.4096@dukeread04:
>> The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and
>> any modern full screen GPS...
>
> Sure, and there is nothing wrong with that. Today most pilots would say
> a moving map is MEL for serious IFR (more than just local approaches).
> Sure you can fly IFR with a compass and a cat ala the 1930's but who
> wants to do that. A handheld, self powered, back up moving map GPS
> (296, etc) should be carried aboard any GA IFR flight.
>
> -Robert, CFII


I agree with you completely - there's nothing "macho" (or more safe, for that
matter) about not taking advantage of the equipment available to you, but it
is important to have a backup plan and be proficient enough to be able to
excercise the backup plan if an emergency comes up.

Admittedly, though, my backup GPS is not a 296, it's just a low-cost Magellan
with all the fixes as POIs - certainly enough to get by in an emergency in
combination with my ICOM A23. I also carry an extra set of AA batteries in
the flight bag...

[Robert M. Gary]

Judah wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> oups.com:
> Admittedly, though, my backup GPS is not a 296, it's just a low-cost Magellan
> with all the fixes as POIs - certainly enough to get by in an emergency in
> combination with my ICOM A23. I also carry an extra set of AA batteries in
> the flight bag...

For my backup's backup I installed PocketFMS on my PDA that is always
in my pocket and I keep a little CF GPS unit in my flight bag for it. I
travel down into Mexico a lot where there isn't much ATC or VORs. A
lose of my GPS would leave me with just my Loran (which doesn't have
good coverage in lower Baja). So I have my PDA. Even in a super
emergency I could use it to navigate over an airport or spiral down
through a layer just off shore.
The best part is that once I land I switch to MS Streets and Trips my
PDA because a street navigator.
-Robert

[Judah]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Judah wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>> Admittedly, though, my backup GPS is not a 296, it's just a low-cost
>> Magellan with all the fixes as POIs - certainly enough to get by in an
>> emergency in combination with my ICOM A23. I also carry an extra set of
>> AA batteries in the flight bag...
>
> For my backup's backup I installed PocketFMS on my PDA that is always
> in my pocket and I keep a little CF GPS unit in my flight bag for it. I
> travel down into Mexico a lot where there isn't much ATC or VORs. A
> lose of my GPS would leave me with just my Loran (which doesn't have
> good coverage in lower Baja). So I have my PDA. Even in a super
> emergency I could use it to navigate over an airport or spiral down
> through a layer just off shore.
> The best part is that once I land I switch to MS Streets and Trips my
> PDA because a street navigator.
> -Robert
>
>

Ooooh.. That's a VERY cool idea now that I got a Treo! I might have to look
into that... Certainly worth lightening my flight bag...