Question on Aivdyne / Garmin Integrated Avionics Packages

wrote:



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


Tim,

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

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Scott Skylane wrote:

wrote:


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


Tim,

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



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

wrote:




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


Tim,

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

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

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Scott Skylane wrote:

wrote:




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


Tim,

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

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



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

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

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

wrote in message ...


Scott Skylane wrote:

wrote:




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


Tim,

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

Dude wrote:

wrote in message ...


Scott Skylane wrote:

wrote:




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


Tim,

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

wrote in message ...


Dude wrote:

wrote in message
...


Scott Skylane wrote:

wrote:




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


Tim,

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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