IPC G1000

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.
|

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

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
|

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.