First flight in a G1000 today...

[SpiraMirabilis]

Be careful, if you keep talking like that you'll have about 15 cargo pilots with mediocre social skills, who've never touched glass, telling you you're not a real pilot unless you can hand fly an ILS inverted, and the G1000 will turn your brain to mush



I love glass cockpits. Can't wait until they become the norm, rather than the exception, in another 10 or 15 years. Probably the best thing to happen to aircraft since the invention of GPS.

If you do the ILS inverted you get an extra 10 or 12 feet or so of clearance to see the approach lights... duh!!

 

[Maurus]

That's a subscription right?

The synthetic vision is buy once and you keep. The terrain information it uses to show you the mountains and towers needs to be updated with a subscription though.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Thats just kind of a money making thing... sure towers but mountains don't really move that often, do they?

 

[wjmiller3]

I love the G1000, but the GFC 700 autopilot makes it even better...

I concur....

 

[jrh]

What about a cargo pilot with slightly above mediocre social skills who has probably more glass time than most of ya'll saying the same thing?

Are you saying you've taken that big ol' 74- down an ILS inverted? You're DANGEROUS!


Ok, in your case, I'd have to disagree, but I'd at least respect you more than the average guy who bashes glass without having a clue what he's talking about, which is what I see most of the time around here.

 

[jrh]

If you want to safely fly IFR with glass cockpit make sure you've got a set of steam guages, and a handheld GPS incase of the worst case scenario.

Yeah...flying IFR in conventional panel aircraft is way safer, since glass breaks all the time.

Features of a conventional panel:

One electrical system
One GPS receiver (maybe)
A vacuum pump powering critical flight instruments


Features of a G1000:

Redundant electrical system
Redundant GPS receivers
AHRS unit to provide flight data without the use of vacuum pumps


Clearly we can see, since the conventional panel is bare, sparse, and simple, it must be better. There is less to go wrong with a conventional panel.

Oh, and I'm going to ignore the enhanced situational awareness / decreased risk of a CFIT accident while flying a glass panel, since more pilots die every year from glass panels failing than from getting disoriented and losing SA with a conventional panel.

to all of the above, in case there's any doubt.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Yeah...flying IFR in conventional panel aircraft is way safer, since glass breaks all the time.

Features of a conventional panel:

One electrical system
One GPS receiver (maybe)
A vacuum pump powering critical flight instruments


Features of a G1000:

Redundant electrical system
Redundant GPS receivers
AHRS unit to provide flight data without the use of vacuum pumps


Clearly we can see, since the conventional panel is bare, sparse, and simple, it must be better. There is less to go wrong with a conventional panel.

Oh, and I'm going to ignore the enhanced situational awareness / decreased risk of a CFIT accident while flying a glass panel, since more pilots die every year from glass panels failing than from getting disoriented and losing SA with a conventional panel.

to all of the above, in case there's any doubt.

I still want to know who the hell thought it was a good idea to power 2 of the primary instruments with something as failure-prone and finicky as a dry vacuum pump. Seriously, WTF? In about 700 hours in G1000 aircraft, I've seen 2 or 3 vacuum pump (or mechanical gyro) failures and zero AHRS failures, and my employer was VERY pro-active about changing vacuum pumps.

Also something Pat's post missed is the redundancy built into most glass systems (at least the G-1000). I can't think of any one component failure that leaves you completely hosed.

As for having a handheld GPS, we should all carry one in steam cockpits as well, because if that alternator tosses its cookies, you're left with compass and clock for navigation my friend.

 

[ppragman]

Yeah...flying IFR in conventional panel aircraft is way safer, since glass breaks all the time.

Features of a conventional panel:

One electrical system
One GPS receiver (maybe)
A vacuum pump powering critical flight instruments


Features of a G1000:

Redundant electrical system
Redundant GPS receivers
AHRS unit to provide flight data without the use of vacuum pumps


Clearly we can see, since the conventional panel is bare, sparse, and simple, it must be better. There is less to go wrong with a conventional panel.

Oh, and I'm going to ignore the enhanced situational awareness / decreased risk of a CFIT accident while flying a glass panel, since more pilots die every year from glass panels failing than from getting disoriented and losing SA with a conventional panel.

to all of the above, in case there's any doubt.

Having had my fancy glass cockpit fail in low VFR, I know what I'm going to do... the handheld comes every day its not CAVU.

Complete electrical system failure. Complete. You're hosed without least a backup attitude, and a handheld GPS.

 

[ppragman]

I still want to know who the hell thought it was a good idea to power 2 of the primary instruments with something as failure-prone and finicky as a dry vacuum pump. Seriously, WTF? In about 700 hours in G1000 aircraft, I've seen 2 or 3 vacuum pump (or mechanical gyro) failures and zero AHRS failures, and my employer was VERY pro-active about changing vacuum pumps.

Also something Pat's post missed is the redundancy built into most glass systems (at least the G-1000). I can't think of any one component failure that leaves you completely hosed.

As for having a handheld GPS, we should all carry one in steam cockpits as well, because if that alternator tosses its cookies, you're left with compass and clock for navigation my friend.

I agree. Still though, I want to have backups. Think too, if your G1000 completely craps out, and you have no other backups, how do you tell airspeed? People will say, "how rare does that happen?" Doesn't matter, murphy's law can and may strike anywhere.

I've also flown through some pretty rough weather that has confused the system. The computer thought I was heading an angle 75 degrees to the right with my same track with a 180kt crosswind.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Having had my fancy glass cockpit fail in low VFR, I know what I'm going to do... the handheld comes every day its not CAVU.

Complete electrical system failure. Complete. You're hosed without least a backup attitude, and a handheld GPS.

1. Every glass installation I've seen has a backup attitude. A full attitude. No needle-ball-airspeed crap to deal with.

2. The handheld is, I agree, a good idea. But I fail to see how a glass cockpit differs from steam in that respect. In either case, if the whole electrical system craps out, you're down to dead reckoning.

 

[Roger, Roger]

I agree. Still though, I want to have backups. Think too, if your G1000 completely craps out, and you have no other backups, how do you tell airspeed? People will say, "how rare does that happen?" Doesn't matter, murphy's law can and may strike anywhere.

I've also flown through some pretty rough weather that has confused the system. The computer thought I was heading an angle 75 degrees to the right with my same track with a 180kt crosswind.

Every certificated glass system I've seen has a backup Attitude, Airspeed, and Altitude. I don't know if that's an FAA requirement for certification or just the industry standard, but having flown partial panel using those gauges it works just fine. Better than partial panel on steam, that's for sure. Power for the AI is usually either a vacuum pump (ugh) or a self-contained battery pack.

 

[ppragman]

1. Every glass installation I've seen has a backup attitude. A full attitude. No needle-ball-airspeed crap to deal with.

2. The handheld is, I agree, a good idea. But I fail to see how a glass cockpit differs from steam in that respect. In either case, if the whole electrical system craps out, you're down to dead reckoning.

Every certificated glass system I've seen has a backup Attitude, Airspeed, and Altitude. I don't know if that's an FAA requirement for certification or just the industry standard, but having flown partial panel using those gauges it works just fine. Better than partial panel on steam, that's for sure. Power for the AI is usually either a vacuum pump (ugh) or a self-contained battery pack.

I completely agree with you on this. The handheld is a must regardless in my opinion. I'm not arguing that steam is better at all. I love being able to see where the mountains are at when I'm flogging along at 130Kts at 600' in 2 miles of vis. To go back to the equipment I had available before would be like going back to the dark ages. That being said, I'd still rather not trust the thing with my life completely as I've seen them fail. Our Airplanes have almost a complete backup panel, we've got a backup AI, Airspeed, Altitude, and DG, the only thing we're lacking is a turn and bank. Basically, it lets us have a complete electrical system failure and we can still hold the wings level, and then we've got the handheld to navigate. Just my $.02.

 

[Roger, Roger]

I completely agree with you on this. The handheld is a must regardless in my opinion. I'm not arguing that steam is better at all. I love being able to see where the mountains are at when I'm flogging along at 130Kts at 600' in 2 miles of vis. To go back to the equipment I had available before would be like going back to the dark ages. That being said, I'd still rather not trust the thing with my life completely as I've seen them fail. Our Airplanes have almost a complete backup panel, we've got a backup AI, Airspeed, Altitude, and DG, the only thing we're lacking is a turn and bank. Basically, it lets us have a complete electrical system failure and we can still hold the wings level, and then we've got the handheld to navigate. Just my $.02.

Gotcha. Now I'm curious as to the actual certification-required backup instrumentation. Maybe if I get bored I'll see what part 23 says about it.

 

[jrh]

Complete electrical system failure. Complete. You're hosed without least a backup attitude, and a handheld GPS.

When you talk about a "glass cockpit" what are you referring to?

I'm usually referring to the G1000 system and it's darn near impossible to kill that system. Between the standby battery system and reversionary mode for individual display failures, the chances of having a completely dark cockpit are ridiculously slim. Maybe other systems aren't as well-designed.



Something that concerns me about a lot of truly old school pilots is that they don't trust modern glass systems in the same way aviators at the dawn of instrument flight would rather scud run at 50 AGL than take their new-fangled instrument planes in to the clouds...and many of them died as a result.

Some old school pilots are so concerned with the glass system leaving them in the dark that they'd rather stick to technology that is even more error-prone simply because that's what they're comfortable with and trust. Kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you ask me.

 

[ppragman]

When you talk about a "glass cockpit" what are you referring to?

I'm usually referring to the G1000 system and it's darn near impossible to kill that system. Between the standby battery system and reversionary mode for individual display failures, the chances of having a completely dark cockpit are ridiculously slim. Maybe other systems aren't as well-designed.



Something that concerns me about a lot of truly old school pilots is that they don't trust modern glass systems in the same way aviators at the dawn of instrument flight would rather scud run at 50 AGL than take their new-fangled instrument planes in to the clouds...and many of them died as a result.

Some old school pilots are so concerned with the glass system leaving them in the dark that they'd rather stick to technology that is even more error-prone simply because that's what they're comfortable with and trust. Kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you ask me.

How long does the battery give you? Oldschool guys have probably had a lot more things break than you or I. The Chelton system is incredibly robust, but still, screens break, alternators fail, and systems crash. Backups are your friend.

 

[Blip16]

Gotcha. Now I'm curious as to the actual certification-required backup instrumentation. Maybe if I get bored I'll see what part 23 says about it.

it does. i was looking thru those regs the other day with my student when we were looking at the type sheet for the seminole

and most are limited to VFR unless the stdby's are working correctly according the the limitations of the systems.

 

[jrh]

How long does the battery give you?

The standby battery powers the essential bus (PFD, NAV1, COMM1, AHRS/ADC, and a few other critical systems) for a minimum of 30 minutes, after the main battery drops below 20 volts (and obviously the main battery would drop at varying rates depending on load). I tell people they will have about 45 minutes to get out of the soup / on the ground after an alternator failure.

Oldschool guys have probably had a lot more things break than you or I.

True. And I bet a lot of those early pilots had gotten through at 50 AGL many times before, as well.

The Chelton system is incredibly robust, but still, screens break, alternators fail, and systems crash. Backups are your friend.

Ok, I don't know much about Chelton, but that's what I tried to tell you about the G1000--it has redundant systems for every problem you described.

Screens break -- Reversionary mode (displays all critical information on operative screen)
Alternators fail -- Main battery lasts for a while, then standby battery takes over
Systems crash -- I've never even heard of this happening, but I suspect rebooting would take care of most software glitches.

 

[ppragman]

The standby battery powers the essential bus (PFD, NAV1, COMM1, AHRS/ADC, and a few other critical systems) for a minimum of 30 minutes, after the main battery drops below 20 volts (and obviously the main battery would drop at varying rates depending on load). I tell people they will have about 45 minutes to get out of the soup / on the ground after an alternator failure.



True. And I bet a lot of those early pilots had gotten through at 50 AGL many times before, as well.



Ok, I don't know much about Chelton, but that's what I tried to tell you about the G1000--it has redundant systems for every problem you described.

Screens break -- Reversionary mode (displays all critical information on operative screen)
Alternators fail -- Main battery lasts for a while, then standby battery takes over
Systems crash -- I've never even heard of this happening, but I suspect rebooting would take care of most software glitches.

I'm not some sort of backward amish pilot, I fly glass on every leg of everyday, and have come to trust it to an extent. Hell, I probably have as much time glass as you do. Do I think its a good idea to trust the whole of my life to one system run off of electricity? No. I do not. Backups are your friend. That being said, 45minutes to get on the ground is not that long after an alternator failure, at least a handheld in the plane gives you some more possible options if you have a general idea where the nearest VMC is at. Becareful out there.

 

[skatergeek]

When you talk about a "glass cockpit" what are you referring to?

I'm usually referring to the G1000 system and it's darn near impossible to kill that system. Between the standby battery system and reversionary mode for individual display failures, the chances of having a completely dark cockpit are ridiculously slim. Maybe other systems aren't as well-designed.



Something that concerns me about a lot of truly old school pilots is that they don't trust modern glass systems in the same way aviators at the dawn of instrument flight would rather scud run at 50 AGL than take their new-fangled instrument planes in to the clouds...and many of them died as a result.

Some old school pilots are so concerned with the glass system leaving them in the dark that they'd rather stick to technology that is even more error-prone simply because that's what they're comfortable with and trust. Kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you ask me.

I have done one flight in a G1000 C182. 45 min into the flight I had an electrical fire...that killed that G1000 pretty fast. Maybe I just had bad luck that day but i have 2100+ hours in steam gauges and never had a failure, and about .8 in a G1000 with an electrical fire...ill stick with the gauges

 

[Mike H]

If you do the ILS inverted you get an extra 10 or 12 feet or so of clearance to see the approach lights... duh!!

But wouldn't that make you more susceptible to shock cooling?