SeanD
Well-Known Member
I wish I was that witty and deep. The PBR symbolizes a cheap six pack along with a cheap looking vacuum named Henry which was the first name of the guy who invented the G1000.
I totally made up that last part.
G1000 vs six pack with dual vacuum pumps in IMC
- Thread starter FlyHigh423
- Start date
I wish I was that witty and deep. The PBR symbolizes a cheap six pack along with a cheap looking vacuum named Henry which was the first name of the guy who invented the G1000.
I totally made up that last part.
JustinS
Well-Known Member
I said, I believe a 6 pack breeds better pilots. I have seen pilots who learned on glass struggle significantly with 6 pack because they never realized how much situational awareness they left out there on the glass and not in their head. The better instrument pilots are the ones who with VORs, and an IFR enroute chart can paint the picture on their mental MFD. If the G1000 is always showing you where you are and where you're going it's easy to think that you have good situational awareness when it is just the G1000 showing you where you are...
I agree, hence my reason for people learning to fly on the 6 pack. The transition to glass is an easy transition. Some students really struggle transitioning the other way because they lack the ability to maintain good situational awareness.
From a making life easier standpoint, and having a more reliable system, I would pick the G1000 over the 6 pack any day.
Last edited:
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Whatever. Stinky Hipster.
jwp_145
GhostRider in the Sky
I would contest that good SA is KNOWING where you are... who cares how you arrive at the conclusion.
Following your logic, you'd probably be better off just using a 4 course radio range along with star shots. Your SA would be much better that way.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
I think there's more to it than that. SA includes knowing where you are (which is as simple as looking at the screen with glass) but it also involves thinking ahead, anticipating actions, preparing for next phases, etc. Those things must be done with a traditional six pack or you'll be lost... with glass, you get spoon fed a lot of information and just sort of move the dot around on the screen a bit more. So I think it's valid to say that learning one way versus another may stimulate more development of a pilots ability to visualize the aircraft in its environment and plan ahead. I dont say that because I think glass is bad (quite the contrary) but I do think it presents some challenges in the development of skills beyond scan/interpretation/control.
JustinS
Well-Known Member
Well said! I couldn't have said it better myself. This is the point I'm trying to get at. The G1000 always comes up with VNAV guidance on non precision approaches, and they're always telling you when to turn, how to enter procedure turns. etc. etc. It always sets up your NAV 1 when you load an approach. It depicts the approach on your map to show you where you are and where to go. It tells you if you're using the wrong NAV aid or the FAC is not set up on that NAV Aid.
All this stuff that a 6 pack doesn't do, and you learn how to use the 6 pack as a tool to fly in IMC, and you learn how to piece together the puzzle in your mind. Now imagine the day you lose all GPS signal, and you're trying to use your G1000 without the GPS... That's where it's going to show more if you can maintain the situational awareness that you had before without the big moving map.
This can tie into a VFR discussion as well. I've heard stories, and have seen students who are "iPilots" with their foreflight and their GPS dot overlay on their chart of choice. They get that amazing tool taken away from them, and their ability to actually maintain situational awareness aside from a dot on a map degrades to being entirely lost.... I wish I could say this is an exaggeration. This is what technology breeds if we're not careful to develop a student's true situational awareness that isn't on their magic little iPad or G1000, rather in their mind, and the G1000 or iPad only helps to enhance their mind's perception of their situational awareness.
As I've said in my last two posts. I would pick the G1000 over the 6 pack any day for IMC flying. Work smarter not harder. From a foundational standpoint, you can teach a student to fly G1000, but their situational awareness has the possibility stay close to nil.
Last edited:
jwp_145
GhostRider in the Sky
Well if you are talking about this all from a learning student standpoint, then ya I agree with what you're saying. I was under the impression though that this whole topic was just about which was better in general.
FWIW, when i was teaching, all we had were G1000s... I would turn the PFM all the way down to the most basic level, heading, attitude, airspeed, nav, until the student mastered it. Only then would I engage further functions. I wouldn't let em use the map until they could show me how to consistently get around using green needles.
JustinS
Well-Known Member
I learned on G1000, and I teach students on the G1000. I do the same thing as you in regards to that. Get as basic as possible, and remove the moving map for some flights until they show mastery of situational awareness without it.
Just to play devil's advocate...What's more likely to fail: decades-old VOR station on a spartan FAA maintenance budget, or a GPS constellation that's part of the DoD budget? Seeing as the integrated avionics units in a G1000 bird handle both GPS and VOR, if you lose your GPS receivers you've lost VOR anyhow.
jwp_145
GhostRider in the Sky
Did you know that our NavStar satellites are falling apart at a rapid pace? The company with the replacement contract won't have the new ones ready in time, and a large part of our current constellation is aleready well beyond the service life it was designed for.
So to answer your question, I dunno.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Did you know that there are other constellations of systems you can use to? For instance, I've got a GPS/Glonass combo receiver.
jwp_145
GhostRider in the Sky
Haha no I was unaware! In Russia Glonass something something you!
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
I'm just saying that IMO, the only sure fire way to totally destroy GPS is going to be some catastrophic solar event that destroys basically all space communications.
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
Well, then that's what you should have said originally. Who cares about total destruction? Total destruction is a LIM x⟶c cop out. It's subtle interference that matters to the efficacy of GPS systems. At it stands now, the VOR infrastructure is way more secure from intentional or accidental failure than the GPS system, regardless of the flavor (US, Euro, или Русский). It just doesn't have those cute magenta lines, dammit.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Which is why cutting eLoran was the stupidest thing we've ever done. Seriously, eLoran would have given us enough accuracy to do LNAV approaches like GPS. And loran is even harder yet to jam.
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
For ownership, 6 pack for sure. If your G1000 wizzbang goes out (and out of warranty), you will pay BIG money to the big G to get it fixed, and you will have NO options.
If my AI goes out, there are hundreds of places to get one, and of any variety. Oh, yea, I'm not AOG, either as long as it's VFR.
Richman
If my AI goes out, there are hundreds of places to get one, and of any variety. Oh, yea, I'm not AOG, either as long as it's VFR.
Richman
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
Understand the cost issue, but over time that will get worse (I believe). I still think training should be done 6 pack, transition later (maybe even IFR). Funny when trying to rent a plane I'm asked if I know what carb heat is. Told me most kids (and he said kids) renting don't know what that is because of the use of newer 172s for training.
