Andrey Serbinenko writes:

What surprises me is that Garmin got FAA approval for such a system,
whereas it doesn't even come close to what "normal" glass cockpit is supposed
to be like in terms of robustness of system design.

My guess is that the FAA doesn't know how to certify glass cockpits.
There are no procedures in place to certify software, or for some
reason they are not applied to toys like the G1000.

I understand it's all done in the name of affordability, but this
is clearly a dangerous game to play.

Is a G1000 cheaper than a set of normal instruments in the cockpit?

So, I guess my point is: you can't just take a steam-gauge-type airplane,
replace all the individual *independent* instrument systems with one
electronic box, and claim you've got an equally reliable plane. No way. By
tying everything together and establishing inter-system dependencies that
never existed before, you increase your likelihood of a catastrophic failure
by orders of magnitude. If you want to use an all-in-one instrument system,
you need to redesign the airplane and fit it with redundant systems to
compensate for that loss of overall reliability.

Absolutely.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.