Matt Barrow wrote:
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Those whose aircraft are tools rather than "playthings" often want every
edge we can get when they are use for making money. For many, it's a much
cheaper alternative to a whole newer airplane.

What capabilities would you have with glass in a typical light airplane
that you don't have without?


Much better situational awareness, plus higher reliability.

Short answer: there aren't any. Sure, glass may be nicer, reduce
workload, and provide non-essential services such as terrain and
weather,


You think those are "non-essential"? HooooooBoy!!


but the reality is that you're still flying to the same
airports, with the same approaches, using the same minimums, and flying
the same routes. If you are flying revenue-generating missions, the
glass may well be worth it, but I don't see the value for general
business or pleasure flyers over the long term.


Have you ever flown for business? Regularly? (I'm addressing business
flying, not corporate aviation here, which is even more exacting)

The gap between business and pleasure flying make the Grand Canyon look like
a narrow ditch.

Here's my situation, offered as an example, though I suspect it's common:

Stuff deleted

In this example, one slip might have cost me several times the cost of the
Garmin unit. Can you grasp the differences here?



Our "non-essential" XM weather made what could have been a way to
exciting flight rather comfortable and it's no less important for
pleasure flying. Without it our Sunday flight home might not have
happened and that doesn't sit too well with the office "Sorry, weather
isn't good, I won't be in for a few days".

Margy