But when it all goes TU, a heading and time to find by DR,
the place within fuel endurance that is VFR, and being
prepared to just hold an altitude and heading, and have an
idea of where you are when you break out an hour or two
later at 8,000 feet 300 miles from you last knew your
position and then find an airport.
I would expect ATC to notice the transponder failed and try
to call, and after no response, track raw returns and clear
everything out of your path. I would expect 2 F-16s to
joint up and lead the way to someplace or shoot my ass down
if I was headed toward a major target, er city.



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Mt point is that the G1000 is easy that the pilot WILL
| become totally dependent on the nav display for
situational
| awareness. If it fails, the pilot will not have any
idea on
| how or where to go. Backup battery is fine, but in many
| areas there isn't an airport of any king within 30
minutes,
| and an IFR approach will be difficult. I'm not worried
| about the control being lost, I'm worried about the
pilot
| being lost.
|
| But again, I think you would notice both screens going
blank. Teaching
| students to look for errors in displayed pitch is probably
not useful
| (or probable).
|
| An IFR approach with a totally dead G1000 isn't possible
under any
| situation. You have no VORs, no GPSs, and only can talk on
121.5. You
| just can't shoot an approach with the backup A/S,
altimeter, and
| attitude indicator.
|
| The chance of a total failure of the G1000 is much less
than the chance
| that my Mooney loses its only electrical bus and my
handheld GPS fails
| at the same time.
|
| All that being said, I really don't see a situation where
a student
| becomes dis-engaged from the system. Flying the G1000
system can be
| demanding. Flying an ILS in my old Mooney is (in many
ways) much easier
| than programming the approach sequence in the G1000. The
G1000 may be
| safer but the Mooney does not require as much pilot
attention.
|
| -Robert
|