Is this the death of GA

Owner writes:

See the stock & optional equipment he

http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml

Thanks.

Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in favor of
more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments), for safety
reasons.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Owner writes:

See the stock & optional equipment he

http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml

Thanks.

Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in
favor of more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments),
for safety reasons.



Good grief.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Owner writes:

See the stock & optional equipment he

http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml

Thanks.

Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in
favor of more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments),
for safety reasons.


As usual, you don't know **** from shinola.

In article ,
says...


Owner writes:

See the stock & optional equipment he

http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml

Thanks.

Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in favor of
more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments), for safety
reasons.


OK, let's hear this one.
What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Let's hear the fine points, from the expert, about what's unsafe in the G-1000
system.

Airbus writes:

What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much complexity,
too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of digital systems.

On Feb 24, 9:08 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Airbus writes:
What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much complexity,
too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of digital systems.

Hold on...

How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?

How do you know how much testing and of what type?

"Too much complexity"? What in Sam Hill does that mean?

Holy cow -- I just saw who posted that response.

Oy.

To the real pilots with G1000 experience:

My only beef with the G1000 equipped 182 is the lack of a TC. I like
those things. Personal preference.

The system would be nigh perfect if it had synthetic topography and
obstacle display.


Dan

writes:

How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?

Two or three, I suppose. Does every instrument in the cockpit depend on
vacuum?

How do you know how much testing and of what type?

"Too much complexity"? What in Sam Hill does that mean?

I know that the number of possible paths in complex software expands
exponentially with complexity, and that it is impossible to test them all.
Therefore many paths go untested, and if a bug should exist on an untested
path, and if that path should be executed in operation ... on that path lies
danger.

Even NASA missed things occasionally in testing, and Garmin doesn't have the
time, the budget, or the mindset of NASA. And the computers NASA used were
orders of magnitude simpler than what Garmin is using.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?

Two or three, I suppose. Does every instrument in the cockpit depend
on vacuum?


you're an idiot and you don't fly.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Airbus writes:

What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much
complexity, too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of
digital systems.


If you flew, you would know if that was safe or not..


But you don't

bertie

In article ,
says...


Airbus writes:

What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much complexity,
too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of digital systems.


I used to think you were intelligent, but mentally ill.
Now I believe you are really an imbecile. Down-dirty-dumb.
You are so clueless it's historic.