Some insights into the G1000

Robert M. Gary writes:

I feel *WAY* safer in the G1000 system than the steam gauges. Look at
how often an attitude indicator goes out in the steam gauges. I for
one would not welcome having to shoot an actual ILS on the TC.
Everyone has heard the 1 or 2 stores of hard failures in the G1000 but
most of us have personally had hard failures of an attitude indicator,
a TC, an airspeed indicator, etc.

After decades of dealing with computers professionally, I get
extremely nervous thinking about any system that allows a computer to
deal with safety-of-life issues.

Properly programmed computers are safer than human beings in such
applications. The problem is that they are almost never properly
programmed. Many of the people developing such systems have
absolutely no clue of the important considerations that must be kept
in mind when designing them. To them, everything is just a Windows
PC.

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

On Jan 30, 11:52 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:
I feel *WAY* safer in the G1000 system than the steam gauges. Look at
how often an attitude indicator goes out in the steam gauges. I for
one would not welcome having to shoot an actual ILS on the TC.
Everyone has heard the 1 or 2 stores of hard failures in the G1000 but
most of us have personally had hard failures of an attitude indicator,
a TC, an airspeed indicator, etc.

After decades of dealing with computers professionally, I get
extremely nervous thinking about any system that allows a computer to
deal with safety-of-life issues.

Properly programmed computers are safer than human beings in such
applications. The problem is that they are almost never properly
programmed. Many of the people developing such systems have
absolutely no clue of the important considerations that must be kept
in mind when designing them. To them, everything is just a Windows
PC.

Do you feel the same about traffic lights, commuter trains, and all
other things that rely of computers to keep us from dieing?

-robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 30, 11:52 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:
I feel *WAY* safer in the G1000 system than the steam gauges. Look at
how often an attitude indicator goes out in the steam gauges. I for
one would not welcome having to shoot an actual ILS on the TC.
Everyone has heard the 1 or 2 stores of hard failures in the G1000 but
most of us have personally had hard failures of an attitude indicator,
a TC, an airspeed indicator, etc.
After decades of dealing with computers professionally, I get
extremely nervous thinking about any system that allows a computer to
deal with safety-of-life issues.

Properly programmed computers are safer than human beings in such
applications. The problem is that they are almost never properly
programmed. Many of the people developing such systems have
absolutely no clue of the important considerations that must be kept
in mind when designing them. To them, everything is just a Windows
PC.

Do you feel the same about traffic lights, commuter trains, and all
other things that rely of computers to keep us from dieing?

-robert

Perhaps if your 'decades of experience with computers' was with real
mission critical systems instead of MSFS then you would understand that
computers have been running most of the controlled devices around you
for the last 30 years or so and have worked very well. Yes there have
been problems, but not to the level which you so foolishly assign them.
Having worked with mission critical systems for the last 25 years
I can tell you that the developers have much more of a idea of what's
important then you seem to have.

Robert M. Gary writes:

Do you feel the same about traffic lights, commuter trains, and all
other things that rely of computers to keep us from dieing?

To a varying extent, yes. It depends on a number of factors.

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

John Theune writes:

Perhaps if your 'decades of experience with computers' was with real
mission critical systems instead of MSFS then you would understand that
computers have been running most of the controlled devices around you
for the last 30 years or so and have worked very well.

Some systems are a lot simpler than others.

Yes there have been problems, but not to the level which you so
foolishly assign them.

The number of problems is vast, but not widely publicized.

Having worked with mission critical systems for the last 25 years
I can tell you that the developers have much more of a idea of what's
important then you seem to have.

Not if their systems reboot.

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