Garmin takes over

In article , Peter
writes:

When the 430 was new, many people feared that kind of
integration of GPS, NAV and COMM, citing all sorts of reasons.


When the display on my 430 went out, the GPS, NAV AND COM were unusable.

Chuck

This is why I like my setup. A standalone IFR/GPS, and a standalone
NavCom, each with their own indicator head. And a handheld radio,
handheld GPS....
IFR flying is all about having backups.
I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
there's nothing I can do....

(PaulaJay1) wrote in message ...
In article , Peter
writes:

When the 430 was new, many people feared that kind of
integration of GPS, NAV and COMM, citing all sorts of reasons.


When the display on my 430 went out, the GPS, NAV AND COM were unusable.

Chuck

"Doug" wrote in message
om...
This is why I like my setup. A standalone IFR/GPS, and a standalone
NavCom, each with their own indicator head. And a handheld radio,
handheld GPS....
IFR flying is all about having backups.
I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
there's nothing I can do....


If a wing falls off I'm okay because the airplane has two.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message =
...
=20
"Doug" wrote in message
om...
This is why I like my setup. A standalone IFR/GPS, and a standalone
NavCom, each with their own indicator head. And a handheld radio,
handheld GPS....
IFR flying is all about having backups.
I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
there's nothing I can do....

=20
If a wing falls off I'm okay because the airplane has two.
=20
=20
And that's why I have three-bladed props. Two of them, in fact. :-\
---JRC---

On 2004-03-03, John R. Copeland wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...

"Doug" wrote in message
om...
This is why I like my setup. A standalone IFR/GPS, and a standalone
NavCom, each with their own indicator head. And a handheld radio,
handheld GPS....
IFR flying is all about having backups.
I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
there's nothing I can do....


If a wing falls off I'm okay because the airplane has two.


And that's why I have three-bladed props. Two of them, in fact. :-\
---JRC---

I've got four wings AND three blades... but only one vertical stab;
perhaps adapting a Connie tail...But then there's always the parachute!

Peter,

f you put a hundred GNSx30 units into planes
parked outside in northern European weather for say five years, how
many will still be working after that?


Those five years are over. Have you read about massive complaints
anywhere, either here in Europe or in the US (where weather is probably
more extreme and diverse)? I sure haven't. Reliability seems to be a
total non-issue, from what I observe.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Doug,

I get nervous if I am sitting there saying, "well, if THAT goes,
there's nothing I can do....


Well, count the number of single-point failure modes your plan has -
and then stop flying, by that logic. There is no such thing as
zero-risk.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

A PFD takes that kind of integration further. Bigger aircraft have had
that for years - and very succesfully.


Successfully? Yes.

On an economic scale which is practical for piston general aviation? No.

Just the thought that the new Garmin G1000 will be in the C182 and the
Mustang Jet is exciting aerodynamically and frightening economically. Do
you think Mustang owners will be paying C182 prices for their maintenance or
do you think C182 owners will be paying Mustang prices.

Again, I think the G1000 sounds terrific and it enough to make any IFR pilot
drool. I just think the economics will be impractical, not only in the
short-term but especially for long-term maintenance.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Well, count the number of single-point failure modes your plan has -
and then stop flying, by that logic. There is no such thing as
zero-risk.

As long as the G1000 is backed up by a portable GPS and a vacuum AI, the
single-point failure risk is reduced to a reasonable level.

Again, the real risk is economic.... have you ever had to order a
dealer-only component on an electronically controlled automobile
transmission or engine? That should give you a sense of what G1000 owners
could face in 10 years.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Nothing is foolproof. That's why pilots train to handle emergencies, and
that's why prudent pilots provide backups in their avionics and flight
systems (especially serious IFR folks). Cirrus aircraft provide 2nd
alternators, 2 battery systems, provide separation between a main and
essential electrical bus, and even provide a parachute as standard
equipment, and offer transition training to all Cirrus owners. The Garmin
GNS 430 is standard equipment for both the SR20 and SR22 with at least 1
multifuction display (see me flying on my website at
http://members.iquest.net/~jlevy).

Jack Levy
CFI/AIM

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

A PFD takes that kind of integration further. Bigger aircraft have had
that for years - and very succesfully.


Successfully? Yes.

On an economic scale which is practical for piston general aviation? No.

Just the thought that the new Garmin G1000 will be in the C182 and the
Mustang Jet is exciting aerodynamically and frightening economically. Do
you think Mustang owners will be paying C182 prices for their maintenance
or
do you think C182 owners will be paying Mustang prices.

Again, I think the G1000 sounds terrific and it enough to make any IFR
pilot
drool. I just think the economics will be impractical, not only in the
short-term but especially for long-term maintenance.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com