Garmin takes over

"FISHnFLY" wrote in message
om...


http://www.garmin.com/products/g1000/

Looks like we'll eventually be down to one avionics manufacturer to
choose from. I don't neccessarily think this is a good thing. Anyone
else's take on this?

At least there are currently competing vendors to replace your GPS or
Nav/com or audio panel or engine instruments or whatever.

If you were to fly an airplane with the new Garmin G1000, the entire
avionics and engine instrumentation system is certified en block and thus
for the life of the airplane you would be dependent on Garmin for parts and
repairs. If the integrated tachometer broke, for example, you could not
buy one from a competing source. Etc. for all the parts.

Imagine if 20 years ago you bought a computer or audio system or whatever
electronic device and now you had to rely on the original vendor to keep the
equipment operating. Now imagine that that original computer system
operates a $250,000+ piece of machinery... that would not be a pleasant
situation to be in, yet that is exactly the situation owners of G1000
airplanes will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. The G1000 is the ENTIRE
panel! Third-party modifications are likely to be very difficult since that
would involve modifying proprietary software.

Look at the space shuttle for a comparable example; even NASA is starting to
have difficulty obtaining parts for the 1970s era computers on the space
shuttle.

A glass cockpit is great, but in order for this not to involve unreasonable
economic risk on the part of the airplane owners the design needs to be be
more modular and open-ended, just like the PC industry and in fact just like
our existing system of "steam gauge" instruments and avionics installations.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan wrote:


Look at the space shuttle for a comparable example; even NASA is starting to
have difficulty obtaining parts for the 1970s era computers on the space
shuttle.


Well....there were only 5 shuttles built, and for a very limited purpose. Even
then, they did do a major upgrade on the "avionics" several years ago.

A better model is the Boeing 767. It was the first glass cockpit aircraft that
Boeing sent out the door. The early ships are now 23 years old. They don't
have GPS sensing and they have very limited database memory and slow processor
speed. But, the owners of those early birds have been provided the option to
upgrade the weaker components of the system without gutting the system.

Hopefully, the same will happen with Cessna, et al. I would be far more
concerned buying a Diamond with the G-1000 than a Cessna with the G-1000.

It is pretty tough to integrate all this stuff without being married to a
vendor. Honeywell or Smith "own" much of that suite in the 767.

wrote in message ...


Richard Kaplan wrote:


Look at the space shuttle for a comparable example; even NASA is
starting to
have difficulty obtaining parts for the 1970s era computers on the space
shuttle.


Well....there were only 5 shuttles built, and for a very limited purpose.
Even
then, they did do a major upgrade on the "avionics" several years ago.

A better model is the Boeing 767. It was the first glass cockpit aircraft
that
Boeing sent out the door. The early ships are now 23 years old. They
don't
have GPS sensing and they have very limited database memory and slow
processor
speed. But, the owners of those early birds have been provided the option
to
upgrade the weaker components of the system without gutting the system.

Hopefully, the same will happen with Cessna, et al.

The AS9100 squeeze is on and you will find many less options to come.

All modern jets have the same issue. It is a natural byproduct of
integration. My first plane, a Turbo Lance, had independent avionics and
instrument and no integration. My current plane, a Mitubishi MU-2 Marquise
has a SPZ500 flight director/autopilot system which is more integrated..
The altimeter is merely a display for an airdata computer located in the
nose for instance. The trend is not new. If there are enough G1000s in
service, other companies will start making boxes which will interface with
them.

Mike
MU-2



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


http://www.garmin.com/products/g1000/

Looks like we'll eventually be down to one avionics manufacturer to
choose from. I don't neccessarily think this is a good thing. Anyone
else's take on this?

At least there are currently competing vendors to replace your GPS or
Nav/com or audio panel or engine instruments or whatever.

If you were to fly an airplane with the new Garmin G1000, the entire
avionics and engine instrumentation system is certified en block and thus
for the life of the airplane you would be dependent on Garmin for parts
and
repairs. If the integrated tachometer broke, for example, you could not
buy one from a competing source. Etc. for all the parts.

Imagine if 20 years ago you bought a computer or audio system or whatever
electronic device and now you had to rely on the original vendor to keep
the
equipment operating. Now imagine that that original computer system
operates a $250,000+ piece of machinery... that would not be a pleasant
situation to be in, yet that is exactly the situation owners of G1000
airplanes will be in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. The G1000 is the
ENTIRE
panel! Third-party modifications are likely to be very difficult since
that
would involve modifying proprietary software.

Look at the space shuttle for a comparable example; even NASA is starting
to
have difficulty obtaining parts for the 1970s era computers on the space
shuttle.

A glass cockpit is great, but in order for this not to involve
unreasonable
economic risk on the part of the airplane owners the design needs to be be
more modular and open-ended, just like the PC industry and in fact just
like
our existing system of "steam gauge" instruments and avionics
installations.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
All modern jets have the same issue. It is a natural byproduct of
integration. My first plane, a Turbo Lance, had independent avionics and
instrument and no integration. My current plane, a Mitubishi MU-2
Marquise
has a SPZ500 flight director/autopilot system which is more integrated..
The altimeter is merely a display for an airdata computer located in the
nose for instance. The trend is not new. If there are enough G1000s in
service, other companies will start making boxes which will interface with
them.

If you have a jet, but small GA is going sole source.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
All modern jets have the same issue. It is a natural byproduct of
integration. My first plane, a Turbo Lance, had independent avionics
and
instrument and no integration. My current plane, a Mitubishi MU-2
Marquise
has a SPZ500 flight director/autopilot system which is more integrated..
The altimeter is merely a display for an airdata computer located in the
nose for instance. The trend is not new. If there are enough G1000s in
service, other companies will start making boxes which will interface
with
them.

If you have a jet, but small GA is going sole source.

The G1000 is not being installed only in small GA, so that assumption dies
right there. The Citation Mustang will have it, and it appears that the
Caravan and some other Cessna jets will offer it at least as an option.

I suppose that when Sperry came out with the first steam gauges that there
were people complaining about being locked into a sole supplier and that
those new-fangled gauges would never replace seat-of-the-pants flying.

Most of the objections to the G1000 so far sound like so much ignorant
squawking. It is hard to take any of them seriously. I doubt if the
complainers have so much as even seen one of the installations, let alone
tried to use it. When we get some people who know what they are talking
about, then maybe I will pay attention.

I myself like the G1000 at first blush, but only because it is pretty. It
does not appear to add any real capability other than WAAS, dual
glideslopes, etc., which you could get just as easily from the CNX-80 and
MX-20 displays.

C J Campbell wrote:


I myself like the G1000 at first blush, but only because it is pretty. It
does not appear to add any real capability other than WAAS, dual
glideslopes, etc., which you could get just as easily from the CNX-80 and
MX-20 displays.

I'd go for the G-1000 over a mix-and-match. If for no other reason that it
comes from the factory with all components truly talking to each other.

The AS9100 squeeze is on and you will find many less options to come.

Could you translate that into pilot-speak Mr. Engine Ear?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
All modern jets have the same issue. It is a natural byproduct of
integration. My first plane, a Turbo Lance, had independent avionics
and
instrument and no integration. My current plane, a Mitubishi MU-2
Marquise
has a SPZ500 flight director/autopilot system which is more
integrated..
The altimeter is merely a display for an airdata computer located in
the
nose for instance. The trend is not new. If there are enough G1000s
in
service, other companies will start making boxes which will interface
with
them.

If you have a jet, but small GA is going sole source.

The G1000 is not being installed only in small GA, so that assumption dies
right there. The Citation Mustang will have it, and it appears that the
Caravan and some other Cessna jets will offer it at least as an option.

As long as small GA operators are willing to pay jet prices for avionics
they will be available. The new AS9100 requirement will eliminate most of
the small players that are not already frightened away from small GA by
liability issues.

I suppose that when Sperry came out with the first steam gauges that there
were people complaining about being locked into a sole supplier and that
those new-fangled gauges would never replace seat-of-the-pants flying.

Honeywell is expensive.

Most of the objections to the G1000 so far sound like so much ignorant
squawking. It is hard to take any of them seriously. I doubt if the
complainers have so much as even seen one of the installations, let alone
tried to use it. When we get some people who know what they are talking
about, then maybe I will pay attention.

There is no problem with Garmin's products. In fact, the high quality and
reasonable price is part of why they are headed toward owning the market.

I myself like the G1000 at first blush, but only because it is pretty. It
does not appear to add any real capability other than WAAS, dual
glideslopes, etc., which you could get just as easily from the CNX-80 and
MX-20 displays.

The free flight Garmin equipment flying in Alaska is excellent and cheap.
so cheap that you can get the entire system for less than a Honeywell TCAS.
Honeywell has a digital display offering, but it can not compete at the
price Garmin is offering.

wrote in message ...

The AS9100 squeeze is on and you will find many less options to come.

Could you translate that into pilot-speak Mr. Engine Ear?

Free ACSEP inspections are being replaced by $10,000 per annum private
inspections. The MMF is no more, so the price will have to go up. No small
shop can support AS9100 in any real way.