G1000 vs Steam guages initial thoughts...

Sorry, G58 typo.
"Jim Macklin" wrote
in message news:Jo_Jg.6567$SZ3.5312@dukeread04...
|I want to fly a G36 and G59 Beech. No corner or cost
limits.
|
|
|
| "Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
|
oups.com...
||
|| Sam Spade wrote:
|| The G-1000 probably works best when you either use it
| exclusively or
|| have a lot of total time and experience in going back
| and forth.
||
|| Amen! The procedural training required for the G1000 is
| much more
|| complex than for round dials. If you don't fly it
| regularly its very
|| easy to accidentally miss a step or do things in the
wrong
| order.
|| Especially when setting up an approach or programming the
| autopilot.
|| Can't tell you home many times students have set the VS
in
| the
|| autopilot and set the target altitude and forgotten to
arm
| the altitude
|| and flown right through it.
|| Unfortunately the Cessna implementation of the G1000 and
| the KAP 150
|| does not integrate altitude so the altitude you set in
the
| G1000 is not
|| used by the autopilot. Mooney did a better job with the
| G1000 driving
|| the autopilot target altitude so your bug and the
| autopilot are in
|| agreement.
||
|| -Robert, G1000 CFII
||
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:
That's all great, but the battery and alternator run it all.
I want myself and my students to have their minds actively
involved, not just a spectator.

You would have to lose the alternator and 2 batteries (the G1000 has
its own emergency supply). In anycase if you did lose power you
wouldn't get 10 degrees pitch up, you'd be a blank screen, in which
case you use the 3 emergency round dials below the Garmin system. My
point is that failures in the G1000 should be very, very obvious and
teaching students to second guess the pitch attitude from the AHRS is
probably not as big a bang for the buck as the suggested training layed
out in the FITS manuals.

-Robert

Sam Spade wrote:
I've never used TIS, but I heard before what you state. Problem is the
limited coverage and I understand the feds can turn it off if the need
arises. They can't fiddle with TCAS.

They can also turn of GPS. The Europeans are very concerned about this.

-Robert

Jim Macklin wrote:
More likely Linux or a machine code.

I would be surprised if they wrote their own OS but its possible. We
often use Embedded Windows in our products (electronic test equipment).
We could use Linux but Embedded Windows is more stable. There is no way
for the customer to tell its Windows though. I bet there are a lot of
devices out there running embedded Windows that customers don't know
about (self-checkouts, gas pumps, etc).

-Robert

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.




"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| That's all great, but the battery and alternator run it
all.
| I want myself and my students to have their minds
actively
| involved, not just a spectator.
|
| You would have to lose the alternator and 2 batteries (the
G1000 has
| its own emergency supply). In anycase if you did lose
power you
| wouldn't get 10 degrees pitch up, you'd be a blank screen,
in which
| case you use the 3 emergency round dials below the Garmin
system. My
| point is that failures in the G1000 should be very, very
obvious and
| teaching students to second guess the pitch attitude from
the AHRS is
| probably not as big a bang for the buck as the suggested
training layed
| out in the FITS manuals.
|
| -Robert
|

Very possible, Windows is the OS of choice on the desktop
because it is windows. But the code can do a lot, and when
limited inputs and no network connection, NT code is secure
and stable. But these "black boxes" that run FAA TSO and
ARINC hardware have been around a while and they pre-date NT
so backward compatibility is an issue.

The manual is downloadable, it would probably have the
specs.



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| More likely Linux or a machine code.
|
| I would be surprised if they wrote their own OS but its
possible. We
| often use Embedded Windows in our products (electronic
test equipment).
| We could use Linux but Embedded Windows is more stable.
There is no way
| for the customer to tell its Windows though. I bet there
are a lot of
| devices out there running embedded Windows that customers
don't know
| about (self-checkouts, gas pumps, etc).
|
| -Robert
|

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:
More likely Linux or a machine code.

I would be surprised if they wrote their own OS but its possible. We
often use Embedded Windows in our products (electronic test equipment).
We could use Linux but Embedded Windows is more stable. There is no way
for the customer to tell its Windows though. I bet there are a lot of
devices out there running embedded Windows that customers don't know
about (self-checkouts, gas pumps, etc).

Often, the best way to tell is to watch it boot. Our MX-20 prints
some window-ish things on the screen when it powers up.

I've also seen ATMs in banks dispaying blue screens of death.

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

Roy Smith wrote:
I've also seen ATMs in banks dispaying blue screens of death.

I'll take the blue screen of death over the "sad Mac" any day (old Mac
users know what I'm talking about).

-Robert

In article om,
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:
I've also seen ATMs in banks dispaying blue screens of death.

I'll take the blue screen of death over the "sad Mac" any day (old Mac
users know what I'm talking about).

I'm certainly familiar with sad Macs. On the other hand, these days I
run OSX, which is about as rock solid an OS as I've ever seen.