G1000 vs Steam guages initial thoughts...

More likely Linux or a machine code.


"Robert Chambers" wrote in
message
om...
| Probably microsoft under the covers.
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Looks like a good application, the system drives what
type
| of display, a mechanical or electronic?
|
|
| "Matt Barrow" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Jim Macklin"
wrote
| in message
| | news:6mVJg.6550$SZ3.5989@dukeread04...
| | The G1000 is less expensive for a airframe
manufacturer
| to
| | install. The big screens and moving maps are easy
to
| | interpret and getting lost in the middle of an
approach
| will
| | be hard to do. [As long as it works]. But when you
| learn to
| | navigate with no dials or steam gauges, you train
your
| mind
| | to act as a "moving map" and you know the situation.
| | ...
| | The solid state gyros are the best thing IMHO, the
| weakness
| | in the small GA airplanes is the poor sensitivity
and
| | accuracy of the gyros and the small size of the
| displays.
| |
| | Something like this might be more better!
| |
http://www.xbow.com/Products/product...ls.aspx?sid=59
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|

wrote:
ration is not that big of a benift.

The things I really like:
1)Rock solid autopilot.
2)The terrain display.
3)The big map situational awareness.
4)Traffic.

Traffic isn't an effective option unless you have TCAS. That is a long
ways off for light birds.

I also fly a C-182 with G1000 although my personal airplane in an M20.
The glass cockpit is nice but it sure seems to suck the useful load out
of a C-182. I have more useful load in my Mooney and the 182 burns 3
gals/hr more to go 20% slower than the Mooney.
However, I love being able to download METARs from across the country
and listen to XM radio in the cockpit. Also the C-182's TIS traffic
system is better than the PCAS I have in the M20.

-Robert


wrote:
I have just finished two concurent aircraft learning programs

1)Getting my instrument currency back.
doing some paractice, taking a IPC.
All done in a round dial 172.

2)Getting checked out in a G1000 182.
I've finished the King G1000 VFR and IFR course and spent about
6 hours in the G1000, I've also finished theG1000 182 VFR checkout.

Jim Macklin wrote:
I guess I'm an old fart, I think that making it so easy that
mental skills might degrade. Just as PC users get used to
having spell-check, G1000 users might become so dependent
and "lazy" that they would have real problem with a failure
of the G1000 and the comm. radios.

The computer does all the cross checking for you and presents you with
giant red X's if anything doesn't check. It would be extreamly unlikely
for the AHRS to fail in a mode that showed you 10degrees pitch up.
There are no moving parts in the computer.

-Robert

Sam Spade wrote:
wrote:
ration is not that big of a benift.

The things I really like:
1)Rock solid autopilot.
2)The terrain display.
3)The big map situational awareness.
4)Traffic.

Traffic isn't an effective option unless you have TCAS. That is a long
ways off for light birds.

The integrated TIS in the G1000 works 100% as well as TCAS when you are
flying in major metro areas. However, the coverage area is limited.
Personally, as a pilot I cannot tell the difference between TIS and
TCAS from looking at the display.

-Robert, CFII G1000 instructor

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

wrote:
I'd been doing quite well at mastering the G1000, ...

I hope after 1000 hours teaching in the G1000 I'll be able to say the
same. I still will occasionally get into a situation where I'm saying
"why isn't it doing what I want". Granted, its now rare but it can
still happen to me.

-Robert, CFII

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.


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| I guess I'm an old fart, I think that making it so easy
that
| mental skills might degrade. Just as PC users get used
to
| having spell-check, G1000 users might become so
dependent
| and "lazy" that they would have real problem with a
failure
| of the G1000 and the comm. radios.
|
| The computer does all the cross checking for you and
presents you with
| giant red X's if anything doesn't check. It would be
extreamly unlikely
| for the AHRS to fail in a mode that showed you 10degrees
pitch up.
| There are no moving parts in the computer.
|
| -Robert
|

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
|

Robert M. Gary wrote:




The integrated TIS in the G1000 works 100% as well as TCAS when you are
flying in major metro areas. However, the coverage area is limited.
Personally, as a pilot I cannot tell the difference between TIS and
TCAS from looking at the display.

-Robert, CFII G1000 instructor

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.