Recently, Mike Isaksen posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote ...
Since the G1000 system is modular, a different configuration of
components could be made functionally equivalent or superior to the
current design of any of its modules, so it should be able to be
maintained indefinitely. This doesn't follow the computer-oriented
model of selling system "upgrades", but that is a different matter.


Two thought provoking sentences, but I don't see how the second
supports the first.

And where (at what levels) do you see the G1000 system as being
modular?

The G1000 seminar that I attended showed some of the various modules
located in the tail section of a Cessna. For example, the AHRS module that
is having failure issues is a separate unit ("box") from other components.
Garmin describes the G1000 as an "integrated system" of components:

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/ma...D=153&pID=6420

I see the "system" as almost a "single box", and when
components fail or portions become obsolete (ie transponder upgrade
to ADS-B, or internal processing speed vs newer box) it might be cost
effective to just dump the whole box.

That's part of the "different matter" I wrote of previously. ;-)
The possibility or practicality of replacing the whole system does not
mean that the system could not be maintained or even improved by replacing
modules with updated components and/or design. This is a fairly common
practice in other areas of electronics where the system is modular and has
a high purchase price.

On another line, how well has Garmin demonstrated its understanding
(or commitmant) to the fact that lifecycle of GA avionics is 20+
years? In my opinion: not much. Or maybe my opinion is based on the
above, that I don't view the G1000 as very modular or upgradable !?!

More than likely. ;-)

Neil