Any ideas about the best way to transition to the G1000 on a type you are already familiar with (e.g. C172)? An instructor told me that 30-60mins instruction would be sufficient. I am a PPL holder.
Is there a free G1000 simulator and notes that can be downloaded - anyone know?
Many thanks.
PS> I have heard mixed reviews about the G1000, so anyone who has flown with one, please provide your opinions. I know its standard equipment on the C172 these days, so there will prob. be no escaping it in the future.
Last edited by CliffordFW : 18th September 2008 at 11:34.
The very best thing you can do is get the G1000 simulator for your pc from Garmin. It is an almost exact replica of the real thing.
The first issue with glass is that a lot of the information is not in the usual familiar place. In consequence it takes time just looking at the screen to know where to look for what you want. Most people also report that it takes them a while if they are use to the six pack to become accustom to using speed and height tapes and to the precision and size of the AI.
Of course most of the time this doesnt particularly matter but if you are going to use it for IFR the last thing you want is to be scrabbling around for a vital piece of information whilst flying the approach.
On which issue there are three layers to the system. The first is gaining a basic grasp of the primary functions and understanding where the information is displayed. This should not take long to grasp. The second layer is developing the ability to enter routes and change these on the fly. The final layer is to be comfortable using the system in the IFR enviroment with the ability to change routes, dial up approaches, change from one approach to another, select the joining position in the approach you need etc.
I have found that there are more than a few who think they know the sytems well (and they probably do to the extent they intend to use the system) but their "skill" level falls some way short of the third layer.
BTW by craming as much time in on the PC sim as you can you can readily explore and practise all the sytems without wasting time in the air - the G1000 is a very powerful avionics suite with a great deal more to it than at first blush is apparent. Much of it you may not need to know to fly the aircraft and operate the avionics but equally there are a load of labour and time saving aids if you are prepared to fully familiarise yourself with the sytems.
If you have not used some of the add on features before gaining an understanding of how these work and, perhaps more importantly, their limitations may take a little while. The "add ons" include TAS, lightening, plates and the autopilot.
The Garmin autopilot is an excellent product but many of the systems rely on third party autopilots. There are interesting quirks, like for exampe the KAP140not knowing which way to turn when the IAP involves and out bound leg with a turn base onto final. All you need to do is "cheat" - use the HB to initiate the turn in the correct direction, but it is a bit disconcerting the first time if you are watching the autopilot fly the purple line expecting a right turn through base onto final when the thing turns left!
Oh, and so far as your comment about mixed reviews, personally I love glass. I think it is a superb way of combining systems and presenting as much information as the pilot could want in one (or should I say two places). It improves situational awareness enormously (for most of us at least), and it gives the pilot control at his fingertips of each phase of the flight without having to scrabble around for Polleys, approach plates, airport diagrams, maps etc. I think Garmin have done a very good job of bring together these functions. It is fair to say mind you there is not a great deal to compare Garmins efforts against and so perhaps in time the software and harware will improve and we will reflect on the G1000 as clunky and outdated. I also "fly" the Avidyne incarnation of glass. The two systems are in some ways quite different - the Avidyne certainly does not integrate the various functions as well as Garmin. However in other ways the Avidyne is much simpler and more intuitive. I use a computer almost every day so I am pretty comfortable with the technology. If you dont (use computers) I would imagine you might be writing one of the mixed reviews.
Enjoy.
Last edited by Fuji Abound : 18th September 2008 at 11:57.
Hi,
Fuji has it pretty well covered.
Your instructor is on another planet with "30-60 minutes".
I've done about 20 hours in the past year on a G1000 C182 and I'm still struggling because of lack of continuity. I really believe you need to fly a lot to stay on top of it.
If you Google Garmin G1000 you can download the "cockpit guide" FOC.
But be warned it's about 110 pages.
I believe the disc is about £80 and I think I'll have to give in and buy it.
Sportys offers an alternative for less by Richard Collins of Flying magazine.
DO.
I am assuming you are planning on flying the C172 on a day VFR basis.
If this is the case than I could see you being able to intepret the G1000 well enough to get the basic info out of it you need to safely control and operate the aircraft in an hour or so of flying. However you will be using about 5% of its capabilty and it is very important that your lesson concentrates only on this 5%. attempts to demonstrate all its capabilities in an hour will only lead to massive confusion.
At the risk of stirring the pot I think the only reason a C172 should have a G1000 is if it is being used as the first step in a professional airline training program. The system is massive overkill for an airplane primarily intended to be a simple trainer and good weather tourer. Pretty much all of the instruments are optional to the safe operation of the aircraft and it should be flown by looking out the windshield instead of the TV screen.
30-60mins would basically show you how to turn the thing on! To get the most out of the G1000 I would allow 5-10hrs dependant upon what you want it for (VFR / IFR?)
I believe that if oyu get flightsim fsx professional edtion the 172 on there has the gasrmin , you can use most but not all the functions , but its a good aid , ive got the g1000 sim but sceeen resolution doesnt work on my comp so never used it , Ivde got about 100 hrs in a g1000 and still not au fait with it allow much more than 60 minutes , but it is on hell of a good piece oif kit
At the risk of stirring the pot I think the only reason a C172 should have a G1000 is if it is being used as the first step in a professional airline training program. The system is massive overkill for an airplane primarily intended to be a simple trainer and good weather tourer. Pretty much all of the instruments are optional to the safe operation of the aircraft and it should be flown by looking out the windshield instead of the TV screen.
The G1000 is a great help to a pilot flying IFR / IMC. Since the 172 can and is used for instrument flying that is one good reason to fit the system.
Once a pilot is current on the G1000 the sytem encourages a pilot to spend more time looking out because it significantly reduces the pilot's workload.
Whatever the pros and cons you cant sell a new aircraft this days unless it has glass. The homebuilt are fitting glass quicker than you can say clear prop. The manufacturers love it because it is cheaper and simpler to fit.
Like it or hate it I supect glass is here to stay.
Of course the traditionalists will never approve and it is kind of fun flying on steam, even if we all chucked out our type writers now.
The homebuilt are fitting glass quicker than you can say clear prop.
Wow. Let's not confuse a Dynon panel with a Garmin panel.
Dynon replaces the traditional sixpack and if you get the second display, the engine instruments, with an LCD panel. But you still need a separate GPS, autopilot, NAV/COM, transponder and some other bits and pieces. They are mostly aiming at the VFR market
Garmin (and Avidyne too) integrates everything you need to manage your flight into one or two panels: the traditional sixpack, engine instruments, NAV/COM/GPS, transponder, autopilot, TCAS/PCAS, stormscope, XM weather and everything. They are specifically intended (and certified) for IFR airways flight management.
Dynons are very common in homebuilds since they weigh and cost about the same as the traditional vacuum/electric sixpack combo. Same for the engine instruments. But I doubt that there are many homebuilts flying around with Garmin G-1000s. I don't even think Garmin will sell to a homebuilder: they have to be integrated in the airframe by the OEMs.
When you’re building the perfect plane, you want the best in “big screen” avionics. For your new kitplane, the choice is as clear as glass: the G900X avionics suite, an all-glass panel designed for kitplane builders of the popular Lancair and Van’s RV-series aircraft*. Available through a select group of Garmin-trained aviation distributors, this fully integrated “glass package” puts a wealth of safety-enhancing data at your fingertips.
Based on my experience 5-7 hrs to be safe and proficient VFR focusing on the above mentioned 5%. Couple of hrs sim or FTD or FNPT II
Be comfortable in a VFR Cross country scenario and be able to deal with the various possible failures of the system.
Trust me, you don't want to sit there thinking: what the h@ll is it doing now?
You really dont want to do this in 30-60 min.
Think more $2500-$3000
Last edited by B2N2 : 19th September 2008 at 02:03.
Wow. Let's not confuse a Dynon panel with a Garmin panel.
True. Different animals indeed, but if you strip out the procedural element the technolgies are converging very quickly.
Of course the procedural component is no big deal - after all an IAP is no more than a predefined route - you could put your own into most of the systems if you really wanted.
Lets not over complicate glass -take a six pack, add some radios and nav aids, engine insturments and a hand held moving map which is the sort of kit many pilots have anyway and combine the lot into a couple of glass screens and surprise surprise you have glass. If you are happy pressing buttons and working computer sims (which for most youngsters is second nature) you will pick it up the basic elements in a breeze. Drilling down into some of the elements of the system will take time to learn, but in the same way many of use Excel but most of us use about 5% of Excel's functionality.
Just been introduced to a G1000 172 and frankly I don't see the point.
For instrument flying it's worse than a conventional fit, because you don't have three separate needles, and indeed don't have two CDI needles at all (which I find helpful when tracking one VOR radial and picking up another one), and the particular aircraft I was looking at didn't have a DME so couldn't be used for approaches at the local airfield.
For visual ... it's completely unnecessary, you're looking out the window anyway.
So the only reason I can think of for buying a 172 with G1000 is that it's cheaper than a conventional fit (provided you don't want to use it in IMC) ... is this indeed the case?
The G1000 has two nav radios, which can be simultaneously displayed on the HSI. The CDI can be switched between either of those inputs, or the GPS. In addition, if an ADF is fitted, its pointer can also be superimposed on the HSI.
If you spend a bit more time learning its features, you'll understand why it greatly improves situational awareness.
The G1000 has two nav radios, which can be simultaneously displayed on the HSI. The CDI can be switched between either of those inputs, or the GPS. In addition, if an ADF is fitted, its pointer can also be superimposed on the HSI.
Yes exactly. One CDI rather than two, and the ADF needle hidden behind a whole load of other gubbins with no way to bring it to the front if you're doing something like an NDB procedure. I'm sure I'd get used to it if I had to but it does look harder to use than separate instruments.
Gertrude,
You're showing your age ............... so am I. My pet hate is the soft keys. Totally out of place on an aeroplane. However what this system is all about is IFR flying and total situational awareness.
I'll have it sussed in a few years.
DO.
I don't need more than one HSI, but I find more than one CDI useful, for the reason explained in an earlier post.
Quote:
The other "gubbins" can be hidden by pressing the PFD soft key, then pressing BRG1 and BRG2 as they cycle through their display options.
Yeahbut ... you don't actually want to hide the ILS, because you're going to need it in a minute when you've tracked out far enough from the NDB. In a conventional aircraft you just switch your attention to a different dial, you don't have to mess around pressing buttons.
Quote:
I'll have it sussed in a few years.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Maybe I'll stick to flying the older aircraft.
Nobody has answered the question ... is it cheaper than the standard kit?
30-60 mins is doable if you are happy to jump into a plane where you don't know what half the knobs do.
Suprisingly many pilots do exactly that. I find this totally bizzare because I would not dream of flying something unless I fully understood the systems on board.
I have briefly flown G1000 planes and (this is coming from a fully airways equipped TB20 with what was state of the art late-1990s IFR avionics, and 800hrs on it, plus a CPL/IR, plus a degree in engineering so not completely dumb) I reckon it is a 1-2 day ground school to understand the main parts of it, up to loading a route into it.
If you know the Garmin 430/530 way of working, that will make it quite a bit easier.
But going from a basic spamcan sort of thing - definitely a lot of training but I would say the same for any IFR GPS type of kit.
But if you want to cover GPS approaches and the details of stuff like waypoint sequencing (not that this is relevant in Europe, currently) that will be a few more days - if you can find an instructor who knows it.
From my own experience (DA40 based, IFR), 30-60 minutes is... well... super optimistic. It took me something like 10 hours, and I already knew the plane, and had good initial knowledge of the GNS430.
Even a simple "speed check" on final, VFR, will in the benining require more time than what you knew with your gauges, as you'll have to find the information. It's just like building a new set of reflexes. You'll also discover that reading a value is not like interpreting the position of a needle...
The PC based simulator is simulating only one screen, and using it with the mouse is painful. If you can find a simulator (FNPT-II or FTD), you'll have the exact device integrated in it.
I documented my training on my blog. Look at the archives page, particularly the G1000 section: The Archives
Been wondering about the following: As far as I know, most (all?) G-1000 equipped planes come with three backup instruments: ASI, AH, ALT. How many pilots use these instruments as their primary instruments when wanting to know quickly what the speed/altitude and speed/altitude changes are?
Reason I'm asking is this: To interpret a ticker tape speed/altitude scale properly you need to interpret multiple digits first, then look at where the needle is exactly, and whether the tape shows any movement. Or look at something smaller next to the tape indicating a delta. Whereas with the airspeed indicator, you just look at the slope of the needle to see if your speed is right and if it's changing or not. And with the altitude, if the needle is vertical you've probably got your altitude nailed exactly (or are 1000 feet off).
Anybody experienced on the G-1000 who wants to admit to this? Or are you guys all setting the bugs up properly and then simply flying the bugs? (Or let the AP fly the bugs.)
Linear Mode
