GA and "Glass"

[Superpilot]

Anybody aircraft owners considering/have considered or actually have any glass cockpit type instruments? Just come back from a short trip over from the pond and was amazed at how common they are now. Lots of owners just not bothering with traditional steam driven instruments anymore even on 152's!

I saw some amazing kit out there including Horizons, ND's and Engine monitoring units and I'm not talking about your Garmin G1000 or Avidyne but much smaller, less expensive, separated instuments by company's such as Blue Mountain, Chelton and Grand Rapids Avionics.

Any thoughts?

[nouseforaname]

Chelton is fantastic about $100k fitted

[FlyingForFun]

A student of mine has bought himself a C172 with G1000.

He intends to use it for VFR touring - including some long distance touring when the weather is suitable. He has a house in Belgium, but he is realistic about not being able to travel that kind of distance without very good weather.

My own view is this: he had a certain budget, and the aircraft he bought fits that budget. If it were me, I would have looked at the price of a C172 without the G1000, and seen that it was a little below my budget. Then I would have considered what I would spend the extra money on. It wouldn't have been the G1000, because that really doesn't extend the capability of the aircraft. It doesn't go any faster or any further, it may make it marginally easier to do the kind of trip he intends to do but any PPL should, with a bit of experience, be able to fly those trips without the G1000.

If it were me, I would have used the extra budget to upgrade the capability of my aircraft - perhaps by buying a C182 instead of a C172, or investigating other manufacturers' offerings for a similar budget. If I was thinking, longer term, of getting an IMC rating, I'd have spent some money on a DME and an ADF (neither of which his aircraft has), and maybe a cheaper GPS. These would give me real extra capability. (Although it should be pointed out that ADF and DME will become far less important if GPS becomes certified for instrument approaches, as seems likely now.)

Having said that, my student is very pleased with his purchase, and at the end of the day it is his feelings that count. We are all different, we all want different things from life and from aviation, and for him, the G1000 is what he wanted to spend his money on. I have to admit that the first few times I flew it, there was a definite novelty value (as there was with a Seneca which I flew for a while which also had a glass cockpit), but it didn't last very long - it still flies just like any other C172.

FFF
----------------

[Rod1]

Have a look at the Stratomaster and PC flight systems producsts. I fitted an engine monitor (Stratomaster) and an HSI (PCFS), saved money and weight over steam. Ok we are talking PFA but the kit is very good and very powerful compared with steam.

Rod1

[falcon1]

I dont mind steam guages. Glass is very nice but all you really need is a GPS (with a moving map) that couples to your autopilot. Does a lot of the same stuff for a lot less. Oh, if you can afford it, buy it. why not.








Pilot Ties - www.PilotTie.com

[IO540]

There is very little prospect of being able to fly IFR around Europe without carrying ADF and DME, regardless of what happens with GPS approaches. These old instruments are still mandated in multiple airspaces for IFR in CAS, and GPS approaches tend to still need them for the missed approach segments.

Personally I wouldn't go for a glass panel because they are quite new and unproven. GA is notorious for using customers as guinea-pigs, and every time I speak to someone in person who flies either with the G1000 or the Avidyne, they tell me of frequent crashes. I am sure it will get there but it's not ready for prime time yet, yet it concentrates an awful lot of functionality in one place. The designers had their chance to eliminate a whole pile of problems in GA avionics but they blew it.

Given that neither product currently contains (AFAIK) an autopilot, I would go for a more traditional but still very modern (compared to 99% of GA planes) fit comprising of a large GPS/MFD etc. and perhaps an EHSI.

I have never flown with either panel but have seen them close-up and found that a lot of the text is too small to see from a normal pilot position. Whereas the text on a GNSx30 or KLN94 etc etc is fine.

The problem is that there is only one market in the world that counts, and in there you cannot give away a plane unless it has glass in it.

The stuff one can fit to PFA, or the US Experimental, planes is astonishing in its capability and even more astonishing in its low pricing, something like 1/5 to 1/10 of the certified stuff. But it's not certified which means that in Europe it cannot be fitted to an aircraft that can do IFR legally. It's pretty obvious that the owners of this stuff "don't exactly mind a few clouds en route" but having to be overtly VFR at the ends of the flight is still very restrictive. If I wanted the best VFR-only machine I would probably go for one of these though.

[FlyingForFun]

There is very little prospect of being able to fly IFR around Europe without carrying ADF and DME, regardless of what happens with GPS approaches. These old instruments are still mandated in multiple airspaces for IFR in CAS, and GPS approaches tend to still need them for the missed approach segmentsTrue... but what about for an IMC-rated pilot who is planning on flying IFR outside controlled airspace in the UK only, and VFR on the continent? I hadn't realised that the missed approach segment of GPS approaches still needs the old-fashioned nav instruments - is it not possible for the GPS manufacturers to program the missed approach procedure into the GPS? I'm totally ignorant on this one, since it's so rare I get to fly anything with a decent GPS that I haven't really been following the GPS approach thread with anything more than a passing interest.Given that neither product currently contains (AFAIK) an autopilotMy student's C172 has a 2-axis autopilot, although I don't know if it was standard or an option. I'll try to find out.

FFF
----------------

[Say again s l o w l y]

Glass is very good if you are trained to use it properly.
Unfortunately as IO mentions, they aren't yet fully integrated systems. i.e in a similar way to an airliner with EFIS.

There is no way that you can couple an autopilot in both VNAV and LNAV with current systems such as the G1000, something that shouldn't be too difficult, but seemingly ignorned.

There is also no Auto-throttle built in, again something that isn't rocket science.

The current systems are fairly unreliable and seem overly complex and for what they actually do. I prefer at the moment the seperate boxes such as an EHSI taking the place of a traditional instrument compared to the not overly sophisticated "integrated" systems available.

This is why the CAA are about to bring in differences training for glass cockpits and also for single power lever control. For EFIS I think this is necessary, but for the single power lever it seems a waste of time, since it actually makes life a lot easier, but I suppose it's a way of differentiating between different types of VP prop operation.

If you aren't going to use the full range of these systems, then I wouldn't bother at all. If you are a serious IFR pilot, then they maybe a good investment, but a day VFR only pilot, I wouldn't bother.

[skyjock200]

I will talk about the G1000 avioincs as this is what is fitted to the Cessna aircraft that i currently Sell.
The G1000 realy must be seen and used to be fully appreciated. It is the Glass cockpit of choice by many manufactures and they are so confident with the product that all New Cessna Single engine piston aircraft now come with the G1000 as standard including the New Cessna Mustang Jet.
The G1000 is not just a GPS. It is in fact a fully integrated avioincs package that gives excellent situational awareness and is designed to be easy to use for all levels of pilot experience. The aircraft that has been discussed does not have ADF and DME fitted but can be by way of a Retro-Fit Kit that. The fitting of ADF and DME to a G1000 equipped aircraft is actualy cheaper than fitting to a Steam driven avionics aircraft. Largely due to the fact they are integrated into the PFD of the G1000. All New factory supplied Cessna aircraft can be fitted with ADF and DME that are EASA approved for IFR flight. The G1000 is reliable and easy to maintain, We have sold many oif these aircraft equipped with the G1000 package and have had no problems with them with reliability issues.
The Cessna 172SP all 182 and 206 models all come with a 2 axis autopilot as standard fit. Also included with a New aircraft is a 2 year warranty package and we can also tie it in with a maintenace package making operating the aircraft very economical.
The G1000 is here now and is the future in general aviation aircraft.
If you want full details of the New Cessna aircraft and the
G1000 avioncs feel free to email me and i will send you the information. For serious enquiries i have G1000 equipped aircarft at our base airfield and they are available to view.:)
Email:[email protected]

[bookworm]

The fitting of ADF and DME to a G1000 equipped aircraft is actualy cheaper than fitting to a Steam driven avionics aircraft. Largely due to the fact they are integrated into the PFD of the G1000.

I could imagine that if it were a shoe-box behind the panel plugging into the PFD. But don't ADF and DME fits still require an independent indicator for certification? We recently had a KR-87 ADF retrofitted: it feeds directly into the Sandel EHSI, which is perfect. But we still have to have an RBI taking up valuable panel space.

[skyjock200]

I could imagine that if it were a shoe-box behind the panel plugging into the PFD. But don't ADF and DME fits still require an independent indicator for certification? We recently had a KR-87 ADF retrofitted: it feeds directly into the Sandel EHSI, which is perfect. But we still have to have an RBI taking up valuable panel space.


The ADF KR87 is a Seperate Control Head displayed on the PFD and the KN63 DME is Integrated and displayed on the PFD. Im sure that Garmin would have the information on certification issues. But this is what is fitted to the G1000 and it is EASA approved.

[IO540]

"is it not possible for the GPS manufacturers to program the missed approach procedure into the GPS"

Sure but I suspect that the problem is that the # of pro-GPS people in the respective national CAAs is still vastly outnumbered by the former navigators retired from the respective national Air Forces :O

"There is no way that you can couple an autopilot in both VNAV and LNAV with current systems such as the G1000"

There is a real crude hack of a KAP140 (or 150?) in the DA40/42 that I saw on the ground. Such a waste of technology. Auto throttles would be a bit of a certification problem, I would think - have they ever been certified on a piston aircraft?

"This is why the CAA are about to bring in differences training for glass cockpits and also for single power lever control"

The glass panels don't have additional functionality over a full complement of standard IFR avionics, so I don't know why this will be needed. Unless you want to argue that official diff training should be required for flying anything half decently equipped, which I would agree with :O

[soay]

There is no way that you can couple an autopilot in both VNAV and LNAV with current systems such as the G1000, something that shouldn't be too difficult, but seemingly ignorned.

The new integrated GFC700 autopilot can control rate of climb. It's included with the G1000 in Columbias and the G58 Baron, but not yet in the Diamond DA40 or DA42.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I didn't know about the GFC700, but is it truly VNAV? can you input your SID's and STAR's for instance and expect it to follow them? Or do you have to set an ROD manually?

It certainly isn't beyond the realms of technical ability to come up with an autothrottle on a piston a/c, certainly not something that has a single power lever controlled unit with FADEC.

Why isn't there a fully integrated system like we have in something like a 737. They aren't exactly the latest technology but seem to be far in advance of something like a G1000. Yes, it maybe a more compact package, but why not have the full functionality?

At the moment, they are better than your average "steam" instrumentation, but with reliability issues (Yes I have heard of a few problems with screens shutting off etc.) and the fact that for basic flight they can be overly complex. I personally can't see the point at the moment apart from sheer techno-geekery.

IO, I think you're right about training people to use a full suite of avionics, it's amazing how many have never seen a DME before!
I think the article was in a recent edition of GASIL or Safety sense, but I whole heartedly agree with the sentiments.
When I first started on machines with EFIS, that was what took the most time to learn and understand, not the fact it had a couple of jet engines and went 3X as quick as anything I'd ever flown before, but how to interpret the information given. I even found myself relying on the standby instruments as they were far more familiar!
However, once over this initial reluctance, EFIS does make life an awful lot simpler, but it does take training to use properly and especially all the features available. Reading a manual is OK, but a structured course would be far more sensible.

[MAJIC9]

Avidyne is absolutely amazing.. too bad I don't get to use it often. Glass in GA is only getting better and more capable... and more and more to choose from...


My airplane will have a dual-screen Grand Rapids setup (awaiting delivery).

I do agree that a structured training is far better than reading the manual (who reads manuals?? :) )

[Superpilot]

Where can I find information on whether or not a certain avionics retrofit will be acceptable to the CAA/JAA a.) Generally and b.) for IFR flying?

Thanks