Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Garmin G1000 Digital Cockpit, Your Opinion?  
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4268 times:

So I just started my SE CPL add-on, but my school just switched to a brand new SE fleet, 2007 C172SP with the NAVIII package (minus autopilot). So I have to take a "transition" course from flying six pack to glass. I've only done a sim so far (have another one in a few hours) but these are my impressions so far:

-Flying IFR is ridiculously easy, and the scan is so much easier.
-Having charts in the MFD is nice.
-Having an IVSI is very nice.
-Reaching around the yoke for pressing some softkeys is rather cumbersome.
-I wish the GPS APR mode annunciator was a more obvious, like in the GNS430
-One really, REALLY annoying thing for me is that the AI pitch is set to equal the wing's incidence, it really through me off since I'd pitch for level and next thing I know I'm on a -800fpm descent. It's going to take some time to get used to, I wish the pipper could be adjusted like in the "old" vacuum driven AIs.

Overall really nice system but I felt it kinda takes away the fun from flying in a way, it's almost too easy to use. I also feel sorry for the new generation of pilots being trained in glass cockpits, the day they have to jump into a plane with a six pack they'll be screwed. I'm soooo glad I trained in steam gauges, it just makes flying IFR with glass feel like a walk in the park.

Your thoughts?  eyebrow 

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4243 times:

I'll be interested to see if as glass cockpits proliferate the number of pilots losing control in IFR conditions reduces. I have yet to fly one, although I hope to get one in the not too distant future. I do not yet have my instrument rating, but have enough training and experience to get it. I just have not been able to put together the money and time at the same time and place to finish it off and take the tests. It's still high on my list of priorities, though.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineOnetogo From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4227 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Thread starter):
-One really, REALLY annoying thing for me is that the AI pitch is set to equal the wing's incidence, it really through me off since I'd pitch for level and next thing I know I'm on a -800fpm descent. It's going to take some time to get used to, I wish the pipper could be adjusted like in the "old" vacuum driven AIs.

Could not agree more. This issue has been voiced by a number of pilots. As far as I know, Garmin is not willing to budge (yet).


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

Lets start a Garmin G1000 vs. Avidyne Integra flame fest! Just Kidding...

Anyways, I have never flown an aircraft with a glass cockpit, however, I will get to fly my University's new Piper Arrow equipped with a Avidyne System in it within the next 1-2years.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21130 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4196 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Thread starter):
I also feel sorry for the new generation of pilots being trained in glass cockpits, the day they have to jump into a plane with a six pack they'll be screwed.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark  Cannot agree more. Not just the issues with transitioning back to steam gauges, but the whole issue of starting training in general. The G1000 (and other glass systems), for all the effort spent on making it user-friendly, is a complicated piece of equipment, and it makes little sense to me to have PPL students try to learn to fly AND work the glass at the same time. When they're focusing on making sure that the screens are configured the right way, they're not focused on using the outside references to orient themselves, which is what they're supposed to be learning.

Same thing for instrument flying. The argument that students from the big flight schools are going to be going into glass aircraft at the airlines when they graduate is, in my mind, ridiculous. The G1000 has little in common with the glass systems in airliners, so the students don't get much of an advantage by using it in their training. What's more, by the time someone is experienced enough to get an airline job, they should be able to learn at least the basic workings of any glass system easily. By teaching instruments on glass, you're putting the students at a disadvantage when they go back to steam gauges (which they well may do).

I have no problem with instructing on glass - the G1000 is a great system, and if used properly it's a great safety aid - but it should not be at the private or instrument levels, except by people who just bought a new airplane with a glass cockpit and want to learn to fly in it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4189 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
but it should not be at the private or instrument levels,

I second that. The transition from steam gauge to glass is so easy. But the opposite is very VERY challenging.

Although, I think its pretty safe to say that within less than 20 years from now almost every GA plane will come standard with glass from the factory.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 3):
Lets start a Garmin G1000 vs. Avidyne Integra flame fest!

I'm in!

O wait, I've never flown the Avidyne Big grin


User currently offlineTurnit56N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Thread starter):
I also feel sorry for the new generation of pilots being trained in glass cockpits, the day they have to jump into a plane with a six pack they'll be screwed.

I agree as well. I've flown an aircraft with a G1000 setup as well as a few flights in a Cirrus. The technology is incredible, and is an amazing tool for the GA pilot, but I don't think they should be used for training. Airliners last for decades, and there's a very good chance that a pilot in training now will one day be put in the right seat of a 727 or 737 with a six pack. While most of the regional aircraft out there are new enough to have glass, there are few people that manage to get their commercial multi license and hop into a regional airline. The transition job between training and regional is almost guaranteed to be in an aircraft with a six pack. They may even have to use an ADF!


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4178 times:

For doing pattern work, totally useless. Now years from now we may have a situation where the service life is much higher than steam guages (which is expected). I had the pleasure of flying a G36 on longer cross countries a couple times and this is where the systems shines. Outside of some light sport applications, FLY2HMO's prediction is already largely true. Only a small fraction of the aircraft coming out of Piper and Cessna's factories are made with traditional instruments. Beech and Mooney don't even offer them any more.

As for your arguement Turnit, it's somewhat valid. However for those of us that are going to the regionals, it's very unlikely that we'll see the sixpack any time soon. In fact, I and many of my friends that instructed in glass aircraft found the transition to the jet easier because we already had the scan down. While the systems don't work exactly the same, the info is transferred in very similiar ways. The CRJ and ERJ are in many ways some of the most advanced cockpits out there because these two aircraft are more recent designs. Yeah, there are some classics still out there but anything made in the last 25-30 years is going to be glass.

Right now the time requirements for most regionals are so low that 500-600 hours total is the norm for many pilots. The need in the past to fly 135 or something before making the "jump" to 121 doesn't exist and hasn't for a couple years.



DMI
User currently offlineTurnit56N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4167 times:

It's true that most regional aircraft have advanced cockpits. The ERJ, CRJ, and especially the DoJets have very nice glass setups. When you take a step up from regional jet to mainline jet, you're likely to take a step back as far as instrumentation is concerned. That much-sought industry nirvana called FedEx still flies 727-100s. There are plenty of six pack 737s out there at multiple legacy airlines. As long as they're still economically useful, there's no reason to phase out or update an older airline just because it doesn't have a fancy cockpit. While it's possible these days for a person to go from training to regional without any job in between (don't get me started on that one), it's also likely that they'll see a six pack again someday.

Glass was nearly unheard of in light aircraft when I was working in the GA sector, but I didn't notice any problem adjusting my scan to a PFD when I got my first job in a glass-equipped aircraft. The whole point of glass cockpits is that they're designed to be intuitive. A six pack can become second nature to fly once you get your scan down, but it's not intrinsically easy to fly like a PFD. Transition from a six pack to glass is so simple that a pilot with no glass experience can do it with nary an issue. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that a person who has only flown PFDs will be able to easily pick up the T-scan. I guess we'll never know until the current crop of student pilots training from 0 hours on glass gets their first flying job on an aircraft with those old-fashioned round things.

I'm absolutely positive that one day all commercial aircraft will have glass cockpits. Until that time comes, I think that it's in a student pilot's best career interest to be trained to fly the equipment that's out there. I feel the same way about the importance of teaching NDB tracking and intercepting. Since commercial aircraft don't use radio range anymore I think it's safe to stop teaching students how to stay on the beam by keeping those A and N signals merged. My point is just that since there are commercial airliners out there with six packs, I think it's probably best that a student pilot who wants to be a commercial airline pilot know how to fly them.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4159 times:

You are very correct about that stuff Turnit, but I don't think it will be a tough transition for a pilot. The scan is different between the two, but in either case you need to keep your eyes moving to be doing your job well.

Even looking at the 727s and other aircraft out there (which I'd love to fly side saddle in one of those for a year or two) they have flight directors and an HSI which isn't that much different than a PFD. It really reduces your scan compared to a traditional six pack.

Last, but not least for those that think it's such a crime for people to go to the regionals at low time this isn't the first time in history it has happened. TWA, United, Delta and others were hiring people before they had any ratings back in the 60s and I'd consider the amount and procedures of today's training to be much better than they were back then. Planes aren't falling out of the sky left and right. I think everybody should gain some experience at least as an instructor for a time, but if they don't and work hard more power to them. In five years it could be back to the way it was back in the 80s where you needed thousands of hours to go to a 121 carrier but I find that highly unlikely at today's wages. I'm flying a 50 seat RJ for the wages that a 1900 pilot made 15 years ago and that's just plain wrong.



DMI
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21130 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 5):
Although, I think its pretty safe to say that within less than 20 years from now almost every GA plane will come standard with glass from the factory.

And at that point, you'll likely have much more user-friendly systems so that it isn't so much of a hassle for pilots to learn on. The G1000 and Entegra are not really designed for training.

I'd let the systems go through several evolutions to make them simpler before unleashing them on first-time flyers. Yes, GA is going to go glass eventually (can you even buy a steam gauge Cessna or Piper new anymore), but steam gauges will be around for a long time to come.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

I'll agree with the prior assessments about these should not be used for training, and take it one step further. My first 30 hours or so were in planes with no GPS's whatsoever. Then, due to relocating and having to start at a new school, I hopped into a plane with a Garmin 430. It's waaaaay too easy to get spoiled just "following the pink line." I am glad that at my prior flight school I was tuning VOR's, dead reckoning, and so forth because I had to, and not just because we "should, but with this GPS nobody is going to do that anymore." Using that 430 as a crutch doesn't make good pilots.

Another issue is the cost. For an mid 70's vintage well maintained 172 with that 430 I was paying $85 wet. A school in the vicinity with brand new 172SP's with the G1000 wanted $120 an hour and then had the nerve to tag on a fuel surcharge as well. If you're a PPL student, there is no need to be paying an extra $35 an hour just to look at the pretty pictures. 90% of the stuff on there is irrelevant to a VFR private pilot. You shouldn't be flying close enough to storms to need the XM wx displays, you shouldn't ever be below your MEA's printed on your VFR sectionals to need the terrain display, etc. They're cool and all, but unnecessary and actually may tempt a pilot into conditions he's not yet capable of.

That said, that G1000 is an amazing piece of equipment... for people who will use and respect it properly. But when you're flying solid heavy IFR in that single engine plane... even that G1000 isn't going to save your skin when the engine dies. And it's not going to deice your wings on that 172. Nor is it going to give you a 3000fpm climb rate to avoid that mountain ahead. It's still the same plane, despite the pretty displays... and hopefully pilots are realizing that.


User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

The G1000 in a C172 is lipstick on a pig. Let us not forget that the airplane is, basically, a 1947 design that grew a back seat and a nosewheel in the last 60 years.

If the same standard had applied when I took my first flying lesson in 1959, that lesson would have been a 30-second flight in an 1899 Lilleinthal glider that ended in a crash landing.

It isn't so much the software that is the problem; the problem is the hardware.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 5):
Although, I think its pretty safe to say that within less than 20 years from now almost every GA plane will come standard with glass from the factory.

In fact it will be much sooner than that; most of the new planes built today have glass. The problem is that planes last a long, long time; the average age of the GA fleet is over thirty years. As the old planes with steam guages become less common the FAA may have to change their tactics; now they require specific training for "advanced" aircraft; they may have to change it to require specific training (or grandfathered experience) on "retarded" aircraft.

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 12):
The G1000 in a C172 is lipstick on a pig. Let us not forget that the airplane is, basically, a 1947 design that grew a back seat and a nosewheel in the last 60 years.

The age of the design has nothing to do with its utility. The laws of aerodynamics have not changed since 1947, and while materials have been developed (composites) that were not available then the simple fact is that the 172 offers a unique blend of utility, performance, economy, and good flying characteristics that is still competitive with the latest designs. That is why it still sells, and disparaging it is ignoring one of the great designs of aviation history.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Thread starter):
So I have to take a "transition" course from flying six pack to glass.

They duped you into taking a course huh? Mine was merely a 2-hr checkout in a DA-40, wave the blessing stick over me, and I was done. Piece of cake.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Thread starter):
I also feel sorry for the new generation of pilots being trained in glass cockpits, the day they have to jump into a plane with a six pack they'll be screwed.

Well, everyone should have the appreciation, ahem, thrill, of using some crappy old needles that oftentimes stick, but glass is the wave of the future. Once all the old 727's and 737's are parked in the dirt, that'll be it. You'll still have some round pieces in partially glass aircraft like the 757/767, but overall the feeling is still there.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4026 times:

Personally, I think everybody should go log some time in a Luscombe without an electrical system.

Now that's FUN!!!  Smile

DeltaGuy, the place I worked at required a training course, and I really think it was worth it. Like a 430, there is so much more that that system can do beyond the basic direct navigation and very few people know about it. The transition course gave me enough time to cover much of it in detail. I also found that by the time I was finished, the student was nearly ready for an instrument rating if they didn't have one yet. I didn't like doing primary instruction in it, and don't think that was the proper place for that aircraft but that was a rare occurance.



DMI
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 14):
They duped you into taking a course huh?

Uhm, no.

Like I said, we got all new planes. I finished my CPL-AMEL during the summer. Over the last half of the summer (I was on vacation by then) the "old" NAVII C172 fleet got replaced by new NAVIII planes. So I had to take it and I wanted to take it anyways. The transition course was nothing but one oral and two sims, for free. And my instructor barely had to explain anything since I know the GNS430 so well and it really is the same in many aspects as the G1000 as far as the interface is concerned.


Now here's another question, what are the chances of the FAA imposing restrictions for pilots trained in glass cockpits exclusively, when they want to fly a six pack?

[Edited 2007-09-11 20:20:14]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 16):
Now here's another question, what are the chances of the FAA imposing restrictions for pilots trained in glass cockpits exclusively, when they want to fly a six pack?

I would expect (as mentioned in my previous post) that they would restrict instrument rated pilots trained on glass from flying instruments in a steam guage plane without at least an instrument competency check. How long it will take them to get there, I don't know.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineTheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3980 times:

The GeeWhiz1000 is a pretty sweet avionics system and is a great tool to maintain situational awareness. I don't think its more a culprit in IFR crashes than someone flying a Cirrus into weather they really can't handle because they have a parachute to get them out if it hits the fan. I think thats a much more

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 7):
As for your arguement Turnit, it's somewhat valid. However for those of us that are going to the regionals, it's very unlikely that we'll see the sixpack any time soon. In fact, I and many of my friends that instructed in glass aircraft found the transition to the jet easier because we already had the scan down. While the systems don't work exactly the same, the info is transferred in very similiar ways. The CRJ and ERJ are in many ways some of the most advanced cockpits out there because these two aircraft are more recent designs. Yeah, there are some classics still out there but anything made in the last 25-30 years is going to be glass.

What about us that don't really want to fly a jet? I hate to say it, but plenty of people are still tooling around in 1900's. and Metros. Yes, some have a little bit of glass but its still pretty much a six pack.

Its great that we can all go out and get jobs flying jets at 200-500 hours these days. However, what saddens me is that we are almost pushing our students in that direction, especially when you throw in the gee-whiz glass, without considering that there are many, many other things in aviation. Med-evac, charter, corporate, they are all areas where older planes are still significantly used.

I just can't see how someone who has only seen glass will be able to keep themselves together in a plane with a six pack without additional training, which most airlines and companies really don't want to provide. What about the airline interviews that still put the candidates in an old and barely functional sim to see what happens? It's not impossible for them to do well, but in most cases its going to take some effort on their part to train beforehand and transition FROM glass.

Pure glass training in the primary environment is really a disservice to our students if they intend on making a career in this industry. They need to see both so that they are best prepared for whatever is thrown at them in their future, whether it be an all glass jet or an old beat up 1900  Wink

Checko



"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3965 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 16):
The transition course was nothing but one oral and two sims, for free.

Well at least they didn't make you pay for it, hell, take it then  Smile

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3946 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 19):
hell, take it then

I actually just finished the transition yesterday. I have my first commercial oral activity in Thursday and I should have my CPL-ASEL in less than 2 weeks. Can't wait to get it over with.


User currently offlineGRZ-AIR From Austria, joined Apr 2001, 573 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3929 times:

"It isn't so much the software that is the problem; the problem is the hardware."

The problem with the "mini Airbus" G1000 in a piston GA plane is that it makes you believe your airplane can do things on a big shiny screen that it actually can't do hardware wise.



Garmin is the Windows of aviation, someone once said. And compared to an airliner glass deck, it is not even the slightest bit intuitive. Too much like a computer game, too much colors, too much knobs, and way to sensitive as far as altitude/vsi indications are concerned.

Whoever designed the menu of that thing has no idea of flying. I remember you had to select a menu and press a button 3 times to access and activate the stop watch function.

It has potential, but its designed to be used with an autopilot, and now to be real who needs that on a small single engine piston that is there for recreation?

Well..I am glad I look at different glass now  Wink



When I joined A.net it was still free, haha ;).
User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2223 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3923 times:

Personally,
I think all pilots should start flying 6 pack aircraft with basic VFR. (Aka a Cesscom Nav/Com and a LOC Receiver) Once you're going for your comm, start playing with the fancy stuff. I may even go to extremes saying all commercial pilots should have a tailwheel endorsement done in strong winds. Anytime I see a mainline driver fly a J-3 on the side, I know they are a real pilot.

ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineOnetogo From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3911 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 7):
Only a small fraction of the aircraft coming out of Piper and Cessna's factories are made with traditional instruments. Beech and Mooney don't even offer them any more.

Can't get a factory Cessna without the G1000.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 16):
Now here's another question, what are the chances of the FAA imposing restrictions for pilots trained in glass cockpits exclusively, when they want to fly a six pack?

Extremely high. They are already starting to categorize Technically Advanced Aircraft (TAA) for this exact reason.

Quoting GRZ-AIR (Reply 21):
too much knobs, and way to sensitive as far as altitude/vsi indications are concerned.

Umm, lets see. Promise you the G1000 has half as many knobs as a traditional panel. Additionally, the scale(s) as far as altitude and vertical speed are the exact same. When you deem the system "too sensitive" it brings about quite a bit of doubt into my mind as to whether you've flown the system before (not just as a passenger, either).

Quoting GRZ-AIR (Reply 21):
I remember you had to select a menu and press a button 3 times to access and activate the stop watch function.

False. Either you havent flown the system, or you dont know it well enough. With two button-presses I can start the timer.


User currently offlineSoku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

Quoting Onetogo (Reply 23):
Umm, lets see. Promise you the G1000 has half as many knobs as a traditional panel. Additionally, the scale(s) as far as altitude and vertical speed are the exact same. When you deem the system "too sensitive" it brings about quite a bit of doubt into my mind as to whether you've flown the system before (not just as a passenger, either).

What he means is that with round guages the dial could be right on your altitude while the airplane may be be 5 or 10 feet above your altitude, where as with the G1000 it will read out 5,506 feet. Some people get duped into chasing this and end up porpoising for the entire flight due to the amount of information presented on something as simple as the altimeter. Also the "ball" is ridiculously hard to follow to stay coordinated with, getting that trapazoid to match up is basicaly impossible during manuevers. To me thats what he means by it being too sensitive, and I tend to agree.

Quoting Onetogo (Reply 23):
False. Either you havent flown the system, or you dont know it well enough. With two button-presses I can start the timer.

It may be two but its a pretty complicated stopwatch to use if you're just out trying to time out an NDB... oh yeah I forgot nothing like having to set the altimeter 3 seperate times. (and here I am just watching the hobbs click up and the run up isn't even half over...). No I'm not a fan of the G1000, but I only have 7 or so hours in it with only 3 or 4 being cross country. Now maybe if someone would start paying me to fly it...  stirthepot 



The Ohio Player
25 Post contains images FLY2HMO : True, that's like the least difficult thing to do in the system. Though you kinda have to reach over, or around, the yoke.
26 Mir : Which isn't necessarily a good thing. With the NavII package in the 172 with the Bendix Nav/Comm radios, when you turned the knob to change the comm
27 Onetogo : Again, false. I'm not saying the G1000 is the holy grail by any means, but at least spend a bunch of hours with the manual and the simulator to under
28 ThirtyEcho : "Personally, I think everybody should go log some time in a Luscombe without an electrical system. Now that's FUN!!!" I soloed in exactly that airplan
29 Post contains images GRZ-AIR : I have experience in the G1000, otherwise I would not bother to share my impression. I was not referring to scales but to reaction times of the instr
30 Pilotpip : All glass is that sensitive GRZ-AIR. I think it was one of the things that most students have trouble with and quite frankly, I catch myself chasing t
31 Post contains links and images AirTranTUS : This is my favorite panel in Cessna's: View Large View MediumPhoto © Stephen B. Aranha I think the Avidyne looks better, but I've never flown eit
32 Mir : Two more than needed, and two more pushes for which you have to look inside to see which button you're pushing. For a new student, stuff like that ma
33 Post contains images RaginMav : Amen! I know a few too many pilots who did the majority of their initial private pilot training on glass (G1000). What they lack is basic airmanship.
34 Post contains images Soku39 : How is that false ? It reads out to the exact digit, and I've spent the entirety of two saturday mornings in the groundschool before I touched it, th
35 Post contains links and images Onetogo : Yarggg... no it does not! It rounds to the nearest TWENTY feet. I think you should get a refund from that groundschool. Still dont believe me? Ref th
36 Jamesbuk : Hi guys and girls, I learn in a steam gauge cessna 152 and love the steam gauges... now ive been looking at some of the glass panel's and it doesn't l
37 Pilotpip : There are dual navcoms. They are displayed on the HSI. You can choose Nav 1, Nav 2, or GPS. The others can be shown in an RMI syle display along with
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The Garmin G1000 Digital Cockpit, Your Opinion?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is This In The Delta MD-11 Cockpit? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 10:11:58 by MD11Fanatic
Crew What Is The Most Senior Route At Your Airline posted Wed Aug 23 2006 02:16:36 by Usair320
Your Opinion On Low Time Transport Pilots. posted Sat Aug 27 2005 21:26:05 by VuelingAirbus
Powerbacks, Your Opinion posted Tue Feb 17 2004 20:14:18 by KaiGywer
Dumb Question The Next, Tphone In Cockpit? posted Fri Nov 7 2003 06:43:30 by SSTjumbo
Your Opinion Of David Clark H10-13.4 posted Tue Aug 28 2001 19:11:08 by Western727
Need Your Opinion Please posted Wed May 2 2001 23:13:24 by Hazelman
What Does "flying By The Seat Of Your Pants" Mean? posted Sat Sep 1 2007 07:36:36 by Lehpron
Who Cleans The Cockpit? posted Wed Jul 11 2007 19:20:58 by Readytotaxi
Cockpit Emergency Exit On The 744 posted Fri Dec 1 2006 13:54:12 by SK A340

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format