My exposure to the G1000 was during my ME/IR training in a DA42 and companion Level D2 simulator. Approximately 140 hours in total. I found the menu system counter intuitive and way too deep compared to the GNS boxes.
There is a lot of data presentation on both the PFD and MFD. At times I felt I was drowning with information overload and with so many spurious CAS warnings going off, I caught myself ignoring them after a while.
Not G1000 specific, but I personally do not like speed or altitude tapes. My brain seems to interpret analogue values and trends much more intuitively than tapes which to me sometimes feels like are moving in the opposite direction to the trend they are showing. Anything that requires you to apply additional processing power/and or time to interpret it is a backward step IMHO.
On my Aspen EFD1000 which I love, I have the speed and altitude tapes switched off, as I rely on external independent conventional analogue displays for those. I use the Aspen primarily as an HSI and occasionally for synthetic vision when flying above mountainous terrain.
I have an IT background, and consider myself fairly tech savvy, so all this is just personal taste peculiar to me, and I guess old school preferences. I have many pilot friends who swear by the G1000, but then again I also have tail dragger buddies who swear by those as well… and that is a whole other topic!
Not G1000 specific, but I personally do not like speed or altitude tapes, my brain seems to interpret analogue values and trends much more intuitively than tapes which to me sometimes feels like they are moving in the opposite direction to the trend they are showing. Anything that requires you to apply additional processing power/and or time to interpret it is a backward step IMHO.
@eal – that has been my limited experience, too. The tapes are just not as intuitive and they mask trending. You get confused – is the tape supposed to go down as you climb, or is it the other way around? What is logical? It’s a bit like analog watch and digital watch – the digital watch requires analytical interpretation, whereas the analog watch somehow is instantly visually intuitive.
Thank you for your answer. I remember the first hours of G1000 flying when I did not know where to focus. This went away rapidly for me and I got used to it. I still fly older panels (and newer ones) with pleasure. However, in hard IFR, heavy winds in cruise, I enjoy the digital world better thanks to the autopilot.
I have many hours on these systems now but your 140 hour exposure is surely enough to decide if you liked it or not….I now see differences between G1000 and G3000 in each pilot. Interesting how our brains work!
Cheers,
David
AdamFrisch wrote:
The tapes are just not as intuitive and they mask trending.
I think it is a matter of getting used to, and you do have trend lines showing where the speed will be in x seconds from now. Concerning the altitude you have the VSI which is an excellent trend indicator, but I find it hard to fly a constant altitude without an altitude bug when equipped with tape.
AdamFrisch wrote:
@eal – that has been my limited experience, too. The tapes are just not as intuitive and they mask trending. You get confused – is the tape supposed to go down as you climb, or is it the other way around? What is logical? It’s a bit like analog watch and digital watch – the digital watch requires analytical interpretation, whereas the analog watch somehow is instantly visually intuitive.
I think this is entirely an issue of familiarity and preference. The analog watch analogy is interesting. I could equally say you can immediately read the exact time from a digital watch and can only get an approximate one from the analog.
@JasonC I suppose it is just familiarity.
If someone comes up to you and ask you what time it is and you read 3:43 on a digital watch, it takes half a second to be able to answer “It’s quarter to four”. On an analog watch it seems more instant. It feels like the digital watch needs some sort of intellectual interpretation whereas the analog is purely visual. I could be the only one in the world who have this deficit and problem, though! 
AdamFrisch wrote:
It feels like the digital watch needs some sort of intellectual interpretation whereas the analog is purely visual
Intuitively I agree. It would be an interesting research exercise. You could present both analogy and digital representations to an AI platform and see what kind of neural network complexity you needed to achieve the same recognition performance. I think the digital readout would require more computation effort (more “thinking”) to read with say 5 minute accuracy but would allow for much quicker interpretation to 1 minute accuracy. But machine learning is a bit off topic…
I personally really like the G1000 but dislike its inflexibility. For example there is no way to show a second CDI/HSI and it is impossible for me to install an additional one, which would be easy with G500 plus dual GTNs.
Peter wrote:
However there is a much bigger argument in favour of individual instruments: you don’t need to go back to a Garmin or Avidyne dealer if anything needs looking at. So maintenance is much easier to manage, unless you have a dealer at your airport or nearby and rarely if ever do long trips (which is actually true for many people with glass cockpit planes, statistically).
I have flown both types a lot. I still believe glass is far more reliable. But i do agree that i would want redundancy ie two displays with a reversionary mode. The newer Avidyne does have a reversionary mode I believe.
There is a reason why every new aircraft has glass these days.
For the avoidance of doubt I am fine with analog. But reliability is not the reason to stick with with dials.
Glass is here to stay. I have no problem with that at all. Just dint make sense financially to do all glass on my old bird for me personally.
I think the boxes will become more user-configurable and integrated down the road. Maybe even have the option to display them as analog readings or tape? I think the future we’ll see one screen that does it all. It’s a little 90’s to have it like the G1000/G600/Avidyne Integra has it – a MFD and PFD that needs to be run by a dedicated GPS/NAV/COM on the side. It should all be in one – one box to rule them all. 
