Glass cockpit vs steam gauges for low time PPL (and getting into a fast aircraft early on)

You pay for an engineer from a dealer to fly out there.

Greece isn’t much better. I think there is one Garmin dealer on the mainland somewhere, more or less.

I have previously reflected that on my longer travels I see few planes with modern avionics. They are seen flying around N Europe. That could of course be due to other reasons e.g. a correlation between pilots willing to do longer trips, and pilots who have owned their plane a long time. But even that is a similar thing, because (as I know well, having owned my plane from new in 2002 and having had loads of avionics troubles in the first year or two) avionics problems, even little ones, have a very corrosive effect on one’s willingness to do longer trips. It was a year before I did a long trip (EGKA-LFBZ; really just “half tanks” for a TB20) and another year before EGKA-LGST. Others will say (and have said) this is rubbish, the G1000 is reliable (which is true) but ask them how much they have flown around the southernmost parts of Europe.

If you have no avionics facilities at all then you will eventually have a big problem.

Valentin wrote:

It’s an important issue with the unavailability of Garmin dealer in Cyprus, and I thought about it. How reliable is G1000? If I buy, let’s say, a 2009-2010 year plane with about 1000 hrs total time and fly another 500 hours in it, are there much chances that I’ll ever encounter a problem with the avionics?
As for the autopilot, if I buy a plane with G1000, then I will choose one which has GFC700.

Well I have about 1000 hours of G1000 time and it was very reliable. The only problems tended to come in the avionics shop where they have problems doing a software load. It didnt fail on me in the field.

Does it make sense to compare learning to use a ‘glass cockpit’ with conventional instruments when there are so many different versions of glass cockpit? i.e. might it take as much time to adjust from steam gauges to a Garmin system, as it would to move from Garmin to Dynon or some other system?

My instructor is suggesting me to buy one with steam gauges and learn IFR rating with it. The main reason is that I will develop a proper instrument scan this way.

Not sure of the logic on this except for limited panel where you will need a special sign off in a six pack simulator if you carry out your test in a glass cockpit aircraft, Perhaps your instructor can’t arrange for this sign off, although most ATOs can accommodate this.

Attitude plus power equals performance is arguably at the heart of the radial scan. Glass cockpits with large scale both for attitude presentation and HSI, and with speed and altitude strips, are much better at teaching radial scan, than using a cracker barrel cereal box old style AI of a 1970’s vintage GA as your master instrument.

The G1000 is probably more reliable than an old style vacuum driven gyro – but they do fail and you are then onto the standby AI (not a T&B or Turn Coordinator). The helpful aspect is that the failure is clearly displayed and is not an insidious failure as with old school gyros which gently die on you as they spin down.

Peter wrote:

Others will say (and have said) this is rubbish, the G1000 is reliable (which is true) but ask them how much they have flown around the southernmost parts of Europe.

An awful lot. The only problems I’ve ever had, alluded to by Jason C, are database updates where some numpty has put the card in the wrong slot. Easily resolved by a correct update.

Valentin wrote:

I have no experience but it seems to me that the most important part is “the instrument scan”, which is different in 6-pack and glass cockpits.

It’s not that different. The ASI, Alt and HSI are still in the same relative positions – that’s your basic scan covered. G1000 only becomes ‘interesting’ when you start playing with the MFD (the right -hand or copilot’s display).

The Garmin G1000 is special. It takes time to learn it and be comfortable with it. For certified GA it’s the only piece of glass around, so I guess that particular point doesn’t matter. Not so in the uncertified world. Yesterday I flew the Faeta with TL- Electronics (Integra) glass down to tow gliders. Then towed with a WT9 with Dynon glass. No problems whatsoever to switch between those two. But going to a G1000 is a PITA.

I think the main issue is the level of integration. On the G1000 everything is integrated (radio(s), transponder, GPS etc). That integration isn’t done particularly intelligent and intuitive on the G1000 (read complete disaster, IMO ) It has to be learnt. Most non certified glass are only EFIS and EMS, while radio, transponder and GPS are separate (the EFIS’es also have GPS for flight data, but that’s another issue). This makes things much easier. Add to that a certain degree of “industry standardization” about functionality and knobs, and it really is a no-issue to switch between them. More integrated systems in the un-certified world becomes problematic. Radios, transponders and GPS navigation (for IFR) must be certified no matter what, which means a “fully uncertified” G1000 will never see the day. There is the G900X, but that is only a fully certified G1000 to be mounted in uncertified aircraft.

A high level of integration also makes things more vulnerable to faults in one subsystem. Vulnerable in the sense of repairing it in the field without bags of money. It’s not clear to me exactly why high level of integration is wanted, not in a simple GA aircraft. There is something called CAN-bus. Rotax use that on the 912 iS for all engine communications. This enables full integration, even with different subsystems. It seems to me this is where things are (slowly, but eventually) headed, although producers would rather prefer full integration using proprietary communications, to jail customers to their brand.

I think there is a significant difference between someone operating several planes commercially / someone operating a jet (i.e. people who prob99 have an excellent relationship with their avionics dealer), and a “little” private owner based way outside the main areas of GA activity who is going to struggle to get support.

I have tons of emails, going back almost 20 years now, detailing the problems aircraft owners have had. The vast majority of these never have been and never will be posted. Someone based where there is basically no support needs to have a local guy who understands the plane and – regardless of the exact legality – is able to source parts from (probably) the USA and just fit them… An if this chap understands the G1000 then by all means go for that.

Downtime is a huge thing in GA. So many pilots, even based in N Europe, have suffered months of downtime over trivia like being unable to obtain a flap relay with an EASA-1 form (that’s an actual case BTW). One pilot, no longer flying, based on one of the “southern European” islands, was under an EASA145 company but there was an “understanding” engineer who was happy to fit bits (OEM, identical, no paperwork) bought ad-hoc in the USA. Eventually that engineer was too old and that was one of the factors why that pilot packed it in… no more support. On any fly-in we do, perhaps 1/3 don’t make it because their plane is grounded; admittedly some % of those are due to a different reason e.g the cat got pregnant but the scale of it is undeniable.

One item to consider if you are buying a G1000 equipped aircraft: in contrast to the traditional instruments, the G1000 is part of the type certificate and cannot be easily removed or updated without help from the Type Certificate holder. In the case of Beechcraft G36 it is very hard and/or expensive to get WAAS, ADS-B etc. If you have a traditional A36 you can fit the latest Garmin TXi, autopilot etc, and ten or twenty years from now, repeat with the latest and greatest.
If you remove the G1000 from the aircraft, it is no longer airworthy.