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

Peter wrote:

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.

Our company uses exactly the same Part M/145/avionics outfits etc that many private GA owners utilise (our avionics support is the nice chap at Lee on solent). No difference there.

In the 1000hrs or so I’ve flown G1000 I’ve had two G1000 specific failures. The first was in a relatively old DA42 having just departed Biarritz. We had a firmware database mismatch which resulted in the loss of GPS Nav modes, the ability to select A/P and the master caution. The second failure was on collection of a brand new DA62 from the manufacturer in Austria. We completed the test flight and, when getting ready to depart, the system would not initialise (equivalent fo Microsofts ‘blue screen’). Both failures required a replacement of a GIA, which is a line replaceable unit. I’ve never lost a comm/nav box, transponder, TAS or A/P.

I’ve had numerous sensor failures in G1000 aircraft. The usual stuff like EGT, fuel flow, Pitot/static etc. These are not unique to a glass cockpit.

If you remove the G1000 from the aircraft, it is no longer airworthy.

I think dirkj you may be referring to this which is a real issue but AFAIK nothing prevents the removal of the G1000 and a replacement with anything else that has an STC for the airframe (e.g. a G500, one of the TXi boxes, etc). It is just likely to be uneconomical unless the plane is worth enough. If you remove any large avionics item the plane is unairworthy until the hole is covered up and any TC-mandatory instruments replaced.

The biggest issue I hear about with the G1000 in older planes is the massive cost for getting the LPV upgrade, and in years to come that is likely to become pretty relevant.

Valentin wrote:

However, after getting my IFR rating and when I have enough experience, I’m going to buy a faster and more modern plane anyway which will definitely have a glass cockpit

Very stupid question Valentin: Why not by that plane first without going through ownership of another plane? You might save yourself a lot of trouble and money.

What “more modern and faster” plane are you considering? And what is your motivation to buy a C182 first?

In the SEP world there is not a lot of choice with the more modern airplanes which all have G1000 and I can not off hand see a single SEP you could not fly outright after your PPL with sufficient transition training, possible exception if you are thinking of moving to a Malibu range airplane or above. But all the others I can think of should be possible to fly the moment you finish your PPL, as I said with proper transition training. There is nothing dramatic about a SR22 or a Mooney or even a Columbia which would make the intermediate step via a C182 necessary.

On those new planes as you say there is no choice anyway, they all are G1000.

My own choice in conventional airplanes would never go for an integrated avionics suite for the simple fact that Peter has mentioned: With a G1000 or similar you are totally in the bag of Garmin. They can charge what they want for needed upgrades and they do charge a LOT for e.g. upgrading a non-WAAS G1000 to a WAAS one, if the STC is available. Consequently, if you go G1000 right away, you absolutely should make sure that it is upgraded to everything you are likely to need in the next 10 years or so, most definitly WAAS and if possible ADSB. Any change in a G1000 systems is a factor of 10 or more expensive than in a steam cockpit.

Of course all that is simply part of the game if you go for a plane which is only G1000 available like the overwhelmning part of Cirrus, Diamond, Columbia, Mooney or most current brands.

Why would anyone want to remove the G1000?

Perhaps this.

I have considered SR22 and decided it’s too much for an inexperienced pilot. I can be wrong.

If money is not the primary factor, consider carefully the mission profile. A C182 can be hugely more versatile than an SR22 on short field capability. For long distance flights the SR22 is better (faster, more comfortable, etc). I know a guy who sold an SR22 to buy a C182 because of this. The SR22 will need more currency for the same level of safety.

The SR22 has some more useful load and the parachute, although a 182T can have a BRS parachute as well, but with even less useful load. Fly both and decide which one you like best, and also which one has the best maintenance support for your location.

The side stick on the Cirrus does require getting used to, and in this respect the handling of the 182 is more straightforward.

Comfort wise I would suggest both are similar – the 182 being Buick like, the Cirrus more like a BMW.