Yes. Above, i was only referring to pre-R9.
I’m sorry, I have no whether R9 or Perspective is “better”. Probably not that easy to answer, anyway.
But once again, I know you are into computers, thus avionics are of special interest to you. But believe those who have been there: if you are about to buy an IFR travelling machine, (basically) forget about avionics. The only things that will determine whether you will be happy with that purchase in the long term are those related to aircraft capability.
Avionics take a bit of time to learn and that’s it. Heck, some people here have been flying with stuff like a KLN94 for years now and are fundamentally happy with that.
@boscomantico I hear you loud and clear :-) And you are right. The funny thing is that the market, at least in the US, seems to be full of SR22 with Turbo-Normalized engines that have at least the non-hazard TKS. That combination should take care of the capabilities required for an IFR traveling machine.
Avionics take a bit of time to learn and that’s it. Heck, some people here have been flying with stuff like a KLN94 for years now and are fundamentally happy with that.
That is the part why I’m posting. I may “be into computers” but I really do not want to use a computer and much less do I want to learn how to operate one. Whenever I had to create a user interface I thought hard about how to make it easy for the human and not what was easy for me to program. Because of that I simply refuse to use systems where the creators have not thought about me as a human. I don’t want to learn stuff that is unrelated to the activity I want to perform. Instead I expect the creators of the systems to go the extra mile.
As an example: I do like the GeoFill feature of R9. I’m quoting from http://www.avidyne.com/products/release-9/index.asp:
GeoFill intelligently predicts the next leg or waypoint on your flight—not based on its order in the database, but on its proximity to your current location or the previous waypoint in your flight plan—eliminating the fumbling through irrelevant NAVAIDs common to other systems. Auto-filling the remaining characters in the entry—based upon distance from the current position and avoiding the cumbersome need to go through obviously “bad” choices (too far away) to get to the desired entry—dramatically reduces the number of pilot actions. In fact, there is a high probability that it will display your desired waypoint on the initial suggestion.
That is the kind of feature I’m looking for in a system. Can any of you talk about experiences with either system in that regard?
Stephan, the G1000 with keypad is incredibly straightforward after a few hours. While the Avidyne is no doubt an excellent system I would be reluctant to go down that path as really R9 is deprecated due to no new aircraft coming with it – so development seems very slow (ie SynVis).
I love the DFC90 autopilot but I am afraid in my view Avidyne had a chance but Garmin has now taken over in the integrated flight deck market. It is the safer bet long term and G1000 works fine (with a keypad for entry).
IMHO Stephan you’re putting the wrong focus here, probably because you are an IT guy. The flight deck is not the most important thing about an aircraft. You can perfectly fly the most demanding IFR procedures and handle the most difficult situations with a steam gauge cockpit and a GPS navigator such as the GNS430. In fact, if you have two AIs, an HSI and GNS430, you have a good IFR cockpit. No flight you couldn’t do as fast or as safely as with all the other gear.
Flying is a very specific skill that takes a lot of training. Adding a non intuitive flight deck interface on top of it doesn’t change much. This is in fact one of the problems Cirrus has. They tried to be very user focused, easy to use, suggesting that everybody with a million in cash can be a very capable pilot. A car dash oriented user interface, etc. This has created wrong expectations and attracted the wrong people doing the wrong things with the aircraft. It has taken them several years and a rigorous training program to stop this negative development. I worked in the Silicon Valley during those days and my flying club lost 3 Cirrus because of that and until today, it is next to impossible for the occasional pilot to rent a Cirrus, all because people wanted the slick and fast computer airplane.
I would just choose the right airplane for the mission. Whether it’s G1000 or Avidyne or Aspen really doesn’t matter much.
Stuff like GeoFill. Yeah nice but a game changer? Definitely not. Would I favor one aircraft over the other because of that? Never. It’s hard to know what you need before you gain experience with it. I only learned later what is important to have in a cockpit and what not and I wasted quite a bit of money during that process by omitting what is truly important (a good AP) and spending money on stuff that is of very little importance (e.g. synthetic vision).
I do agree that the flight deck is not the most important thing about an aircraft. My choices regarding the airframe and engine options have been narrowed down and so has the budget. In the used SR22 market in the US mostly the TN models are available. For the avionics there are 3 choices: PFD/MFD/GNS430/STEC, R9 and G1000. I have eliminated the G2 models because of the more limited TKS system (parts of the wing are not protected), which leaves me with G3 as the airframe.
I am sincerely grateful for the important reminder. However, that wasn’t what I wanted to discuss. Please allow me to quote myself:
The reason for this post is to ask all of you who have practical experience in flying single pilot IFR for their impression, opinion, preference and why do you lean towards one system or the other.
If possible, I would like to keep our conversation focused on the question of how good these systems support a single pilot flying IFR, probably in demanding weather, instead of comparing technical features and capabilities of those systems. I believe that the UX of the avionics can have a huge influence on the outcome of an IFR flight in IMC for a non-professional pilot who is not being trained constantly by an organization like an airline.
I’m asking for your experience with single-pilot IFR and the influence of how the avionics maker presents information, has you operate the system – the overall user experience. The limited capacity of the human brain has already been mentioned. In a challenging situation one might devote too many brain power to operating the avionics. If there is a way to limit that risk by choosing a system with a better user interface, I would like to know. I’m not a professional pilot. That means I don’t get paid to hone my skills as system operator in a simulator every two weeks or so.
Stephan,
To answer your restated question. In my opinion any glass cockpit system will work well for you if you are technically minded. However to fly any of them you need to really understand how they work. None will make up for a lack of currency. But ignoring support, business viability and warranty issues….
Garmin – the G1000/GNS430/530 series has a somewhat odd user interface but is a standard and once you get the hang of it it works fine. G1000 with keypad is a very powerful system. Synthetic Vision is in my view a major safety feature for IMC flight.
Avidyne – UI on their products is essentially much more modern. Only Garmin 650/750 is of the same generation. R9 seems to be a very good system and while not having flown with it the autopilot DFC100 is very good. No SynVis yet….
They all have their quirks. Familiarity and currency are key, not the particular UI. IMNO.
Yes and the feedback so far seems to be that all systems do the job and which one you have is less important than it seems.
If you can, go for the DFC90/GFC700 and not the S-TEC. That does make a major difference.
In a challenging situation one might devote too many brain power to operating the avionics.
You will find that in such a situation, if you are not different from myself, my students and co-pilots, your field of view will narrow down to some very essential bits of information on your screen: Usually the ILS crosspointer (or flight director command bar, which is essentially the same, but easier to follow). Even looking at the airspeed or altitude seems to be a big effort then. Changing frequencies or calling up approach charts from somewhere even more so. The GNS430, even if some people here don’t seem to like it much, is very straightforward when it comes to selecting COM and NAV frequencies, much easier than some integrated avionics suites, because it has a direct user interface (dial knobs) which is always active whatever NAV mode is selected. So I think, a Garmin GNS (or similar) somewhere on the panel would be a must if I had to select an aeroplane for me.
Thank you Jason. I am technically minded and have no doubt that I will be able to fully understand how they work – over time. Figuring out complicated stuff isn’t something I shy away from.
My concern is currency and muscle memory. Although I expect to fly quite a lot, that doesn’t help much, if it is mostly a handful of routes and always the same approaches. In comparison to eg. a Netjets pilot I won’t get recurrent training in the uncommon and unusual stuff.
Allow me to pick an example and it is just to explain what I’m concerned about. Given good training and recurrent training flying an unpublished hold will not be a challenge. One of the systems has a feature for that and the other is rumored to get it soon. In one system one basically fills out the blanks in a sentence that reads like ATC tells you about the hold. I’m not talking with the mindset of a child of the magenta line! but I can see that such a feature might help when one hasn’t flown such holds in a while and is probably a bit tired from a long day.
People using an aircraft as a personal transportation device are in a different position than pilots who are paid to fly and paid to wait and keep sharp. Automation can be helpful but also can get in the way in the form of poor system design.
My question is really about the experience from non-professional pilots with both systems.
I am well aware of the business issues around both systems. That is one data point I am considering. Right now, with your kind help, I’m looking to find out something about the other.
Well on your specific example, flying unpublished or enroute holds is very very rare. I fly a lot for personal transportation and have had to fly manual holds twice in two years. In those cases would I have liked to be able to fly it fully automated? Yes. Is it a big issue, no.
A good glass system for distance IFR needs a good autopilot – Garmin GFC700 and Avidyne DFC100 are both excellent. You need airways entry – both have this.
But as others have said, it is more about the plane. Why Cirrus?
