Is the G1000 really a step forward ?
The G1000 glass cockpit is good looking. It’s cool, and it’s certainly the leading edge in nowadays avionics for light aircrafts. But it is really a step forward ? Does it improve the safety of our flying ? It’s probably too early to answer, but here are some personal opinions…
I’m convinced that simpler equipments are safer. Typically, FADECs make engine operation and management much simpler. One start button, one power lever, one power indicator. It’s way much easier than throttle, prop, mixture, carburator, mags, … For a pilot flying a few hours a year - and there are many such pilots - the risk to forget something is much lower.
The same applies to the radios. The old-fashioned COM / NAV boxes are simple and easy to use. Integrate them in a G1000 and its intercom, and the complexity of use is slightly higher. For VFR operations, this is probably not so problematic.
What makes flying the G1000 a bit more harder is the way the instruments are presented. I told a lot about the time it takes to get used to that. The question is then how can someone who learned to fly with “steam gauges” change all of his habits by flying only 8 hours a year ?
Don’t simply say that “such sunday pilots are not concerned”. This would be serious a mistake, because “sunday pilots” are the base on which many clubs are built. If they stop flying, many clubs will simply go bankrupt. 8 hours per year, as an average, is sufficient to maintain the PPL privileges under JAR regulation. The average yearly flight time in european clubs is somewhere around 13 hours.
G1000 and other glass cockpits have been around for a while now, but they start to reach this part of the pilots population only now, because of the long life cycle of aero-club fleets. Most of G1000 equipped planes have been flown by happy owners, which fly a lot and are ready to invest time in training.
Most schools recommend 10 to 20 hours of training for the G1000, depending if the pilots is already familiar with the airframe, and with the GNS430 / 530 series. How to convert a pilots that do not fly that much in a year ? Should they renounce, and continue to fly with classical instruments only ?
Looking at the problem the other way round can make it look like a big chance: G1000 conversion can increase the motivation of pilots not flying a lot. Discovering a new, sexy technology can break the boredom that sometimes prevent some pilots to fly more.
I have no doubts that new pilots having part or all of their training on G1000 equipped planes will have no problem to deal with it, even if they later reduce their flying activity. As for any change, the transition period is hard. And remember, the G1000 (or any other glass cockpit) is only as good as the pilot operating it ! One can fly in a professional way, even if it’s only 12 hours a year.
Once again instructors and clubs will play a major role. Only they can make the G1000 a step forward. This technological shift is not easy to manage, and I wish good luck and success to the clubs pioneering in this way.
7 Comments, Comment or Ping
Cliff Stanford
The answer, of course, is simulators. But how many clubs have decent simulators and of those, how many have a G1000?
Cliff.
Apr 18th, 2008
Sarah
Speaking as a (renewed) student on the steam gauges…
g1000 looks intimidating, sure, but if I had one I’d RTFM and get one of these
PC programs and/or books
http://g1000book.com/G1000%20Simulator%20Software.htm
Or do you think a full simulator ( Elite or equiv. ) is required?
Sarah
Apr 18th, 2008
Jess Sightler
AOPA’s Air Safety Foundation has done considerable research in the area of TAAs (including the G1000):
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/TAA2007.pdf
While they have seen an increase in weather, landing, and go-around accidents, there have also been some tremendously encouraging trends.
This quote is particularly telling:
“Glass-cockpit TAA have had NO fatal accidents related to fuel management. This is an important victory over a long-time cause of GA aircraft accidents. Many TAA MFDs include a “range ring” that superimposes the aircraft’s range with available fuel over the map display or a digital readout of fuel remaining and range, which is calculated based on current fuel flow and groundspeed.”
While I do not believe that is true any more (I think there have been a handful since then), the rate of fuel related accidents in TAAs has dropped dramatically relative to their classical counterparts. The statistics in other areas strongly suggest that this is not due to owner-flown issues (and in fact a large # of flight schools in the US have G1000 equipped 172s for various reasons).
I do agree that the increased complexity does add some challenges, but I would be shocked if the net effect is anything other than positive.
Apr 19th, 2008
PlasticPilot
Simulators ! Good point. As far as I know, there are three possibilities in this domain:
1) The Garmin Trainer that you get when you buy a G1000. It’s a PC based software, but it has many limitations: one display only, and ergonomy makes it hard to use. Good for an introduction, but not more.
2) The G1000 Part Task Trainer (PTT) from Elite ( http://www.flyelite.ch/en/products/garmin.php ). This is basically a G1000 with yoke, throttle, and a couple of switches. It is not a G1000 simulator, but the actual G1000 coupled to a mini-simulator. This is probably a good options for clubs, but it costs the price of a G1000…
3) A full FNPT-II integrating a G1000, like the one from Frasca ( http://www.frasca.com/web_pages/brochures/diamondFTDs.htm ) which I used for my training in Cannes.
Because FNPT-II offer much more than a simple G1000 integration (controls with force feed-back, 160° projection of the outside world, …) they are extremely expensive. Their use is probably limited to FTOs. The cost of an hour of DA42 FNPT-II is roughly the same as one hour of DA40-G1000.
The reason for which these products integrate an actual G1000 do not try to mimic one is simply because this would be too complex and expensive. The G1000 has been designed for such integration from the beginning.
Structures like clubs should seriously think of using the Part Task Trainer. This saves flight time and money for the transitions, even if the initial investment is high (about 1/3 of the price of a DA40-G1000).
@Sarah: the CDs from Max Trescott are also a good base. There is no simulator, but a detailed presentation of the main features. Probably much better than RTFM… And if you think it’s intimidating, you at least realized that this could be an issue.
I know some people who see the G1000 training as “three hours classroom, three circuits, and done !”…
Apr 19th, 2008
PlasticPilot
@Jess: sorry, your comment got delayed by my anti-spam filter. Your contribution is full of correct points. However this AOPA study probably included pilots with more than 8 hours a year, because G1000 planes were not available to them by that time. Now that they become more popular and widespread, things could change…
Only time will tell.
Apr 19th, 2008
Julien
I’m a regular reader of Aviation Mentor’s blog ( http://aviationmentor.blogspot.com/) and I’m always amazed at all the posts along the lines of ‘hey, look at this new feature of the G1000 I’ve just found’. That coming from a professional aviator and instructor.
It’s of course OK to have tons of features built in there, but my question is, if I only want to use the (say) 5% of the features that are relevant for low-time VFR pilots, will I have still feel the weight of the other 95% in terms of user experience and learning curve? I’ve never touched a G1000, or sat in a glass cockpit for that matter.
Cheers,
Julien.
Apr 19th, 2008
PlasticPilot
Julien, from my non-instructor point of view, you don’t need to know and use all of the G1000 features. What is important is to be comfortable with what you need. You can fly safely without flight plan, descent profiles, and so on.
What is risky is when you need to think where the speed is displayed, or need to search for altitude. This might seem strange to someone who never flew a G1000. The fact is we - steam gauges pilots - are so used to the instruments positions that we never search for them.
Another difference which takes time is that we usually fly according to needle’s position. Typically, the 70kts approach speed in a PA28 corresponds to an horizontal needle. We don’t really care about the number.
When flying with glass cockpit, you don’t get a position, but a number (read http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/2007/04/28/g1000-get-rid-of-the-six-pack/ about this topic).
Apr 19th, 2008
Reply to “Is the G1000 really a step forward ?”