Cirrus SR22 Part II – Avidyne vs. G1000
The opportunity of comparing the Avidyne Entegra in the Cirrus SR22, which was new to me, with the Garmin 1000, which I already knew before, was the most exciting part of Matthew’s invitation to fly the Cirrus with him out of Denham. The L3 SmartDeck will soon become available, but for the time being the Avidyne and G1000 are dominating the market of glass-cockpits for light aircrafts. Some partial retrofit systems like the Garmin 600 make the joy of owners of older planes, but flying an Avidyne Entegra or G1000 requires a new aircraft. Despite looking similar, and both being called “glass cockpit”, there are some major differences between the two systems, particularly regarding their level of integration.
To make the long story short, let’s say that the G1000 is fully integrated. It contains all the following things:
- two NAV / COM / GPS receivers – equivalent to two GNS 530s
- one transponder
- one audiobox
- one ADF receiver (optional)
- one DME receiver (optional)
- and an autopilot (GFC 700 only)
The Avidyne Entegra relies on external units for all these functions. Examining the GPS navigators is a good illustration of the differences. The G1000 is made of two separate units, each one containing something equivalent to a GNS 530. If one of the units is lost, the other will still work, and feed both screens. The Avidyne uses two external GNS 430s. The loss of a screen will not affect the navigators. Even a loss of both screens would leave the pilot with the navigators moving maps. Obviously, a catastrophic complete loss of electrical power would lead to the same effects on both systems. I don’t think that one design is safer than the other, in terms of failures, but it is certainly of paramount importance for the pilot to know how to deal with degraded modes. And remember, there is only one crankshaft anyway…
Now, let’s have a closer look. On all the pictures below, the Avidyne is on the left, and the G1000 on the right.
Click here or on the picture for a higher resolution version
The full integration of the G1000 has some advantages: the pilot interacts only with it. The screens display the usual flying instruments, but also the radio frequencies in use, and the auto-pilot modes (only with the GFC700 autopilot, not present on these pictures), and all of this is controlled via the G1000 rotary-knobs and softkeys. At first sight this makes the Avidyne look more streamlined. Four keys and one single stage rotary know on each side, versus 9 knobs and 18 keys for the G1000. The Garmin display also looks a bit more clutered, but this is also because of all the extra information related to the NAV / COM, ADF, and transponder. I highlighted all these parts on the picture below.
Having all this information packed together makes the G1000 display denser, but it concentrates everything in a single place. The central pedestal in a Cirrus is occupied by the two GNS430s, the audiobox, the transponder, and the autopilot. I did not had the opportunity to fly the SR22 in IMC, but I can imagine that having the radios, and flight plan programming interface rather away from the PFD can make the scanning a bit more difficult.
I read a lot about the Avidyne, and I expected to be somehow disturbed by the fact that the Avidyne PFD is permanently split in two, the top part being dedicated to the attitude indicator, airspeed indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator, while the below part, always depicted on black background, is hosting the HSI. Whatever the bank angle, there is always an horizontal separation between the “ground” part of the attitude indicator and the black part. The G1000 uses the whole screen for the attitude indicator, and the HSI is depicted in the “ground”. Once in flight, this was a perfect non-issue. I got used to the attitude indicator, and to the other parts of the PFD almost instantly. They are not so different from the G1000, but let’s have a closer look.
At first, the king of all instruments, the center of all IFR pilot’s attentions: the attitude indicator. The depiction of the aircraft is quite different. The Avidyne uses a “W” with extended borders. Keep the black segments aligned with the horizon, and the central black dot on the sky / ground limit, and the planw will be straight and level. The G1000 represents the plane with a triangle, and two horizontal pointers on the side. The two pointers are equivalent to the black segments, and the summit of the triangle to the black dot of the Avidyne. The sky pointers are both referenced to a scale with standard 30, 45 and 60 degrees of bank.
There are not so many ways to design a tape-based airspeed indicator, nor a lot to say about it. One difference is the frame around the instrument on the G1000 version, which I personally like. The Avidyne one is a bit too… furtive, but this is really a question of taste. Do I prefer the boxed version because I trained on it first ? Possible.
There are more differences on the right-hand side of the PFD. The altimeters are almost identical, with a bug, the selected altitude on top, and the altimeter setting below. Both are indicating altitude in 20 feet increments, which pass through the window in a continuous way as altitude changes. The bigger difference between the two PFDs resides in the vertical speed indicator. The Avidyne one is like a good old needle, whereas the G1000 uses a pointer moving up and down, in which the vertical rate can be read, and which disappears if the altitude is constant. Another noticeable difference is the presence of a vertical speed bug on the Avidyne. I don’t know if the G1000 versions for higher performance aircraft have one, but the G1000 found in the DA40s does not.
The G1000 HSI is extremely flexible, and can display two bearing pointers which can be coupled to NAV receivers, to the GPSs, or to the ADF. It takes a good standard operating procedure to not get lost, or mix pointers. The Avidyne has only one pointer, which is enough to fly (almost) any IFR procedure. European IFR certification also requires a DME, and the G1000 includes one (click here for more about this external module). The Cirrus SR22 installation has a separate, panel mounted DME. There is another difference in the HSIs: the figures on the Avidyne are always up, whereas those of the G1000 are turning with the windrose. To be fair, I noticed it only now, while looking at the pictures – I did not even saw that difference in flight. If you asked me if the G1000 figures were sometimes up-side down, I would not have been able to answer… at least not correclty.
I flew the Avidyne only once, but thanks to my G1000 experience, this was no big deal. I did not get a full differences training on it, but I reckon that it would not be too long, and particularly much shorter than my initial glass-cockpit conversion. Moving from gauges to glass is definetly a big step. Upgrading from one glass cockpit to another one is way simpler.
Click here to read more about my SR22 flight or visit the archives to find more about the G1000.
15 Comments, Comment or Ping
Russ Still
Well done. Excellent comparison of the two.
Oct 2nd, 2008
Axel
I am currently reading Max Trescott’s G1000 handbook to prepare for my soon upcoming flight training using the Garmin G1000. Like you are describing here, he also points out the fact that whereas the Avidyne Entegra relies on external units (GNS430) for things like radios, transponder and autopilot, the Garmin G1000 has all this information available on the PFD. With the hence reduced need to ever take the eyes off the artificial horizon that would probably have a positive impact on flight safety, particularly while in IMC.
Without ever having flown a glass cockpit yet, as far as I can see, that seems to be the main difference between the two systems. Apart from that main difference and some differences in graphic presentation of the flight instruments the systems seem to me to be fairly similar in operation. Interesting to hear how easy it was for you to transition from one system to another. I guess that just goes to show how alike the two systems really are.
I am soon about to continue my training for the Instrument Rating. When I was training for the Instrument Rating before I was using conventional instruments, and now I will likely be transitioning to the G1000 for the rest of my training. I gotta tell you I am really excited to do that. I suppose I am anticipating the instrument scan to be somewhat less demanding and a bit easier since the information that was earlier seperated into isolated instruments, will now to a much larger extent be gathered in the same place. With all the primary flight instruments in reality being super-imposed onto each other I figure I should be able to scan one instrument without the other instruments ever being completely out of sight. In return that should make it easier to control the plane acurately while in IMC. Would you agree?
Oct 4th, 2008
PlasticPilot
@Russ: Thank you.
@Axel: That’s a tricky question… It is certain that the G1000 is more centralized, which helps to reduce need look at other places. I’m not sure if that makes a significant difference regarding the primary instruments scanning, as in a classical cockpit the primary flying instruments are also organized in a rather compact way.
You’ll certainly find that the scanning is different. If I may, let me suggest that you first take a couple of flight in a simulator, or VFR, to get a bit familiar with the G1000 before having to handle it in the complex IFR system. You’ll probably need that extra-time anyway, doing it in a more relaxed environment should make it a bit more comfortable.
I’m definitely looking forward for more feedback about your conversion.
Oct 4th, 2008
Axel
Thanks for the good advice. Certainly a good idea to do a few flights in a simulator and/or VFR before going IFR in the G1000. The school has a fully functional G1000 simulator that I’ll probably start out with.
Once I start flying again I plan on writing at least one post from each of my flight lessons on my blog so feel free to stop by any time.
Oct 4th, 2008
Max Trescott
Axel,
Thank you for buying my book! I think you will find that it’s less physical work for your eyes to scan the instruments since with glass displays, you don’t have the boundaries between instruments that force your eye to jump and refocus on the next instrument. With glass panels, you can sweep your eyes across the instruments, (horizontally for pitch information and then vertically for bank information) more easily. I’m finding that pilots I work with take less time to get instrument proficient on glass than they do with round gauges. Of course the nice autopilot’s help too!
Oct 4th, 2008
PlasticPilot
Wow ! A comment and personal tip from Max Trescott, 2008 National CFI of the Year… That’s a good surprise
I used the book and CDs as well ( http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/2007/05/03/g1000-transition-tips/ ) and it helped me to kick-start my G1000 training.
To read more from Max, visit his blog at http://www.maxtrescott.com – which you probably know if you read my post about it: http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/2008/01/01/max-trescott-on-general-aviation-wwwmaxtrescottcom/
Oct 4th, 2008
Axel
Max,
Thank you very much for some great pieces of advice! I will make sure to bring them, and many more that I got from your excellent G1000 Glass Cockpit Handbook, with me when I start my glass training flying the G1000 equipped C172.
Oct 5th, 2008
Jason Miller
PP,
Thought I’d offer a few notes on the Avidyne since I have about 80 hours with it.
You can have 2 pointers in the HSI, you just have to select what the second pointer should be (which VOR or GPS) using the button near the “bearing” box on the left side. It is just a bearing pointer but quite handy, as you mentioned.
The newer Avidynes (those with the Flight Director) no longer have the W style attitude indicator reference, they look like the Garmin since that is how flight director interfaces usually look.
I never noticed the orientation of the numbers in the heading indicator before – you are very observant!
To me the main differences of the two glass panels are:
- Avidyne’s recent pace of innovation is slow compared to Garmin, though I hear they are working on a upgrade now
- the new Avidyne’s have a %power bar of the left side of the PDF – I use that a good bit when shooting approaches or in the pattern
- The GFC700 autopilot is very nice with the G1000
- The failover method in the G1000 is better than the Avidyne, though Avidyne using external GPSs helps a little. When practicing no-PDF approaches I found it to be fairly easy in the Avidyne – wouldn’t want to loose the backup attitude indicator too though.
- The Avidyne is far simpler to use, but I think the Cirrus Perspective improvements to the G1000 interface probably chip away at that difference. The transponder is an example. In my one hour with the G1000 I found the transponder settings buried under some soft menu. In the Avidyne you just reach over to the transponder and start loading your code – no searching for it.
Oct 5th, 2008
PlasticPilot
@Jason: thank you for the details and the update about the new versions. Your remark regarding the easier use of the Avidyne probably comes from the lower integration. You can type your transponder code directly with the Avidyne systems because there is a separate box.
It’s true that the G1000 requires pressing two soft keys before typing it (XPDR and then CODE). This is however the same key that must be pressed twice. It is labelled “XPDR” when the PFD is in its standard mode, and it turns into “CODE” after you press it once. With some practice, you’ll know where to find things rapidly.
Where I concur with you is for the “external” modules of the G1000: namely the ADF and DME (still mandatory for IFR in Europe). These are really buried under three levels of softkeys, and the frequencies must be tuned using the FMS knobs, unlike the COM / NAV frequencies which have dedicated knobs. Read here for more: http://www.plasticpilot.net/blog/2007/08/26/g1000-adf-dme-and-dual-ils-display/
Oct 5th, 2008
Reply to “Cirrus SR22 Part II – Avidyne vs. G1000”