PlasticPilot.net

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.