I have flown several times a 172 equipped with the Garmin G1000. I have to say I like the masssive amount of info it provides great, BUT - wow! can be confusing at times…the best feature I like is the TIS (traffic information system) which basically ‘piggy’backs’ real time info from a nearby ATC center…although scary to now see ALL of the traffic that surrounds you, regardless of airpsace class…requesting flight following is always my first choice when not filing IFR…
FIL is looking to add it to his Malibu. His friend added it to his Malibu and loves it for that reason and for the NEXRAD features. Everyone, said maybe two or three, I have talked to love it.
See, I can play nice…
Just trying to lighten you mood…
Against popular opinion, I think all that crap in a 172 is a bit overkill.
That being said, let me explain.
I can understand the need for the most advanced avionics money can afford when flying in ALL weather, day and night, in extremely congested airspace. AND, I welcome the idea that students are exposed to what the FAA now calls a TAA (Technically Advanced Aircraft) early on in their training.
But I think its a bit crazy for Joe Pilot to buy and/or rent a 172 with all the bells, whistles, screens, fans, and doo-dads to go bombing around the pattern or out for the occasional $100 hamburger. I’ve seen some of the worst aviating from rich guys in a Cirrus. Heaven forbid what would happen if something goes wrong with the avionics, what would they do without the magenta line!? With all the extras, pilots have started to forget how to use the “standard” equipment on board.
Dont get me wrong, I’m all for advances in equipment and avionics. The Pilatus I fly is a very advanced aircraft, with glass screens, TCAS, GPWS, onboard radar plus NEXRAD uplink, but there’s no substitute for instrument scan and eyes outside.
Personally, I think everyone should learn to fly, at least at the very beginning, in an old 152. One radio (or not) one nav (or not) and stick and rudder.
-J-
Can we get an Amen?
The boy is wise beyond his years.
I agree with cfijames. It’s just like learning math: no one should be able to use a calculator before he knows how to add.
The G1000 or Avidyne systems are less likely to fail than the steam gauge backup instruments. Additionally, I think that new pilots learning on a TAA (technically advanced aircraft) will eventually require an endorsement to fly a TSA (technically stupid aircraft) but not the other way around.
I think the key is that you can’t take a low time pilot and give them a TAA with the expectation that it allows them to fly in all conditions. I don’t think that means that there’s no point in light aircraft having advanced avionics, though. The Citation Mustang and Eclipse 500 both will have a G1000 and I’m sure someone with a hundred hours in a C172-G1000 will have a significantly easier time transitioning to them than someone without.
Additionally, I’ve done plenty of long x/c’s in low IMC at night with thunderstorms in the vicinity in steam gauge 172s and 182s and would’ve really appreciated the benefit of a G1000 or similar.
I own a PA28-181 TAA with the Avidyne Entegra Flight Deck that I lease to a flying club (http://www.leadingedgeflyingclub.com). The pilots and instructors that fly the Archer are top-notch pilots and use it for business as well as pleasure. A pilot that got checked out in it last week claimed that he was able to fly for two hours in WX, due to the XM WX information provided while in flight that he would have otherwise scrubbed in a LTA (Low Tech Aircraft). The Avidyne Entegra is less intimidating looking than the G1000. Im told by those that have flown both that the Avidyne is more intuitive, has a much lower learning curve, and the PFD & MFD integrates well with the GNS 430s, S-Tec AP, and GTX 330. However, I think allegiances for Garmin va Avidyne have been drawn based on aircraft bigotry and not on the avionics technology delivery provided. Regardless of the TAA equipment, the pilot is provided with incredible cockpit management and flight awareness, and is extended a safer flight environment. TAA do not make a better pilot out of an already stupid one! Pilots will still fly their GPS/AP into the ground and rip off aircraft parachutes going 2x Vne but hopefully, the TAA will save some of these pilots from themselves.
Its a bit unfortunate that the TAA terminology has been used, because it casts a false perception of complexity that is beyond the typical GA pilot. Old pilots new to the Avidyne flight deck seem to take about two hours to acclimate in knowing where the knobs, buttons, and information are positioned. Also, new pilots that learn the TAA first should be able to acclimate to a LTA in about the same amount of time. Ive heard that the G-1000 learning curve is about 10 hours in comparison to the Avidyne. The most difficult equipment to learn is the GNS 430s, but they are becoming quite prevalent in LTA as well as TAA.
**cfijames ** The navigational instrument and principles in a TAA are the same as in a LTA the scanning technique is just as essential, but the cross-checking between instruments is faster and more logical. On X-country flights, I find myself taking in more scenery and relaxing more in the TAA than in a LTA. I have twice as much flight time in a LTA, and have to say that I wish I had taken my primary training in a TAA, because I believe I would have gotten through it much sooner with better understanding of instrumentation and navigation. New Piper claims that 90% of all Archers and 50% of all Warriors being sold as trainers and personal aircraft are built with the Avidyne Entegra flight deck. Cessna makes similar claims for their G-1000 panel in the C172.
I did a VFR/IFR G1000 transition and emerged with an IPC with about 1 hour on the ground and 3 hours in the plane, so definitely 10 hours would be high by comparison.
As far as the Avidyne, the GPS and flight planning isn’t as integrated, so if you’re proficient in the GNS430, you can be immediately competent at most IFR procedures in an Avidyne glass cockpit immediately and need only a couple hours transition to figure out the rest of the PFD & MFD.
…I am surprised no one who has replied has thought the semi-tcas support the G1000 provides with TIS to be one of the best things about it - I like the novelty of the ‘glass-cockpit’ 172…but honestly, the FBO where I fly just got a new 172 with the regular ‘six-pack’ gauge set-up…and I swear I fy that better and smoother than the G1000 equipped 172…I spend to much time looking down on the LCD panels than looking outside…
…I suppose if I ever made a transistion to a flying career, and flew RJ’s I would have a distinct advantage with being familar with the menu options, etc…although mayeb only a small advantage - my former flight instructor has said that the ERJ-145 he flies has an easier cockpit set-up than the G1000…BUT…the speed at which stuff changes takes some serious getting used to…and stuff like descent ‘management’ is a real issue apparently for new RJ pilots…
Look around for a TAA with an Avidyne Entegra flight deck and fly it. I’d be interested in you comments regarding the difference in workload and distractions… e.g., fewer buttons, knobs, dodads. Based on what I’ve heard, 3-hrs of flight time in a G-1000 for signoff is a good rate. I hope we hear of more of these favorable experiences. My signoff in the Avidyne took 1-2 hours on the ground going over the pilot guides, and 45-minutes in the air.
“All” of the pilots flying my airplane have commented that their workload is less with 10x the information, but it took about three takeoffs/landings before they were following the airspeed indicator and altimeter tape. A pilot that flew the Archer on a two-day IFR trip with his wife over the weekend emailed me today with, “Great flight. Had a lot of fun familarizing myself with the MFD…” I think “fun” is the operative word for a TAA! Also, I think every pilot has commented about how TIS has made them more aware of traffic they can’t see. They know exactly where to look for traffic even before flight-following advises them.
Remember, the PFD & MFD will take care of themselves… look out the window and enjoy the ride. When you want info, just take a quick glancing scan for a mental picture of the PFD.
i just took my instrument check ride in a G1000 and considering that an instrument license takes 40 hours (part 61) and 35 (part 141), i think it’s pretty damn easy to get acclimated to the whole working w/ computer screens in the cockpit. i have 25 of my instrument instruction time in a G1000, and the rest in steam guages, and if a young man like myself can pass a checkride in a G1000 w/ such a small amount of time, then i think it’s pretty damn user friendly, but maybe that’s just because i’m used to all of the video games and such. i dont mean to offend anybody that’s used to the steam gauges, but in my opinion it’s exactly like going from a steam engine to the internal combustion engine, it’s all part of up and coming aircraft whether you like it or not. seriously, what’s a few hours of your time to get used to reading a computer screen verses a gauge? are you not reading a computer screen right now? it’s the exact same concept only the airplane puts out different information. your scanning technique really does improve and you really are more aware of your surroundings by means of getting real time weather and traffic avoidence. so i’m thinkin if you really dont want the lcd screens to become part of aviation, than you can stick to your double workload and costantly looking for me but i guarantee you i will be able to find out where you are before you see me.
Not necessarily. The G1000 TIS only works in certain metropolitan areas in conjunction with an ATC facility. It is not covered across the entire country, and on any given cross country you’ll here a friendly female voice announcing “traffic unavailable”. I also read recently that TIS will be phased out in the next 7-10 years.
The Cirrus Avidyne on the other hand uses a TAS, i believe, which actively interrogates other aircraft for a transponder signal. It is not dependant on an outside source, but if the other aircraft isn’t equipped with a transponder… You’re SOL.
I spend to much time looking down on the LCD panels than looking outside…
If this is the case, you need to spend more time on the ground getting familiar with the system, or in the air with a competent instructor or safety pilot. As with any aircraft system, there’s little room for distractions while in flight, and the best way to overcome distractions is to be completely familiar with the plane.
It seems to me that the more information you can give a pilot, the better. Even Joe Weekend Pilot. Especially if the equipment is lighter, cheaper, and more reliable. My $.02
[qoute]
The Cirrus Avidyne on the other hand uses a TAS, i believe, which actively interrogates other aircraft for a transponder signal. It is not dependant on an outside source, but if the other aircraft isn’t equipped with a transponder… You’re SOL.[qoute]
Correct! The TAS in the Cirrus is delayed by up to 30 seconds! I teach my owners whatever clock direction TAS gives you then go over another 2 numbers, then you’ll see the target outside 
(with a transponder anyway)