CAP Talk

Operations => Aviation & Flying Activities => Topic started by: West_Coast_Guy on July 23, 2010, 08:07:32 AM

Title: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: West_Coast_Guy on July 23, 2010, 08:07:32 AM
The training requirements to get qualified in CAP G1000 airplanes seem rather steep. Is this reducing the number of pilots who are able to get Form Fives at squadrons that have them? If so, what benefit is CAP really getting from buying these aircraft?
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: SarDragon on July 23, 2010, 08:19:48 AM
As for the first Q - I don't know. That may depend on the age of the pilots in a particular unit. The younger folks may be joining with G1000 time already logged.

As for the second - the benefit is new airplanes, but that's all Cessna sells now. They haven't made new steam gage planes in the models that CAP is currently purchasing, since around 2007.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: West_Coast_Guy on July 23, 2010, 08:50:32 AM
Does time logged in G1000 aircraft elsewhere count against the training requirements mentioned in 60-1 section 3.6a(4)(a) and (b)?

I find myself wondering if glass cockpits are such a great leap forward if they require so much training.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Mustang on July 23, 2010, 11:22:25 AM
Three 1.5 hr flights (per the FITS transition syllabus) and an abbreviated Form 5 is steep?  Not in aviation terms.  Is 4.5 hrs excessive?  Not if you plan to fly IFR with it.  For VFR-only pilots, you could get away with 2-3 hrs and be reasonably safe.

Funding for transition training is sometimes available, your wing just has to submit a funding request and see if it gets funded. 

As for what benefit we're getting from these aircraft, I don't think we've fully exploited their potential.  We couldn't do the project I'm presently working on without them (we tried).

Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: West_Coast_Guy on July 23, 2010, 05:03:00 PM
Quote from: Mustang on July 23, 2010, 11:22:25 AM
Three 1.5 hr flights (per the FITS transition syllabus) and an abbreviated Form 5 is steep?  Not in aviation terms.

Do you know where I can find that syllabus? Is that the one mentioned in 60-1? 

The FAQ on the NTC Web site mentions three three-hour flights, which is a total of nine hours. In another answer it says it's a three day course! If it's really only three 1.5 hour flights, that doesn't sound so bad, but from asking around at our squadron, which has a G1000 aircraft assigned to it, I've gotten the impression that it's hard to find an instructor to do the training.

I also spoke to an instructor who is a leading expert on G1000 instruction at our airport, and I got the impression that the requirements for him to get CAP-qualified in G1000 were too much for him to swallow. This is someone who has been a CAP check pilot in the past. Are people who got their G1000 training elsewhere being allowed to take the Form 5 without doing the training over again with CAP? CAPR 60-1 does not mention this as an option, while the FAQ makes it sounds sound iffy.

What about pilot availability at squadrons that have a G1000 aircraft? Does anyone know if that has suffered?
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: vento on July 23, 2010, 08:25:35 PM
Check eServices, left menu, G1000 study materials.
Also check the govilairpatrol.com website. http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/emergency_services/stanevalflight_ops/index.cfm
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Mustang on July 23, 2010, 11:25:17 PM
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on July 23, 2010, 05:03:00 PM
Quote from: Mustang on July 23, 2010, 11:22:25 AM
Three 1.5 hr flights (per the FITS transition syllabus) and an abbreviated Form 5 is steep?  Not in aviation terms.
Do you know where I can find that syllabus? Is that the one mentioned in 60-1?
Email Pete Kalisky at NHQ and he will send you the PDF.

Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on July 23, 2010, 05:03:00 PMThe FAQ on the NTC Web site mentions three three-hour flights, which is a total of nine hours. In another answer it says it's a three day course!
It could easily take 3 days.  The syllabus requires 8 hours of ground instruction, split between a few lengthy death-by-powerpoint sessions and some guided practice on the PC trainer software, plus the three flight scenarios: a VFR scenario, an IFR scenario (or a 2nd VFR scenario for non-instrument rated pilots), and an emergency procedures scenario. According to the syllabus, scenario 1 should be 1.5 hrs, scenario 2 should be "approx. 2 hrs". No duration is suggested for scenario 3, it probably needs to be flown to proficiency.

Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on July 23, 2010, 05:03:00 PMAre people who got their G1000 training elsewhere being allowed to take the Form 5 without doing the training over again with CAP? CAPR 60-1 does not mention this as an option, while the FAQ makes it sounds sound iffy.
CAP hasn't gotten around to recognizing sources of training other than the FITS syllabus.  If a pilot can show proof that he/she completed the FITS syllabus elsewhere (via a completion certificate), that is acceptable. They would still need a G1000 CAPF 5, obviously.

Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on July 23, 2010, 05:03:00 PMWhat about pilot availability at squadrons that have a G1000 aircraft? Does anyone know if that has suffered?
It has. On at least one occasion, we've had a G1000 bird sit on the ground at a SAREX for lack of a qualified pilot to fly it.  CAP-USAF wasn't amused.  However, it's part of the cost of modernizing.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Eclipse on July 23, 2010, 11:48:15 PM
Quote from: Mustang on July 23, 2010, 11:25:17 PM
Quote from: West_Coast_Guy on July 23, 2010, 05:03:00 PMWhat about pilot availability at squadrons that have a G1000 aircraft? Does anyone know if that has suffered?
It has. On at least one occasion, we've had a G1000 bird sit on the ground at a SAREX for lack of a qualified pilot to fly it.  CAP-USAF wasn't amused.  However, it's part of the cost of modernizing.

We recently had a steam gauge sitting on the ramp for lack of aircrew in general - it happens, people say they will show and they don't.

Our experience was a lot of gnashing of teeth by older / less active pilots who had no interest whatsoever in anything but non-mission
burger flying.  They said the same thing when we got 182 steam planes. The others did their training, many with corporate funds, and now we get more complaints about not have the G1000's around than when we do.

We just took delivery on #4 and traded out a steam to get it.

Steam gauges are like fax machines - they still work, but won't be supported in corporate fleets much longer.

My wing will also be pilot-testing a 172 glass refit, with the assumption that if it goes well more will follow.  It adds a third check ride to the fleet, so it wasn't a popular move, but the future does not wait for anyone.  It gets here, like it or not.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: simon on July 24, 2010, 12:11:04 AM
If a person has only been flying round gauge planes, the time, energy and cost of getting a G1000 Form 5 is a significant. If you want IFR priviledges, it is quite a bit more. Don't let anyone kid you with this 4 hour nonsense.

Here is my case.  I just got my G1000 Form 5 last week (With instrument privileges).

1. Firstly, I was already checked out to fly a new private G1000 182 and had an extensive checkout for that. (BTW, the synthetic vision is great!). I had 20 hours in that G1000 (Several in IMC and I had done IMC approaches) before even getting into the CAP G1000.

2. I went to the full day CAP ground school.

3. Countless hours reading the manuals, many nights on the installable G1000 simulator.

4. The three mandatory CAP flights. I did the emergency one in the sim, which I recommend because it is realistic and safer.

5. Finally the check ride.

My CAP G1000 time was an additional 8 hours over the time I already had.

Granted, if you want IFR, it is going to be less. But I had the minimum number of flights possible owing to the fact that I pretty much already knew the systems and it was still $800 plus 3 months of waiting for check pilots.

But, the bottom line is, the avionics are great, it can be more precise flying a grid than hand flying (Unless doing contours), it is safer in IMC and it is the way the industry and CAP is heading. In the end, everyone should eventually (As in the next couple of years) be G1000 rated, otherwise there won't be many round dials they can get into.

Quick facts: California Wing has 30 aircraft, 27 powered and 7 of those are G1000 182's (We don't do 172's in CA). We have 197 pilot members, 176 can fly CAP planes, 114 are MP rated, pretty much all of those have instrument privileges and 64 are G1000 qualified, although there is no way of telling how many of those 64 have instrument privileges on the G1000. But the bottom line is with only 1/4 of the fleet being G1000, more than half the mission pilots are G1000 qualified. So people are making the effort.

I do want to point out that I am not making an argument for the G1000 as a better SAR plane. Round dials are perfectly capable (And in some ways better, e.g. useful load). But the G1000 is inevitable in the fleet, so there is no point debating it. I just took a deep breath, set aside $1000 and churned through it. Basically, it is time for everyone to go back to school. But not everyone wants to.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Mustang on July 24, 2010, 05:09:52 AM
Quote from: simon on July 24, 2010, 12:11:04 AM
If a person has only been flying round gauge planes, the time, energy and cost of getting a G1000 Form 5 is a significant. If you want IFR priviledges, it is quite a bit more. Don't let anyone kid you with this 4 hour nonsense.
Why? It's perfectly doable.  I did it. 

Granted, I'm a techie and self-professed GPS nerd, and spent several hours wih the PC trainer on my own, but that combined with 3 flights in the right seat with a friend who was already Form 5'd and the FITS transition training were entirely adequate.

People who don't use technology regularly seem to experience the most difficulty transitioning.

If it took you 8 hours, after 20 hours of non-CAP G1000 time, I'd say you probably fell victim to some CAWG overzealousness.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Short Field on July 24, 2010, 05:30:45 AM
Or some people using the G1000 transition requirements to keep "outsiders" from flying "their" airplane. 
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: West_Coast_Guy on July 24, 2010, 05:07:30 PM
Simon and others, thanks for the info. Considering that only about a quarter of our planes are G1000, it sounds like CAWG has done a good job of getting pilots qualified in them so far. I'm still concerned, however, about pilots being required to repeat training that they've already paid for in private flight instruction.

From the NTC FAQ:

QuoteI assume that if a member has already gone through G1000 training, or does at a flight school and has some documents stating that fact, that all he or she would need is to take a form 5 in the A/C and if that person has already had a form 5 in a 182 they would still have to take a new form 5.

Obviously our fear is a quickie checkout, etc. However, if the individual received training via a Cessna approved FITS course at an FBO and has the certificate to prove it. Then we would entertain a waiver of the training once the pilot has provided his/her FITS certificate to us. The individual still requires a CAPF 5 to further proof his/her competency with the system to a CAP G1000 checkpilot. John Sharp

https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/dot/G1000/faq/qna.cfm?rec=58

This says that CAP would "entertain" a waiver for pilots who have an FITS certificate from elsewhere, but it sounds like the waiver is not automatic, and it still rules out pilots whose training used a different syllabus, including the highly expert instructor I mentioned earlier. I don't see why it is necessary for CAP to dictate what syllabus is used before a pilot is even allowed to take a Form 5. We don't dictate the syllabus for round dial pilots. As for the fear of "quickie checkouts," either a pilot is competent in G1000 operations or not. It ought to be possible to determine this on a Form 5. If the G1000 portion of the Form 5 is not adequate for this purpose, then it should be made adequate.

I guarantee you that if I were allowed to pay an instructor for this purpose, I would not have to spend "three months waiting for check pilots" to give me the instruction, but there's no way it would make sense to do this if I don't know in advance that I would be allowed to take the Form 5 based on that.

I recognize that there are probably search-specific items that might not be covered in private instruction, but that could be covered through an endorsement on the Form 91.

By the way, the link to the FAQ I'm quoting from is on this page:

https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/dot/G1000/index.cfm (https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/dot/G1000/index.cfm)
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: simon on July 25, 2010, 03:49:52 AM
First, a response to Mustang, then I'll reply to you (West_Coast_Guy).

Mustang, where did you get the 3x1.5 hour flight times in the FITS transition syllabus? I am looking at the syllabus right now (Version 4.0) and it doesn't mention flight times. I will agree that 1.5 hours is reasonable for the VFR flight. But it is not for the IFR flight. IFR release, intercepting and tracking an airway, 3 approaches, going missed twice, proceeding to the hold, holding, emergencies, etc., all under the hood? There's no way that is 1.5 hours, at least for us here in the SF Bay area. We need to get out of town first. Getting a release can be a 5 minute wait in itself, vectoring out of local inbound traffic to get you on your course, climbing out of the terrain etc.

My rides were as follows:

- VFR: 2.6 (We did some mountain work, canyon flying etc. Proper aircraft handling. But that could equally apply to round gauge. All I am suggesting is that it was a proper workout)
- IFR: 3.1. KPAO-KSCK-KMER-KLVK-KPAO. 3 approaches, all different types at different airports. Disabling screens etc.
- Emergency: 1.4. This was in a sim, but a proper G1000 sim, so I still had to pay $65 an hour.
- Form 5: 2.3. KPAO-O28-KSCK-KPAO. IFR departure. The controller did route us the wrong way for 10 minutes (He was totally overloaded with inbound SFO traffic - he thought we were going to Oakland not Oakdale - we let it go for a few minutes before it was obvious). 3 approaches. Holds, emergencies etc.

So that's how I got to 8 hours in the plane plus 1.4 in the sim. How you did it in 4, if that includes the Form 5, surprises me. Surely it can't include the check ride, because if it does, it ain't much of a check ride, even if it is VFR. If it was an IFR scenario ride plus an IFR check ride, I can't imagine how you possibly fitted in the six approaches, missed approaches, two holds, etc. I'd like to see the flight plan.

BTW, I am not technology averse. My day job is a software engineer in Silicon Valley. I live on this stuff. Also, as I mentioned I already had 20 hours in a G1000 182 prior to the CAP stuff. And three years of using Garmin 430/530 GPS's before that (I did my FAA IFR checkride demonstrating GPS approaches). But I do concede to the possibility of CAWG being overzealous. I thought the level of checkout was appropriate what what I was asking to be allowed to do - Take a TAA into the soup with CAP passengers, possibly VIP's? Our local three check pilots want to make sure you really understand the systems and how to handle failures. The lead guy is retired from the airlines and my experience from friends in the airlines today is that when it comes to check rides that really do rely on the avionics (aka IFR), a token "Yeah he made a few mistakes but he'll get it" doesn't really cut it. I guess what I am trying to say is that VFR only is a completely different level. Then it just becomes a regular old 182 with pretty LCD's. I was pretty comfortable VFR after about 2 hours in a G1000 flight - mostly getting used to the scan.

Now, back to West_Coast_Guy, I had a problem also that I was having to repeat training. I spoke to the lead check pilot for CAWG about this. His response was that there was a lot of debate about how to develop consistency in the new aircraft and the resolution was to take advantage of the FITS program that trains everybody the same way. Same procedures, same settings, same order of doing things etc. Basically it is what the airlines do. We're just not used to it in the private pilot world, where every instructor has their own way of teaching students (With I might add, their own share of misinformation). Yeah, it's a drag, but when there are three pilots in a G1000 plane, it stops 3 heads being down in the cockpit arguing about whether the lean assist setting in cruise should be peak EGT, 50 degrees ROP or something else. CAP says follow the Cessna recommendations of 50 degrees ROP and that's it. No more arguing. (BTW, as an example the guy who checked me out in the private G1000 wants me to fly peak EGT because I am renting it from him wet and he is managing the aircraft where he pays the owner dry...see what I mean?)

I should mention that if the pilot has done the FITS training separately, then the chief wing pilot should be able to use their discretion. I had done FITS-like training, but my instructor was not factory trained, so it didn't count.

I am totally with you on the private vs. CAP instructor thing. Money is the motivation. If I went down to the local club and said I needed a G1000 FITS checkout pronto, I'd wager that half a dozen CFI's would put their hand up to get me checkout out in a couple of days. That's the rub. CAP instructors aren't paid. And it's a significant factor in why it takes so long to become a pilot at CAP. C'est la vie. But (To quote Bill Clinton), "Ahhh feeel your paaain".

Don't be discouraged. I felt the same way. Think "Four flights. Four flights". Then see if you can find check pilots that will enable you to schedule all of the flights in advance, spaced out. Maybe one every two weeks. Then you'll be there before you know it. If you ask a check pilot for a flight date a couple of weeks out they are often able to accomodate.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Mustang on July 25, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: simon on July 25, 2010, 03:49:52 AM
Mustang, where did you get the 3x1.5 hour flight times in the FITS transition syllabus? I am looking at the syllabus right now (Version 4.0) and it doesn't mention flight times.
Page 13, VFR flight: "The PT and instructor will plan a short visual cross-country flight of approximately 1 and a half hour (sic) in duration."

Page 18, IFR flight (or VFR #2): "The flight plan will be a short IFR or VFR cross-country flight (as appropriate) of approximately two hours in duration."

For the Abnormal/Emergency Considerations flight, no duration is specified; however, it does state "The VFR and IFR PT will plan a two-leg flight". On page 4 of the syllabus, an "automated navigation leg" is defined as "A flight of 30 minutes or more...."

Quote from: simon on July 25, 2010, 03:49:52 AMI will agree that 1.5 hours is reasonable for the VFR flight. But it is not for the IFR flight. IFR release, intercepting and tracking an airway, 3 approaches, going missed twice, proceeding to the hold, holding, emergencies, etc., all under the hood?
I think you'll agree that this could've been done in "approximately two hours" if you had kept the cross-country legs to a minimum.

Quote from: simon on July 25, 2010, 03:49:52 AMMy rides were as follows:

- VFR: 2.6 (We did some mountain work, canyon flying etc. Proper aircraft handling. But that could equally apply to round gauge. All I am suggesting is that it was a proper workout)
Mountain work and canyon flying are not part of the syllabus and could have been omitted, shortening your flight to the 1.5 specified.

Quote from: simon on July 25, 2010, 03:49:52 AM- Emergency: 1.4. This was in a sim, but a proper G1000 sim, so I still had to pay $65 an hour.
- Form 5: 2.3. KPAO-O28-KSCK-KPAO. IFR departure. The controller did route us the wrong way for 10 minutes (He was totally overloaded with inbound SFO traffic - he thought we were going to Oakland not Oakdale - we let it go for a few minutes before it was obvious). 3 approaches. Holds, emergencies etc.

So that's how I got to 8 hours in the plane plus 1.4 in the sim. How you did it in 4, if that includes the Form 5, surprises me. Surely it can't include the check ride, because if it does, it ain't much of a check ride, even if it is VFR. If it was an IFR scenario ride plus an IFR check ride, I can't imagine how you possibly fitted in the six approaches, missed approaches, two holds, etc. I'd like to see the flight plan.
I completed the transition syllabus in 4.6 hrs--1.5 VFR flight, 3.1 combined IFR/Emergency procedures flight--plus a 2.3 hr Form 5 (which was also my annual standardization check).  For the IFR/EP flight, I flew two ILSs to holds, an RNAV and a VOR approach with an arc segment (with the PFD failed) at three different airports.

As I said earlier, I also spent hours (4-6 total) doing nothing but shooting approaches with the PC trainer, both coupled and manually flown, and have sat right seat in the airplane as safety pilot and button-pusher for a few hours of approaches too. This, plus the 4.6 hrs flown to the syllabus adequately prepared me for the Form 5, and I think my factory-trained check pilot would agree with that assessment.

As I'm sure you discovered, I found the G1000+GFC 700 combo to make short work of IFR flying. If you have a solid understanding of IFR fundamentals, the jump from steam gauge to glass is an easy one. Understanding how to use GPS, an HSI and the associated RMI-esque bearing pointers in the IFR environment helps even more. From there, it's just a matter of learning the vagaries of the MFD and FMS.  As you pointed out, the scan is different, and I admit I haven't really mastered this to my desired comfort level yet (especially when having to hand-fly off the MFD  :o ), but that will come in time.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: simon on July 25, 2010, 08:56:37 PM
Okay, agree with all that.

I am amazed you got all the training and check ride done in 4.6. You must have been busy on the IFR parts.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Mustang on July 25, 2010, 11:12:43 PM
Apologies if I wasn't clear, the 4.6 didn't include the checkride.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: West_Coast_Guy on July 28, 2010, 12:48:13 AM
I just had a disturbing thought.

According to a post on the AOPA message board, Garmin has sent a memo to their dealers stating that due to parts availability issues the GNS430 28v and GNS530 28v will no longer be repaired after September 30, 2010. (These are said to be the non-WAAS models.) Apparently the issue is chip obsolescence.

As an electrical engineer, I see no reason why this problem should not affect G1000 panels eventually, raising the ugly spectre of entire airplanes becoming unrepairable. Looks to me like the industry's rush to glass panels may turn out to be a huge problem for aircraft owners eventually.  :(
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Eclipse on July 28, 2010, 01:05:12 AM
Everything breaks eventually - they replace the broken with new.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: West_Coast_Guy on July 28, 2010, 01:17:49 AM
Would a new model of glass panel be backwards compatible, what red tape would the FAA require for the substitution, and what would it cost?

Perhaps more importantly, are manufacturers even planning ways of dealing with this problem?

Perhaps CAP NHQ should ask Cessna these questions.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Mustang on July 28, 2010, 01:20:00 AM
I'm more interested to know what CAP's plans are for 100LL going away. This has the potential to ground the entire fleet, not just the G1000-equipped birds.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 01:22:12 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 28, 2010, 01:20:00 AM
I'm more interested to know what CAP's plans are for 100LL going away. This has the potential to ground the entire fleet, not just the G1000-equipped birds.

Why should it? We did away with lead in ground based uses decades ago and the old engines still manage to run.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: West_Coast_Guy on July 28, 2010, 01:32:13 AM
The industry is working the issue of a 100LL replacement:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100624avgas_1.html

Here are a couple of companies that are working on the problem:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2010/may/feature_fuel.html

http://www.aopa.org/sunnfun/2010/100413swift.html
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Mustang on July 28, 2010, 01:37:09 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 01:22:12 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 28, 2010, 01:20:00 AM
I'm more interested to know what CAP's plans are for 100LL going away. This has the potential to ground the entire fleet, not just the G1000-equipped birds.

Why should it? We did away with lead in ground based uses decades ago and the old engines still manage to run.
Cylinder detonation issues due to insufficient octane level.  Get thee educated on the issue before speaking next time.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: FW on July 28, 2010, 01:38:48 AM
^1.  GNS 430/530's will have to be upgraded to "W" models.  It is about $3500 for the upgrade per unit.  I just spent the bucks on my personal aircraft.
  2.  G1000 non WAAS units can be upgraded to WAAS units without total   
        replacement
  3.  I wouldn't worry about 100LL going away until a suitable substitute was   
       developed.  Every article I've read on the subject says that any alternative
       which is eventually approved will work in current engines with minimal
       modifications.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 01:49:30 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 28, 2010, 01:37:09 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 01:22:12 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 28, 2010, 01:20:00 AM
I'm more interested to know what CAP's plans are for 100LL going away. This has the potential to ground the entire fleet, not just the G1000-equipped birds.

Why should it? We did away with lead in ground based uses decades ago and the old engines still manage to run.
Cylinder detonation issues due to insufficient octane level.  Get thee educated on the issue before speaking next time.

There are plenty of ways to up octane without lead. Technology in aviation moves at a pace that makes glaciers look fast.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: West_Coast_Guy on July 28, 2010, 02:04:36 AM
Quote from: FW on July 28, 2010, 01:38:48 AM
2.  G1000 non WAAS units can be upgraded to WAAS units without total   
        replacement

What happens when those WAAS units become unrepairable due to unavailability of parts? Have the manufacturers committed to providing economically feasible upgrade paths when the G1000 is no longer the latest and greatest?
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: SarDragon on July 28, 2010, 02:38:07 AM
As noted in one of the articles linked above, there is the matter of range of operation.

Cars have three grades, planes have one. The same stuff needs to work satisfactorily in engines of widely ranging performance.

Cars operate from zero to 8,000 feet or so, and the gas is regionally adjusted. Planes operate well above 15,000 feet, where fuel needs vary significantly, mixture control not withstanding.

According to one of the articles, cars in the US consume as much gas in a day as piston-powered planes consume in a year. This introduces an economy of scale factor.

Just a few thoughts.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 02:44:29 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on July 28, 2010, 02:38:07 AM
As noted in one of the articles linked above, there is the matter of range of operation.

Cars have three grades, planes have one. The same stuff needs to work satisfactorily in engines of widely ranging performance.

Cars operate from zero to 8,000 feet or so, and the gas is regionally adjusted. Planes operate well above 15,000 feet, where fuel needs vary significantly, mixture control not withstanding.

According to one of the articles, cars in the US consume as much gas in a day as piston-powered planes consume in a year. This introduces an economy of scale factor.

Just a few thoughts.

Those are all valid concerns. Most could be alleviated simply by not using obsolete technology. I can not understand why we are still using normally aspirated engines on airplanes in the 21st century. Heck for that matter why doesn't every engine bigger than a weed whacker have a turbo?
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: SarDragon on July 28, 2010, 02:52:49 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 02:44:29 AMThose are all valid concerns. Most could be alleviated simply by not using obsolete technology. I can not understand why we are still using normally aspirated engines on airplanes in the 21st century. Heck for that matter why doesn't every engine bigger than a weed whacker have a turbo?
Are you talking about a turbocharger, or a turbine engine?

A turbocharger makes octane concerns even greater. It also adds complexity and expense to engines that may not need the performance advantage. There may also be airframe concern regarding the increased horsepower.

Turbine engines are more expensive in most areas - initial purchase, repair, and, depending on the price of 'Jet A', day-to-day operation.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Mustang on July 28, 2010, 02:57:35 AM
Quote from: davidsinn link=topic=11053.msg202164#msg202164
Those are all valid concerns. Most could be alleviated simply by not using obsolete technology. I can not understand why we are still using normally aspirated engines on airplanes in the 21st century. Heck for that matter why doesn't every engine bigger than a weed whacker have a turbo?
One man's "obsolete" is another man's antique.  I'd hate to see aviation's heritage grounded simply because someone pointed out the obvious and said "that's obsolete technology".

As to why turbochargers are not universal, they add a layer of complexity (read: expense) most pilots will never take full advantage of, and in the hands of a careless operator can seriously damage the engine.  This latter risk can be mitigated through the use of FADEC, but that adds yet another level of complexity and expense.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 10:29:53 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 28, 2010, 02:57:35 AM

One man's "obsolete" is another man's antique.  I'd hate to see aviation's heritage grounded simply because someone pointed out the obvious and said "that's obsolete technology".

My family owns a tractor that my grandfather bought on 1 Mar 1956. I appreciate antiques. However using a carb on a brand new airplane is obsolete tech and makes no sense.

Quote

As to why turbochargers are not universal, they add a layer of complexity (read: expense) most pilots will never take full advantage of, and in the hands of a careless operator can seriously damage the engine.  This latter risk can be mitigated through the use of FADEC, but that adds yet another level of complexity and expense.

That's all true. Sometimes progress comes at a price though. Can anyone tell me why we don't use ethanol based fuel in aircraft? Ethanol is a great octane booster. It's clean and American made to boot.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: sparks on July 28, 2010, 11:03:32 AM
When Ethanol was first offered for use in cars and trucks there was a scramble to mitigate the damage it was causing to fuel system components. It also produces lees BTU's than pure gasoline so a performance loss is another consequence and less fuel mileage a few MPG. I believe EAA has cautioned their members to be careful what autofuel is used in aircraft STCed for using auto gas instead of 100LL due to possible Ethanol issues.
As far as antiques are concerned, steam gauges, carburetors etc. as long as someone is willing to pay the price to repair them and scrounge parts they will continue to fly.

If the Air Force funds and CAP continues to replace about 20 aircraft a year with new versions, it will take 17-18 years before the fleet is entirely fuel injected and G1000 equipped.  Of course the numbers are variable and subject to interpretation.

Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: SarDragon on July 28, 2010, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 10:29:53 AM
That's all true. Sometimes progress comes at a price though. Can anyone tell me why we don't use ethanol based fuel in aircraft? Ethanol is a great octane booster. It's clean and American made to boot.

Sure, the fuel tank needs to be twice as big. The stoichiometric ratio for gasoline is 14 air: 1 gas. The same ratio for ethanol is 7:1.

Ethanol is also hygroscopic, and waterlogged fuel is a much greater problem than with gasoline.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Thom on July 28, 2010, 10:03:12 PM
We've drifted a fair distance from the G1000 Worth the Money thread, but...

I'll summarize a lot of arguments by simply noting that there are a BUNCH of factors involved in replacing 100LL, and if the solution was quick, cheap, and easy it would already be done.

I'd suggest that if we want to debate the merits of the various replacements or just staying on 100LL that someone start a new thread.  It can be an interesting discussion.



Thom
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 10:21:12 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on July 28, 2010, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 10:29:53 AM
That's all true. Sometimes progress comes at a price though. Can anyone tell me why we don't use ethanol based fuel in aircraft? Ethanol is a great octane booster. It's clean and American made to boot.

Sure, the fuel tank needs to be twice as big. The stoichiometric ratio for gasoline is 14 air: 1 gas. The same ratio for ethanol is 7:1.

Ethanol is also hygroscopic, and waterlogged fuel is a much greater problem than with gasoline.

I'm not saying go straight alcohol, but merely use it as an octane booster.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: simon on July 30, 2010, 12:03:33 AM
With all due respect, why discuss something over which we have no influence?

Let the industry figure it out. Let's get back to flying.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Eclipse on July 30, 2010, 12:32:19 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 28, 2010, 02:57:35 AM
One man's "obsolete" is another man's antique.  I'd hate to see aviation's heritage grounded simply because someone pointed out the obvious and said "that's obsolete technology".

Yes, a 69 Cutlass 442 Convertible is a "classic" worthy of preserving, a 71 Dodge dart is not, and the 442 isn't used by many as a daily driver.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Eclipse on July 30, 2010, 12:36:02 AM
Quote from: simon on July 30, 2010, 12:03:33 AM
With all due respect, why discuss something over which we have no influence?

The "industry" is made up of pilots, manufacturers, parts suppliers, and related businesses and agencies.

Generally pilots have the biggest influence in the GA community because they are the ones spending the money.  While not
all GA pilots are CAP members, all CAP pilots (and aircrew) are members of the GA community, not to mention that CAP maintains the
largest private fleet of Cessna aircraft in the world.

We have more than a foot in this race.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: simon on July 30, 2010, 05:54:34 AM
QuoteGenerally pilots have the biggest influence in the GA community because they are the ones spending the money.
Eclipse, you are living in fantasy land. It sounds like a nice place. I'd like to visit. Please educate us all on how you reached this conclusion.

The big drivers of GA are manufacturers and business, who together lobby congress for tax breaks that justify the purchase and therefore construction of new aircraft, over, say, buying a four year old one for half the price. Another driver is AOPA, which does have a pretty decent lobby, although it is generally a defensive one, protecting pilot membership, privileges and airports (Loosely tied to your claim) rather than providing monetary benefits like the other players.

Quotepilots...are the ones spending the money.

Are they? We have, what, 800,000 odd pilots in the US? How many are private pilots? How much are they spending? Do you really know? How many hours a year does the average GA pilot fly? How much do they spend on new equipment, upgrading their aircraft, lobbying? I see a LOT of aircraft that never come out of the hangar. I see most private pilots spending their mandatory $10k a year on tie down, insurance, annual, other maintenance, the rare avionics upgrade and maybe 50 hours of flying. Other than that, maybe they go to one or two aviation shows annually but I bet they don't spend a dime. Owning a plane is a luxury and most owners look after their own plane but as for upgrading they are tire kickers, albeit polite ones. In the piston world, it's mostly hangar flying.

I suggest you spend some time looking at the quarterly production numbers on the GAMA website. In the first quarter of this year, the total number of piston planes shipped was 166. Everything from Citabrias to Barons. Let's say the average price was $300k. This makes $50 million. That is equivalent to a single Gulfstream V. Gulfstream shipped over $1B of jets in the quarter, more than 20 times  that.  Then there's Cessna with their Citations, Bombardier, Beech.

Piston pilots own and fly itsy bitsy piston planes. They rarely own the turboprops and jets, which make up 90% of the annual GA shipments.

AOPA does an outstanding job in GA. I'll say again, in representing it's members, they do an outstanding job. But private pilots are really monkeys in the machine. Do you really think the $1 a gallon (Or whatever it is) that the FBO makes when you get a 20 gallon top up in Monterey pays for the 5 staff in the FBO? No, it's that Citation X parked beside your Cessna 170 where the Net Jets pilot ordered 2000lbs of Jet-A while his customers took a round at Pebble Beach.

Check the special depreciation allowances for the purchase of new jet aircraft over $1.5 million and you'll understand why pilots really have limited influence in these matters.

BTW, I hope you didn't base your forum name on Eclipse Aviation, another fantasy land player, before then landed in Chapter 7.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Eclipse on July 30, 2010, 06:02:06 AM
^ This thread and conversation isn't about jets or corporate aircraft, this is about whether the G1000 upgrades are going to cause issues
for the little guy.

Whether the plane is owned by an flight school, club, or single owner - who do you think is flying it?  GA Pilots.  They are the ones who
actually pay for the planes, both directly and through rentals. 

No influence?  You think the amount of money spent on service, parts, upgrades and new airplanes by CAP doesn't have "influence"?
That's 550 some aircraft, most of them Cessna products.  Do you believe that when CAP makes a decision to start phasing out
steam gauge 172's in favor of glass 182's that doesn't have an effect on anything in the "industry", especially if it's as contracted as you
assert?

I don't even know where you think injecting jets into this discussion is relevant, including the reference to the VLJ's.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: simon on July 30, 2010, 07:06:36 AM
You made a claim. I refuted it.

You have a new question:

Quotewhether the G1000 upgrades are going to cause issues for the little guy

The "little guy" isn't buying a new plane, so he has no influence on design. He is (a) Leasing his plane to a flight school, with whatever equipment it has in it, so that he can write off the loss, (b) Building time as a CFI so he can get a job in the regionals, (c) Flying his own plane for as little as possible.

All, hopefully, at a run rate of less than $100 an hour.

The guy who is buying a new plane, most commonly a Cirrus SR22, for $500k, isn't settling for less than a G1000. Please tell me we can agree on that much.

CAP has no influence on avionics design. Sure, they have 500 planes. Have you checked out on average how old they are? Last year Cirrus alone sold 240 glass cockpit planes. CAP buys about 1-2 dozen planes a year. And all of the new planes CAP bought are G1000's. They can specially order the round dial, but they don't. That would be like saying "We want to stay in the dark ages". California Wing has 114 mission pilots and over half of them have G1000 privileges. Given that 1/4 of the fleet are G1000 planes that says to me that pilots are making the effort to transition even if their squadron does not have a G1000 plane.

I am certain that if CAP is phasing out of round dial 172's in favor of glass 182's, that it will have a negligible effect on anything in the industry. Tell me why it would.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: Eclipse on July 30, 2010, 07:36:02 AM
Quote from: simon on July 30, 2010, 07:06:36 AM
You have a new question:

Quotewhether the G1000 upgrades are going to cause issues for the little guy

No.  That was the point of the thread - its perfectly alright to read everything before responding.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: West_Coast_Guy on July 30, 2010, 05:47:50 PM
Quote from: simon on July 30, 2010, 12:03:33 AM
With all due respect, why discuss something over which we have no influence?

Let the industry figure it out. Let's get back to flying.

Simon, if you don't want to discuss the issues that have been raised in this thread, then don't discuss them. If you're trying to get others to stop discussing them, I really don't see the point in that.

My view is that discussing concerns that may affect us is ALWAYS worthwhile. Neither you nor I can predict what good may come of it.
Title: Re: G1000 Worth the Money?
Post by: simon on July 30, 2010, 10:08:54 PM
The latest update on the future of 100LL is here:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100728avgas_epa.html?WT.mc_id=100730epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

To summarized:

1. Friends of the Earth petitioned the EPA to get rid of 100LL.
2. The EPA appeased them by publishing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, which established a date of 2007.
3. The industry freaked out and asked for clarification.
4. On Wednesday the EPA responded and said there is in fact no date for phaseout.

In the meantime, the industry is working on alternatives but so far noone has come up with anything viable.