That was precisely my original point - the value of glass is not in the bells and whistles like synthetic vision etc. When flying in a jet where 95% of the time you are above the weather, all the gee whiz stuff is nice to have, but it is not essential.

The way I see it, the real value of glass is not in the moving maps and synth. viz. Those are nice bells and whistles which obviously diminish workload but are not essential to safety for a well trained crew/SP. The value of glass comes in the form of much improved reliability and redundancy by eliminating mechanical and/or old components that are prone to crap out at the worst possible moment.

Glass gives you improved reliability. Mike can search all he wants for examples where glass has failed, but a sample of "1" is statistically irrelevant. Of course there are failures in glass, but Mike is arguing against what the industry has seen a while back. Mechanical instruments are more prone to failure and less reliable - and that is the real value of glass - improved reliability and redundancy, higher MTBF, reduced weight.

Mark,

I'm in the same boat coming from G600/GTN 750 back to six pack with onboard weather and a 796. I am down low dealing with weather and I have lost the desire to add glass. I love the 600 and GTN, but they no longer feel important and don't seem worth the cost (to me). A G3X would change things.

Frankly, flying with all glass does take some of the challenge and fun out of it. The six pack isn't hard, but it does feel like you are actually doing something up there.

It was 7 examples an there are MANY more. Literally almost every one I clicked on was some sort of PFD going blank or similar fault.

I don't see you providing any data. A sample size of zero is nothing.

I am always amused at the folks who believe something, ask for contrary data, then deny that data when given. They are definitely not "data driven".


You keep missing the message. A set of steam gauges is more reliable in the sense that the failure of any one independent instrument doesn't take out the whole set. While each individual piece might be less reliable, the system is more reliable since it tolerates failure and the failures are independent.

With glass, you have far less independence and a failure can take out a whole set of instruments at once, or even multiple panels at the same time.

Compare two airplanes. One has G600 with no backups, one has standard 6 pack of steam instruments. Which one is more dangerous? The G600 setup. Why? Because a huge number of single point failures takes out ALL you instruments at once. Can't happen in the steam setup.

This is why the G600 requires backups and the standard 6 pack doesn't. If the G600 was so superior in reliability, why does it require backups?

I also produced a case where all four panels in a PC12 Honeywell Primus Apex system went out at the same time. I doubt there has ever been a case of a plane with a full set of steam instruments on both pilot and copilot side where all the gauges died at the same moment.

You have to ask yourself how can 4 panels go dark all at once? Clearly, they are not as independent as they should be.


Glass is not as reliable as the brochures claim. That's the message.

Mike C.

Interesting thread. On the avionics, not sure the reliability/safety issue is nessasarily the primary argument. Seems if you are data-driven, then the cost-benefit analysis, at least in my view, would be pretty important.

It was 7 examples an there are MANY more. Literally almost every one I clicked on was some sort of PFD going blank or similar fault.

I don't see you providing any data. A sample size of zero is nothing.

I am always amused at the folks who believe something, ask for contrary data, then deny that data when given. They are definitely not "data driven".


You keep missing the message. A set of steam gauges is more reliable in the sense that the failure of any one independent instrument doesn't take out the whole set. While each individual piece might be less reliable, the system is more reliable since it tolerates failure and the failures are independent.

With glass, you have far less independence and a failure can take out a whole set of instruments at once, or even multiple panels at the same time.

Compare two airplanes. One has G600 with no backups, one has standard 6 pack of steam instruments. Which one is more dangerous? The G600 setup. Why? Because a huge number of single point failures takes out ALL you instruments at once. Can't happen in the steam setup.

This is why the G600 requires backups and the standard 6 pack doesn't. If the G600 was so superior in reliability, why does it require backups?

I also produced a case where all four panels in a PC12 Honeywell Primus Apex system went out at the same time. I doubt there has ever been a case of a plane with a full set of steam instruments on both pilot and copilot side where all the gauges died at the same moment.

You have to ask yourself how can 4 panels go dark all at once? Clearly, they are not as independent as they should be.


Glass is not as reliable as the brochures claim. That's the message.

Mike C.

Alex:

I am in violent agreement with you. I would do glass in the jet for the reasons you mention: 1) reliability and 2) weight.

The other reason is ads-b and WAAS. Adding that capability to an existing Panel in a jet via legacy FMS et al costs more than an entire new glass panel....


I am just struck by how well the 796/iPad/gdl39d provide enough glass features that I don't ever feel wanting.

Just to make it clear I too fly an IPad/Gdl39 3d 210/430W with the steam. It's absolutely all I need. What becomes evident to increased height and increased speed is just about all the significance goes to the Arrival and that's really a pretty short term event not needing to be reliant on glass, etc.

And just to add a few years ago I visited with Trumps 737 three pilots and their maintenance shop. they much preferred steam: An AHRS unit down would shut down the plane and put you out $50k; steam? Just pluck another one in. And just a while back a Premier I driver lamented on losing an AHRS unit. Of course it wasn't a Garmin. Don't get me wrong, the G1000 is a magnificent unit (for $150,000). But even now having teething pains, severe teething pains, upgrading to WAAS and ADS-b.

Settle down Mark. We don't need you getting all violent and stuff.

It´s fun when Mark gets violent!

Listen - whatever rocks everyone´s boat...

I have lost a total of 5 vertical gyros and 2 heading gyros in the nearly 30 years I have been flying. My worst "war story" was when I was young and stupid in my A-36 Bonanza coming out of Lakefront Airport at night in LIFR. I wouldn't do this again today, but... youth and ignorance makes you brave.

I was single pilot with a bunch of college friends in the back after a weekend of fun and getting back to Austin for school. I engaged the autopilot in the soup at 2000´and shortly after I felt the airplane wanting to roll upside down on me. I immediately disconnected the AP and hand flew partial panel in rain and turbulence - pitch dark - all the way to 10K where I finally broke out. I did declare an emergency and told ATC I would just continue the climb and to not give me a sequence of vectors on the climb until I broke out. The airplane was flying fine, and I was sharp on my skills, but I still wasn't about to turn around and shoot a LIFR approach in the dark partial panel in turbulence with a bunch of Texan hillbillies in the back. Yes glass could have also failed, but with proper back up I believe, today, it would have been safer, and my hands wouldn't have sweated as much.

Point is, glass, steam gauges, whatever - choose what you like. I think the benefit of glass is improved reliability, redundancy, reduced workload and improved weight. The moving maps and pretty pictures are just extra fluff (to me). If someone else wants to cross the Atlantic with a sextant - thats fine with me too.

Discussion on glass vs steam moved to this thread - viewtopic.php?f=21&t=124809

Sorry for leading this thread down a tangent.

Gents, please start another thread on glass vs steam, I don't think this is a good place for it.

Thanks,
Jeff

Hi JP,

Though I would share what you can expect to see in September from your new bird
I flew mine (184VB) back from Juneau, AK PAJN to Scottsdale KSDL yesterday. 1806 NM at FL350 Took off with full fuel, 475 gallons, which left 940 lbs for passengers and fish, which brought me close to gross Once in cruise the Shadin predicted a reserve of 920 lbs, burning 357 lbs/hr and 280KLTAS. Closer to Scottsdale the Shadin predicted 938 lbs, burning 333lbs/hr and 286KTAS. Since the temps were warm, up to ISA +19, it kept both fuel burn and speeds a little lower. Ended up landing with 870 lbs indicated on all gauges! (the Shadin matches the fuel gauge fairly closely) Assuming another hour and 290 NM at 333lbs would leave a reserve of 510 lbs, so it seems the 2100NM max cruise maximum range is somewhat realistic at FL350 Hope you will enjoy your new ride as much as I do when yours is up and flying!

The new avionics and RVSM rated equipment was really nice to have for this trip. The last picture shows the ship-radar overlaid on the map page of the right GTN750. Based on the available information I was able to work with center to paralell the Jacobs2 arrival about 50NM miles to the west, avoiding the long line of thunderstorms (shown on the XM display of the left GTN750).

Wow Max, I'm not sure which is more impressive - the flight stats or the panel photos! Thank you for posting real world numbers, can't wait to test them myself next month!

JP .. thank you for that initial long, informative, expansive, well thought out, diligent, sequential posting.
I also moved into a conquest II about 2 years ago from an Aerostar 700 which is now sold. I kept and still fly my T210 for short flights and joy rides, but the Conquest II is quite the suburban of the skies. Business associates, friends, and family really like the 441 and its roominess. They do still intermittently complain that the cabin is relatively loud even at 96% cruise. I have no regrets in choosing this plane after doing my homework, as you have done. My airplane also had extensive SIDs during pre-by, but is now on a Cessna low utilization plan tied to hours of use and not the calendar.

thanks for the initial posting

Regarding the 2100 autopilot and RVSM for the Conquest II.... as I understand it, the originial STC for the 2100 A/P did require 2 G600's for the two AHRS inputs, whether it was to be RVSM or not. This made the upgrade/conversion to the 2100 A/P that much more expensive. I recently heard from 2 avionics shops that the STC is being updated to now allow for the second AHRS to be a standby AHRS in lieu of a second G600. I have not investigated personally or seen anything in writing, but it's worth following up if someone is considering the 2100 A/P for a Conquest.

Fred