Challenged
Pattern Altitude
I see where you're going, so I do agree that the FAA should have adjusted the ADS-B system to actually support traffic without needing the out on each airplane, what an odd kludge that is.
How long until glass panels cost $5 bucks?
- Thread starter Jay Honeck
- Start date
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
That's hilarious, and true...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,573
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yep, seems like people are more interested in cool toys in flying rather than practicality or aircraft performance. Everyone is fascinated with glass but I prefer aircraft performance over technology. I've said before, if Cirrus made a cheaper plane with steam guages, I'd still take that any day over a C-172 with a glass cockpit. You can put glass in a Pinto but it's still a Pinto.
The technology should reflect the mission. Why even have a tablet PFD if you're flying VFR? Our helicopter has a glass cockpit and I rarely even look at the attitude or heading while flying. It's not needed for VFR. We have it in case I go IIMC. I do prefer glass over steam for instruments, although I did read a study recently that said glass aircraft are no safer than steam.
Another example is this new HUD for homebuilts. It has no safety benefit or practicality what so ever. It's actually blocking the field of view. You can glance six inches down (and yes you can still see traffic outside) and see your attitude or airspeed just as fast as trying to focus on a hud, then refocus outside. But it's sooo coool!
If people want this tablet stuff for VFR in case an emergency (IIMC and vacuum fail) I can understand stand that. I still believe all this is going to do is create more cases of people neglecting their certified panels and velcroing tablets over steam guages because it looks cool.
Challenged
Pattern Altitude
I would agree that I don't need it, which is why it's not worth $12,000 (Aspen) to me. Thanks for putting up with all of my "devil's advocate" type of posts, btw..the sort of scenario laid out in this thread is obviously very interesting to me on many levels.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
fgcason
En-Route
Total bunk. They simply reduced the time between one version and another to the point that even the most shoddily build stuff can't fail before the new stuff hits the market. That does not mean the obsoleted stuff is high quality. I have yet to see modern stuff that can outlast my older stuff from 20-30 years ago. The new stuff is in the dumpster or junk yard due to excessive/catastrophic failures and my snubbed at much older stuff is still running like new.
Consumerism is about selling junk and obsoleting it before the customer can get it out of the box.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Consider 30 year old aviation handhelds vs my tenyear old icom. Old stuff is delicate, sure it has a metal case but drop it and the insides are dust.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Absolutely.
Comparing tablets to old Narco or King radios is hilarious. Those things SUCKED!. Tablets are orders of magnitude better and way more reliable, thanks to modern technology -- and cost pennies on the dollar.
Think about it -- I could buy, like, forty Nexus 7s for the cost of a single King radio, in equivalent 1980 money!
Sent from my Nexus 7
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
I find it hard to compare a 172 to a SR22. They are two completely different airplanes with two completely different missions, with two completely different prices. Sure I would prefer a porsche over an escort, but if I am just learning to drive, I will probably kill myself in a porsche, and thus will learn in the escort and as I build up time driving and if I can afford it buy thr porsche.
No disagreement with you here. I still do not understand the need to get rid of steam gauges and replace them with glass panels. I have a G1000, and am thinking of selling my plane to get an older plane with steam gauges. How many of these glass panels will be functional 10 or 20 years from now? How many steam gauge planes that are thirty years old with their original gauges? I am assuming that steam gauges are more durable than their electronic counterparts, though I may be wrong.The technology should reflect the mission. Why even have a tablet PFD if you're flying VFR? Our helicopter has a glass cockpit and I rarely even look at the attitude or heading while flying. It's not needed for VFR. We have it in case I go IIMC. I do prefer glass over steam for instruments, although I did read a study recently that said glass aircraft are no safer than steam.
In medicine, we often talk about a treatment looking for an indication. I think a lot of this hype with tablets is just that. It is a neat idea, but does it really make flying any safer. Like you pointed out the studies of accident rates between glass panel and six pack show glass panels are no safer, and if I remember correcty in some situations are not as safe. However, flashy sells better than mundane, even if mundane is better.
L.Adamson
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 297
- Display Name
Display name:
L.Adamson
In the "Experimental" catagory, where dependable glass is much more affordable,.... steam is out, due to weight, and the ability to get rid of the vacuum pump.
As there will always be "some" situations, in which new technology didn't end up as safer................I know of many, many situations, in which the information provided by "glass" would have changed the deadly outcome to a positive one. Of course, when I'm talking "glass", it's more than just replicating the functions of a six pac. BTW--- in many cases, what started as VFR, quickly changed to IMC conditions. Never hurts to have additional info.............when everything starts to go wrong.
L.Adamson
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 297
- Display Name
Display name:
L.Adamson
For some reason, I think that a modern day I-pod, that's capable of storing several thousands of songs...........has a better chance of outlasting the Sony Walkman (cassette) that I used 30 years ago. It also sounds better...
I even remember when I paid an extra $400 for a 20 meg hard drive upgrade. What a deal! That was 20 years ago, or so.
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
True, but much of the discussion here has been about replacing steam guages with Ipads or tablets using apps to reproduce the information that is in the 6 pack or in a glass screen designed for aviation. My statement refers to the pilot with a twenty year old six pack who velcros his Ipad over the 6 pack so he can have a "G1000." My plane has a G1000 and I fly it every weekend, so I will be the last to suggest that flying by glass is unsafe, but then again if I had a plane with a fully functional six pack, I would not think about replacing it with an Ipad. Furthermore, I fly with a ipad and a 796 as back up to my G1000. In addition, I also use paper charts when IFR or flying by deadreckoning. But then again, my G1000 is much more than a Ipad with an aviation app.
By no means am I saying that glass is less safe than six pack but I am also saying six pack is not less safe than glass. In reality, it seems to me that most of those who have studied the safety records of both say they are equally safe. However, the learning curve of glass is harder, and the potential of a total loss of the system is higher. Thus I have steam back ups, as well as electronic back ups with me. Will I fly IMC with an IPAD or a 796. Only if I have no other choice and will contact ATC to tell them my predicament and have them help me get the plane out of the sky and to an airport as soon as I can. In VMC, my instruments are there as confirmation, but only that. My primary resource is what my eyeballs see outside my windshield. There is no tablet on the market now that I know of that can do 10% of what my G1000 does and I like my 10" mounted screens a lot better.
As I have interpreted the thread it is exactly the use of the tablet to replace the six pack... see my earlier posting where I discussed why my tablet is not the same as a G1000, but neither was my 696 nor is my 796.
Doug
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yep, that's the gist of the thread.
And I will contend that steam gauges are NOT reliable. I've owned three planes over the last 14 years. In that time, I've replaced the vacuum pump on two of them -- and the third one had a venturi, so I didn't need a vacuum pump.
Guess what happened to my vaunted "six-pack" when the vacuum pump went T.U.? If only I had solid state electronic depictions of those instruments on a tablet, I'd have been just fine...
Now, of course, I was flying VFR, but the point is that I spent several thousand dollars replacing vacuum pumps and various instruments in the panel that have failed over the years.
What's funny is that some of you guys keep saying "What do you need instruments for if you're flying VFR?" -- to which I answer "Exactly!" Why am I paying thousands of dollars to keep my "unnecessary" steam gauge instruments in tip-top flying condition?
Give me three Nexus 7s, side by side, each running a different set of instruments, and I will rule the VFR world. And, wait -- just think of the possibilities of slaving your autopilot to Garmin Pilot? How cool would THAT be?
Oh, wait. That's AGAINST THE LAW...
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,987
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
I'm with most of the naysayers on the tablet stuff for primary attitude information. I just want those same naysayers to concede there is no practical and safety difference between the use of a Dynon EFIS-D10A and a G1000/Aspen suite for the purposes of retrieving aircraft attitude information in IMC.
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Yep, that's the gist of the thread.
And I will contend that steam gauges are NOT reliable. I've owned three planes over the last 14 years. In that time, I've replaced the vacuum pump on two of them -- and the third one had a venturi, so I didn't need a vacuum pump.
Guess what happened to my vaunted "six-pack" when the vacuum pump went T.U.? If only I had solid state electronic depictions of those instruments on a tablet, I'd have been just fine...
Now, of course, I was flying VFR, but the point is that I spent several thousand dollars replacing vacuum pumps and various instruments in the panel that have failed over the years.
What's funny is that some of you guys keep saying "What do you need instruments for if you're flying VFR?" -- to which I answer "Exactly!" Why am I paying thousands of dollars to keep my "unnecessary" steam gauge instruments in tip-top flying condition?
Give me three Nexus 7s, side by side, each running a different set of instruments, and I will rule the VFR world. And, wait -- just think of the possibilities of slaving your autopilot to Garmin Pilot? How cool would THAT be?
Oh, wait. That's AGAINST THE LAW...
You get no argument from me about your thoughts. I have only owned one plane, and it has glass, though my back up instruments are steam gauges. Certainly, if your thought is to replace your steam gauges with a reliable electronic version, I think that is all fine and good. You want to use a reliable electronic version as a backup, sounds great. But velcroing your tablet over your steam gauges, just does not work for me. Saying that a tablet can emulate a G1000, is not going to do it for me either. Only a small part of my G1000 is the six pack, and the GPS. It is the engine monitoring, radios, autopilot functions, etc that I am using that the tablet does not give me, and this is where I begin having problems with using tablets.
Doug
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
The need to purchase replacement vacuum pumps disappeared when I switched to a wet pump. 10 years later, still pumping. If we're gonna cry about an insurmountable problem that mandates taping junk on the panel, maybe we should find a simple way to solve it before turning to Tonka for the fix.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,573
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I agree. I'd even go further to say all this experimental AHARS stuff is as good as the certified. Shoot, I've flown my now bankrupt Blue Mountain in hard IMC and it performed flawlessly.
Attachments
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Oh, wait. That's AGAINST THE LAW...
That's because it's MASSIVELY STUPID.
Something that looks like an attitude indicator isn't an attitude indicator. You might as well tape one of those G1000 posters on your instrument panel.
That you don't understand what you propose is why you need to be prohibited from doing it.
It has been said in this thread and elsewhere that more information is always better. No, it isn't. Wrong information is often much worse than no information; that's the essence of spatial disorientation, for example.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Solid state avionics such as AHRS are not foolproof or even close to it, and it can be much harder to diagnose.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes, slaving my 40 year old Piper autopilot to the Garmin Pilot GPS is CLEARLY dangerous. Potentially fatal, even. Why, I thing the autopilot should be disabled, and sealed with a government lock, so that morons like me don't try to attach it to a tablet GPS.
Oh, but the 40-year old heading bug it's slaved to? And the ancient VOR? That's fine. No danger there, being attached to an uber-reliable vacuum instrument like a directional gyro, and those bouncy needles.
:banghead:
Sent from my Nexus 7
Quite true, redundancy is required at a minimum for IFR.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Even when you have two of them they can interact strangely with each other causing symptoms which are baffling even to techs let alone pilots who are new to the airplane.
If something odd is happening it must have been something I did wrong!
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Nothing is foolproof. In fact, the altimeter adjustment knob is associated with the VOR knob and in IFR training I have moved the altimeter inadvertantly and so I cross check with my steam altimeter.
Doug
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
True but I have been hearing lots of people extoll the virtue of solid-state electronics as being the be-all-end-all. While they may be better than what preceded them they can still fail, and sometimes in strange ways. We've had some little glitch in a circuit board take out #1 com, #1 nav and #1 transponder all at once. I've noticed that most of the problems are traceable to a circuit board or card and these things are usually in the 4 to 5 figures to replace.
ElPaso Pilot
En-Route
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,510
- Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
The biggest fear I have of hard mounted glass in a plane is the rapid obsolescence of components within.
The reason the boards or cards are so expensive to replace is that much of the circuitry is obsolete often shortly after product launch.
5, 8, 10 years later ... good luck getting replacement components. That supplier is either long gone or converted their production equipment to make other new product.
What's left are the components and boards that were squirreled away, and the high price is part of the rationing process.
Steam can typically be rebuilt over and over.
Likewise with the "velcro" portable stuff.
They will need external transducers on the pitot static, etc. to provide the functionality we need (sorry ... self contained accelerometers ain't going to cut it.) Someone 5 or 10 years down the road is still going to need to be interfacing to these ... well after today's communication protocols have changed.
Last edited:
Gubbins
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 379
- Display Name
Display name:
gone for good
I don't know exactly what Garmin does for example, and the certified avionics industry is not my field.... but I highly doubt this is true.
In my field, medical devices, we make pretty sophisticated devices that are subject to probably a similar level of quality control. We pay careful attention to what we design into our systems to make sure they are NOT obsolete shortly after product launch. Sometimes this means choosing more expensive components. For every component we know what the lifetime is, and we have an "escape route" if it goes end-of-life. Either we ensure we get an equivalent replacement identified well before that point or we will do a final lifetime buy of that component. I strongly suspect that the manufacturers of certified components such as these do something similar. Perhaps someone in the industry could comment. Bottom line is I do not have sleepless nights worrying about support for my G1000.
I do understand the concern though. For consumer products, absolutely what you say is true.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Obviously, you have never diagnosed a control loop, nor even considered what might go into that.
What you propose is not capable of being "better" in any sense but the superficial.
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Oh believe me, not only is the statement not superficial in any sense of the word, but it's also quite commonly demonstrated by all of us. Often times in the pursuit of perfection we end up making a good situation worse. For example Windows 95, Windows Vista, the New Coke, Coke Zero, the Mustangs from late 90 if I remember correctly, the Camaros of the 90 I think, and possibly the Ipad mini. I am sure you can add to my short list. Bottom line sometimes being satisfied with good is best, because in our efforts to get best we screw up good.
Doug
ElPaso Pilot
En-Route
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,510
- Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
We must be speaking in different time-frames.
I also work in a large industry making sophisticated medical devices. I am currently having a heck of a time replacing the continual stream of obsoleting components on our 8-10 year old boxes.
We have an entire department doing procurement, last time buys, re-designs and re-qualifications for components whose manufacturers have closed plants, upgraded equipment, or redesigned ICs to more modern and capable products with denser packaging. I have one right now that would cost more than a quarter of a million dollars to re-design and re-qualify a main board for a component that is no longer in production and has exceeded our "lifetime buy" estimate. We are not going to do so for the lack of return on a small number of customers who would continue to ask for repairs, and are instead notifying our customers that they will have to upgrade to the new product if it breaks.
Just like this:
Whoopsie...
Or maybe this pretty box:
Oops...
I fly a '77 Mooney, and can easily get replacement or rebuilds on any of the steam gauges. The electronics ... or the second generation that replaced the original obsolete ones ... good luck.
Last edited:
fgcason
En-Route
Oh sheesh. You have a $10,000+ price tag hanging over your head every 12 months if something breaks...which can take out navigation and communication all at once. And this is a good thing because?????
Gubbins
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 379
- Display Name
Display name:
gone for good
We must be speaking in different time-frames.
I also work in a large industry making sophisticated medical devices. I am currently having a heck of a time replacing the continual stream of obsoleting components on our 8-10 year old boxes.
We have an entire department doing procurement, last time buys, re-designs and re-qualifications for components whose manufacturers have closed plants, upgraded equipment, or redesigned ICs to more modern and capable products with denser packaging. I have one right now that would cost more than a quarter of a million dollars to re-design and re-qualify a main board for a component that is no longer in production and has exceeded our "lifetime buy" estimate. We are not going to do so for the lack of return on a small number of customers who would continue to ask for repairs, and are instead notifying our customers that they will have to upgrade to the new product if it breaks.
Just like this:
Whoopsie...
Or maybe this pretty box:
Oops...
I fly a '77 Mooney, and can easily get replacement or rebuilds on any of the steam gauges. The electronics ... or the second generation that replaced the original obsolete ones ... good luck.
I will take my chances. More worried about the possible death of avgas to be honest. I don't blame Garmin for requiring a WAAS upgrade in the first case. I would do that anyway, I kinda like LPV approaches.
By the way what FDA class of medical devices do you manufacture? Nothing really to do with an avionics discussion but just curious.
ElPaso Pilot
En-Route
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,510
- Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
I will take my chances. More worried about the possible death of avgas to be honest. I don't blame Garmin for requiring a WAAS upgrade in the first case. I would do that anyway, I kinda like LPV approaches.
By the way what FDA class of medical devices do you manufacture? Nothing really to do with an avionics discussion but just curious.
We do a variety, but the ones I am referencing here happen to be Class II boxes with prices similar to higher end aviation units.
Gubbins
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 379
- Display Name
Display name:
gone for good
Well then as you know, you cannot just tell your customers to upgrade your "boxes" when they break. You are responsible FOREVER as long as they are out there that nobody will get hurt as a consequence of you no longer supporting your product. In other words, you have to recall equipment and get it out of the field in that case. But we are sidetracking here, since this is an avionics discussion not a medical device discussion. Sorry I brought it up.
Anyway, back to your recent post. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that all glass avionics units should not be used because they may not be supported in 5-10 years time? For example, the G1000?
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, in the interest of fairness, I must tell the tale of last night's flight.
I was flying with the same set up as pictured, with my Nexus 7 on the yoke, running Garmin Pilot, and Mary's Nexus 7 velcroed over the VORs, running the glass panel emulator app.
This was a short sightseeing flight over the islands at sunset, and we were airborne less than one hour.
Nothing worked. The glass panel emulator simply could not find itself, and continually displayed red X's. Worse, Garmin Pilot froze three times, apparently unable to see satellites.
When I pulled Mary's N7 off the panel, and gave it a clearer view of the sky, the app came to life, but would not run underneath the lip of the panel. I have no idea what was up with Garmin Pilot (it uses its own GPS receiver, the GDL-39) but I see the app downloaded another update overnight. Related? Doubtful, but who knows?
Were the GPS satellites in a strange configuration last night, impacting both Nexus 7s? Was the Navy (we live near a permanent no-fly zone, where they fly drones) effing with the signal?
I don't know. All I know is my ancient Garmin 496 kept chugging along. If it ever lost GPS lock, it wasn't for long enough to show.
Moral of the story: Tablet apps show great promise, but are still in their infancy. Don't disconnect your vacuum pumps just yet!
And just to make your day, here's a pic from the flight:
Sent from my Nexus 7
I was flying with the same set up as pictured, with my Nexus 7 on the yoke, running Garmin Pilot, and Mary's Nexus 7 velcroed over the VORs, running the glass panel emulator app.
This was a short sightseeing flight over the islands at sunset, and we were airborne less than one hour.
Nothing worked. The glass panel emulator simply could not find itself, and continually displayed red X's. Worse, Garmin Pilot froze three times, apparently unable to see satellites.
When I pulled Mary's N7 off the panel, and gave it a clearer view of the sky, the app came to life, but would not run underneath the lip of the panel. I have no idea what was up with Garmin Pilot (it uses its own GPS receiver, the GDL-39) but I see the app downloaded another update overnight. Related? Doubtful, but who knows?
Were the GPS satellites in a strange configuration last night, impacting both Nexus 7s? Was the Navy (we live near a permanent no-fly zone, where they fly drones) effing with the signal?
I don't know. All I know is my ancient Garmin 496 kept chugging along. If it ever lost GPS lock, it wasn't for long enough to show.
Moral of the story: Tablet apps show great promise, but are still in their infancy. Don't disconnect your vacuum pumps just yet!
And just to make your day, here's a pic from the flight:
Sent from my Nexus 7
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,452
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
And just to make your day, here's a pic from the flight:
See, the view of the real horizon really is better.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Note: The new Garmin Pilot update to version 2.1.1 is all about "fixing occasional crashes", according to their accompanying notes -- so I would bet that what I was experiencing was pretty widespread. Hopefully THAT issue is fixed.
Sent from my Nexus 7
Sent from my Nexus 7
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,573
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah technology is neat but the simple beauty of flying never gets old.
ElPaso Pilot
En-Route
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,510
- Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
We are in compliance with each country's regulatory body that we distribute to. And they aren't all required to be supported "forever." There are other appropriate methods of dealing with obsolescence.Well then as you know, you cannot just tell your customers to upgrade your "boxes" when they break. You are responsible FOREVER as long as they are out there that nobody will get hurt as a consequence of you no longer supporting your product. In other words, you have to recall equipment and get it out of the field in that case. But we are sidetracking here, since this is an avionics discussion not a medical device discussion. Sorry I brought it up.
Not at all. They definitely have a place, and meet a need for many. The unbridled enthusiasm that some have for glass does not encompass an awareness of their potential lifecycle cost, however. Subscriptions and replacement costs due to eventual obsolescence are not trivial.
I would consider myself a value-buyer. I am not in a position to buy new, due to my childrens' upcoming college expenses and other priorities.
As much as I would like to have the latest bells and whistles, glass to me would be from coming from the second hand market. The uncertainty of future support would put me in a position of having to make a substantial investment to replace it to keep the plane airworthy on an unpredictable schedule.
At this point in time, neither adding glass to my old Mooney, nor buying a new Cirrus is an investment I am willing to make for 60-100 hours of flying a year.
p.s... My cars don't have glass panels and fancy screens either. My family's daily drivers include several '60s cars in mostly stock condition. Different strokes for different folks.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
OK, I think I misunderstood your previous post. I take back my response. I think it may be a case of "violent agreement...." Sorry 'bout that.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Considering that your older handheld worked just fine, this couldn't have been a problem outside the aircraft.
I know you don't believe me, but it's clearly a poor design decision by an amateur. Part of it is the choice of equipment (i.e., arbitrary), and part is an installation error. You shadowed half the sky by mounting antennas underneath the glare shield.
Just because something looks cool on the outside doesn't mean it actually works.
And it is VERY disturbing that Garmin Pilot would release a product that you intend to use in an "emergency" with bugs so serious as to cause an outage. This by itself means you cannot trust it. Process does not include testing for catastrophic bugs (at least, not adequately).
Note that this is not the worst failure they could have had. The worst failure (which is VERY common in Garmin non-aviation applications) is to continue to provide data, just incorrectly.
Last edited: