Am I Wasting Money

D

douglas393

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
1,962
Display Name
Display name:
douglas
No not about fuel costs. About a month ago the COM1 radio in my plane died. It got me thinking about safety upgrades I could make. I carry a handheld radio but to tell you the truth even with practice(I have a separate cable an antennae just for this radio, something to do with if I used the G1000 antenna it could destroy the G1000 radios, so I had a separate antennae put in) it is not the easiest thing to use. So it got me thinking. My conclusion was to put an AOA in. Everything I read about this is positive, and though it seems a two wing system is better there does not seem to be a commercially available one. In addition, because of the COM failure, I though about putting in a third COM unit. The G1000 has two already, but I have already experienced a PFD failure, a transponder failure, and now a COM failure, and assorted other gremlins and am having some issues with my confidence in the G1000, and Garmins understanding of their own system. My avionic guy recommended a legacy AOA, a GNC-255A, and a MD200-306 VOR localizer indicator.

So my question does this make sense, should I save my money and not do anything, or would it make more sense to put in a separate isolate second glass screen.
 
You're unlikely to die from a com failure.
 
I like the hand held radio idea. I did that with my Cherokee.

I agree I cannot see a situation where it would be life threatening if the comm failed. Even light IFR flying, you can change course to some vfr and land.

I fly VFR out of uncontrolled air fields anyway.

For me it would not make much sense.

I guess if you can make a case for a 2nd transponder for your type of flying then a 3rd radio could be useful but I do not see it.
 
You're in aviation. Of course you're wasting money. But the memories are irreplaceable.
 
Not too worried about dying from a COM failure, or for that matter from a total failure of the G1000, especially in VFR, and even in IFR I have enough backup instruments to get me to the ground safely(back up steam ASI, AH, altimeter, and compass, not to mention a 796). My point is I think we can all agree flying with a radio in most circumstances is safer than flying NORDO, and if not safer, certainly a lot more convenient. A handheld radio is what is used for back up, and certainly the way I have mine set up is about as good as I can get with a handheld system. The range is certainly a lot less from what I have been told however. The com system my avionic guy recommended is a Nav/Com so it has the ability to give me VOR, and ILS approaches as well. I just do not know if it makes sense, and the feeling I am getting from the posts is exactly that.

What about the Legacy AOA, then?
 
I'm confused, to me an AOA is an angle of attack indicator, is that what you are talking about?
 
I think investing in a third COM radio is a pretty poor return on investment. It was interesting to me, though, that you have had (it sounds like) quite a few issues with the G1000. I fly steam gages, and the fear of a blank screen PFD/MFD is the reason why. My experience with computers is that they have a history of unexplainable problems sometimes. The angle of attack indicator is, I think, a good investment if you want to spend some money. My suggestion is, though, to not do anything and use your money to pay for fuel to fly more.
 
Henning said:
I'm confused, to me an AOA is an angle of attack indicator, is that what you are talking about?
Click to expand...
Correct.

Two different things. The first is an AOA indicator:
AOA9000K.jpg

The second is the nav/com which seems to me to be a waste of money, for the benefit it gives.
 
somorris said:
I think investing in a third COM radio is a pretty poor return on investment. It was interesting to me, though, that you have had (it sounds like) quite a few issues with the G1000. I fly steam gages, and the fear of a blank screen PFD/MFD is the reason why. My experience with computers is that they have a history of unexplainable problems sometimes. The angle of attack indicator is, I think, a good investment if you want to spend some money. My suggestion is, though, to not do anything and use your money to pay for fuel to fly more.
Click to expand...
The more I find out about the G1000 the more I find no one really knows about the G1000. The hangar next to mine is for one of the CAP planes, and I speak to the colonel about once a week. They have about 5 or 6 planes with G1000's and seem to have problems on a fairly regular basis. The G1000 is a super device, and so far has does everything it has been touted to do. However, my experience with computers is similar to yours, and they seem to disappoint you when you need them the most. That being said the steam back up on my plane is adequate, but not a 6 pack by any means, which is the reason for my thinking of placing a second nav/com that is independent of the G1000.
 
douglas393 said:
The more I find out about the G1000 the more I find no one really knows about the G1000. The hangar next to mine is for one of the CAP planes, and I speak to the colonel about once a week. They have about 5 or 6 planes with G1000's and seem to have problems on a fairly regular basis. The G1000 is a super device, and so far has does everything it has been touted to do. However, my experience with computers is similar to yours, and they seem to disappoint you when you need them the most. That being said the steam back up on my plane is adequate, but not a 6 pack by any means, which is the reason for my thinking of placing a second nav/com that is independent of the G1000.
Click to expand...

Having a G1000/Aspen PFD blank out while flying [it-dont-matter-what]MC would cure me from flying GA I think worse than what flying behind vacuum POS inaccurate instruments currently does. For 10K+ installed, these things better serve me breakfast while giving me part 121 tolerance flight attitude information to the tune of 7500 MTBF or whatever stoopid number the mechanical electric AI counterparts promise on the brochures.

Maybe Garmin's hardware is not all that robust. After all, they make more money selling tomtom equivalents to dope pedestrian, who's trying to legislate us out of the air by the way, than on flying motorcycle panel fodder. I youtubed both dynon and Garmin failures and I find a lot more G1000 videos of PFDs blanking out and red-Xing than a single Dynon failing in flight. So much for certified expense.....
 
Actually when it comes to advanced avionics, 'certified' means we're always stuck with ancient second rate crap.
 
douglas393 said:
No not about fuel costs. About a month ago the COM1 radio in my plane died.
So my question does this make sense, should I save my money and not do anything, or would it make more sense to put in a separate isolate second glass screen.
Click to expand...

Some people have more money than good sense. Put in a third window so that you can look outside with a paper chart, an E6B (the real one, not the iPad one) and figure out where you are.

Poo happens. Triple redundancy isn't even an AIRLINE requirement.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
Some people have more money than good sense. Put in a third window so that you can look outside with a paper chart, an E6B (the real one, not the iPad one) and figure out where you are.

Poo happens. Triple redundancy isn't even an AIRLINE requirement.

Jim
Click to expand...
I think I agree, but in my business, sometimes the use of belt and suspenders is much better than just a belt. I was using this thought process in my thinking. I use paper charts and plates(no batteries to die and they weigh almost nothing and do not hamper my yoke for plates, and fold up to a reasonable size but with a good view for charts, nor block my view of my panel), and follow my progress on them as my back up. I gave my IPAD to my wife, never found it useful, and my 796 serves as well for back up GPS(though I am too cheap to pay for a second XM subscription for weather on it). I have at this point nixed the backup nav/com. The idea for the second glass was more because of the thought of the loss of VOR's. They OTS'd my home base VOR a few months ago(no one knows why, or those who do are not talking), and it is not up yet, so the only way to get in is now RNAV. We have a number of carriers who come in and evidently they have had to divert on occasion and land elsewhere because they do not have GPS in their planes. So far every failure I have had with the G1000 has been on the ground, and not midflight, and this also seems to be a pretty common experience.

Lastly, any thoughts about AOA indicators.
 
Sounds like the only real issue with your backup handheld is familiarity. Either 1) practice more with it til you're comfortable, or, 2) replace it with one you are comfortable with.

With a 796 you have backup nav, so you're set there. As for AOA, I think they're handy but friends who have them have told me they wouldn't spend the money on one again. YMMV.
 
LDJones said:
Sounds like the only real issue with your backup handheld is familiarity. Either 1) practice more with it til you're comfortable, or, 2) replace it with one you are comfortable with.

With a 796 you have backup nav, so you're set there. As for AOA, I think they're handy but friends who have them have told me they wouldn't spend the money on one again. YMMV.
Click to expand...
On the AOA, that's what I have been looking for. I think for now I will hold off on all.

I may have not made my issue with the handheld correctly, it is not so much I am not comfortable with it, it is more it is not as convenient as the my mounted one with the PTT on the yoke, and from what I am told it does not have the range of the mounted radio. Could I use it if I went NORDO, certainly, would it be as easy as my mounted, no. In an emergency, familiarity is useful.
 
I have only been flying 35 years, but I have yet to stall or even come close to stalling a plane that I did not intend to stall. I'd get the Comm issue done.
 
Clip4 said:
I have only been flying 35 years, but I have yet to stall or even come close to stalling a plane that I did not intend to stall. I'd get the Comm issue done.
Click to expand...

The main use for the AOA is actually the opposite, it gets you to slow down properly for landing. Most people come down 'On the numbers' intended for max gross. People almost never land at max gross. Most all bad landings are due to excessive speed.
 
I think the OP is thinking when his screen goes BLACK he wants to have more than the barely flyable-in-IMC stuff visible.

An AOA would qualify.
I would get one before a third com.
 
I don't know what version of the G1000 software you are on, but the one just before the latest was very buggy. Using the latest version has been rock solid IME. In four G1000 aircraft I have never had what I would call a serious failure. I have had a bad radio and some irritating software glitches with certain versions.

I practice flying approaches with nothing but foreflight and backup instruments. It really isn't that hard to fly a non-precision. If conditions were too low for non-precision I would try to find a PAR approach.

Consider the level of redundancy you already have. Then adding a handheld, AOA, iPad, etc. you are more than set IMO.

I would rather spend any additional money on gas practicing for equipment loses.
 
If you have a transponder that is a third comm. As long as you can hear ATC on something you're fine, even when IFR. ATC will just have you acknowledge with an ident.

I'd suggest you buy a skull shaped throttle knob before a third radio. ;)
 
Alexb2000 said:
I don't know what version of the G1000 software you are on, but the one just before the latest was very buggy. Using the latest version has been rock solid IME. In four G1000 aircraft I have never had what I would call a serious failure. I have had a bad radio and some irritating software glitches with certain versions.

I practice flying approaches with nothing but foreflight and backup instruments. It really isn't that hard to fly a non-precision. If conditions were too low for non-precision I would try to find a PAR approach.

Consider the level of redundancy you already have. Then adding a handheld, AOA, iPad, etc. you are more than set IMO.

I would rather spend any additional money on gas practicing for equipment loses.
Click to expand...
The last upgrade I did was when I added the ability to store engine data. I believe that is probably the one you are talking about with the bugs. My issues with the G1000 have not been software however, they have been hardware. Everything on the plane is G1000 dependent, and if I have a total failure then I lose everything, COM, Nav, engine monitors, the whole thing. It has not happened to me, but in talking to a the CAP colonel who has 5 G1000's in his command, and told me today something like 500 of them in the US under the use of CAP, they have problems with hardware failure fairly regularly, to the point they are being studied to look for common threads.

My G1000 has served me well, however, as stated before, I think it is the nature of computers to fail when you need them the most. In any case, after getting all the opinions here, and my initial concern I was adding things to my plane that in the long run I was not really needing, I think I am going to leave well enough alone. In the long run, this was not really as much a money issue, but a safety issue, and my interpretation of the posts is that the addition of an independent NAV/COM and an AOA does not really add anything to safety.
 
The good thing is that nothing on the G1000 will shut down the engine.
 
douglas393 said:
The last upgrade I did was when I added the ability to store engine data. I believe that is probably the one you are talking about with the bugs. My issues with the G1000 have not been software however, they have been hardware. Everything on the plane is G1000 dependent, and if I have a total failure then I lose everything, COM, Nav, engine monitors, the whole thing. It has not happened to me, but in talking to a the CAP colonel who has 5 G1000's in his command, and told me today something like 500 of them in the US under the use of CAP, they have problems with hardware failure fairly regularly, to the point they are being studied to look for common threads.

My G1000 has served me well, however, as stated before, I think it is the nature of computers to fail when you need them the most. In any case, after getting all the opinions here, and my initial concern I was adding things to my plane that in the long run I was not really needing, I think I am going to leave well enough alone. In the long run, this was not really as much a money issue, but a safety issue, and my interpretation of the posts is that the addition of an independent NAV/COM and an AOA does not really add anything to safety.
Click to expand...

Have you flown an approach with only backup instruments and something like an iPad?
 
Alexb2000 said:
Have you flown an approach with only backup instruments and something like an iPad?
Click to expand...
Yes, with my 796, and it worked out fine, though again this was under foggles with a safety pilot at a nontowered field with no other traffic is CAVU conditions, and no matter which way I cut it is not the real thing, nor is my 796 or for that matter an IPAD legal for this use. It is my understanding they are for situational awareness.
 
douglas393 said:
Yes, with my 796, and it worked out fine, though again this was under foggles with a safety pilot at a nontowered field with no other traffic is CAVU conditions, and no matter which way I cut it is not the real thing, nor is my 796 or for that matter an IPAD legal for this use. It is my understanding they are for situational awareness.
Click to expand...

Sure they aren't legal, but we all know we'd use those devices in a second if it was that and the 3 pack only. I was just pointing out that if you have done it, hopefully to the point of some confidence, flying a non-precision isn't that big a deal. I have the real time aircraft overlay on my Foreflight plates and that makes it so easy its like cheating.

So if I read you right you're confident that you could fly your way out of anything without the G1000 working, but you are still just concerned about being dependent on computers in general?
 
Alexb2000 said:
Sure they aren't legal, but we all know we'd use those devices in a second if it was that and the 3 pack only. I was just pointing out that if you have done it, hopefully to the point of some confidence, flying a non-precision isn't that big a deal. I have the real time aircraft overlay on my Foreflight plates and that makes it so easy its like cheating.

So if I read you right you're confident that you could fly your way out of anything without the G1000 working, but you are still just concerned about being dependent on computers in general?
Click to expand...
Would not say anything, but those situations I am not too confident about the G1000 would not be of any help anyhow, and then again I have not intentions of flying through hurricanes, wind storms, thunderstorms, etc. Not concerned about being dependent on computers, but more concerned about having adequate back up for that day when the G1000 unexpectedly fails in the most inopportune time.
 
douglas393 said:
Would not say anything, but those situations I am not too confident about the G1000 would not be of any help anyhow, and then again I have not intentions of flying through hurricanes, wind storms, thunderstorms, etc. Not concerned about being dependent on computers, but more concerned about having adequate back up for that day when the G1000 unexpectedly fails in the most inopportune time.
Click to expand...

OK I'm confused. What scenario are you trying to have backup for?
 
Alexb2000 said:
If we look at the prior posts it seems that in IMC it could be dealt with.

What other scenario would it matter as much?
Click to expand...

None really. The AOA has good application if one loses pitot on both G1000 and back up ASI as well as normal ops usage improving landings and making them more consistent regardless of weight.
 
Alexb2000 said:
OK I'm confused. What scenario are you trying to have backup for?
Click to expand...
The question you asked was whether I could get to the ground safely should my G1000 crapped out. The answer I gave is yes I could get out of it safely, however, it would be certainly easier with some sort of panel mounted radio, and a panel mounted Nav, etc. Remember if the G1000 craps out without backup, not only am I NORDO, but I am also without engine instruments, transponder, etc. It is doable on the back up instruments, but you also lose a lot.

In any case the whole purpose of the post was I really had not fully convinced myself that adding the NAV/COM and AOA was going to provide me with any true worthwhile advantage over not having them. I still think that having them is better than not, but given my initial doubts, and the consensus of opinions here, I think the advantage is quite small over my present back up devices.
 
I haven't seen a Certified G1000 installation that didn't include vacuum backup instruments on the panel somewhere. Is there one? Or is everyone just blabbing about stuff they've never flown behind?

Juuuuust checkin'. It is PoA after all...
 
denverpilot said:
I haven't seen a Certified G1000 installation that didn't include vacuum backup instruments on the panel somewhere. Is there one? Or is everyone just blabbing about stuff they've never flown behind?

Juuuuust checkin'. It is PoA after all...
Click to expand...

The high wing Cessna's have a vacuum backup system. Others are completely electric, Cessna 400 and Cirrus for example. They all require some form of independent backup instruments. Funny since a vacuum 6 pack doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top