[Cuatro]

I want to sell the panel i have an upgrade to a G3X set up and full garmin panel.

I have a Dynon D180, kt76a, Ky97a, a trutrak adi pilot 2, a panel mounted 396, pm 2000, and the panel.

Anyone with flying experience with the G3X, please comment. It looks like the full garmin system will give you all the info you need to keep it safe in the air, Whats that worth?

Thanks

 

[C-GRVT]

what is safety worth

is the wrong question to ask (if you are being serious).
Obviously, safety is worth a lot if the alternative is getting yourself killed.
But that is not the choice.
What you need to ask is what do you need to safely fly your mission, and what does that cost.
For VFR, you need almost nothing to be safe.
What you have will keep you safe for a lot of flying. The other EFIS vendors can provide a lot to help keep you safe too. A G3X is certainly not the only way to keep safe, but it sure is nice!
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, ON
RV-6A finishing kit

 

[vic syracuse]

Be careful in thinking that the better/more complex the avionics, the safer you will be. Actually, unless you stay proficient, the opposite will be true. It is very possible to get into information overload, get lost in menus and sub-menus, and forget to keep track of the airplane.
Having said that, if you stay proficient, and practice for failures, and/or understand what failure modes might look like, today's suite of avionics choices can make flying in the soup a much more enjoyable and less stressful encounter, especially with the ability to make long term strategic decisions in flight to avoid situations that could push the limits of you and/or your airplane.
The old adage about "superior pilots use superior judgment in order to avoid using their superior skills" still remains true.

Vic

 

[N427EF]

Invaluable advise

Vic,
Now that is advise coming from an experienced builder and aviator.
My hat's off to you!

 

[Ironflight]

Vic has it exactly right! It is incredible what you can do with the advanced avionics available to us these days - as long as you REALLY know how to operate them, and stay proficient. I have flown all of the major EFIS's out there in the experimental world today (thanks to Vic, i finally got to play with the AFS a little), but if I had to file an IFR flight plan today, I would only do it in my RV-8 with the GRT equipment. Why? Because that is the only system I am Instrument Proficient with right now. I won't file IFR in our Dynon-equipped -6 today - not because I haven't done it in the past (and would do so in the future), but because I am not current and proficient with it.

All the button-pushing needs to be second nature, so as not to interfere with your safe operation of the airplane. And since each manufacturer does does things differently, you need to practice with what you are going to use.

Paul

 

[jthocker]

I agree also with Vic and Paul. I am an extremely proficient instrument pilot, flying a steam guage DC-8. I usually hand fly it in the terminal area below 10,000 ft, including ILS's to minimums.
My RV8 is VFR with a Dynon D180/AP74 autopilot, an SL40 and a Garmin 496.
I would be comfortable if I had to "fake" an approach to get below a 1000 ft overcast.
On the other hand, my hangar mate has an RV10 with triple GRT screens, a 430/SL30, and a tru track DGVSGVGSV.....! It has emergency buss's, stick actuated flaps with overrides on the panel, EFIS transfer switches, and on and on.
I have been checked out in the RV10 a couple of times, and have almost used it to take the family, but each time I've chickened out because it's too intimidating for me to confidently operate it in an IFR environment. If there would have been a steam gauge C-182 available I would have taken that.
I think we all get caught up in the Gee Whiz stuff, and the "eye candy", when all we really need is a reliable attitude indicator and an HSI and AP.
My 2 cents!

 

[L.Adamson]

I think we all get caught up in the Gee Whiz stuff, and the "eye candy", when all we really need is a reliable attitude indicator and an HSI and AP.

There are a few points to be made. The Gee Whiz stuff can be on the tough side to figure out. It's why two "long time" CAP pilots flew into rising terrain while trying to figure out a new Garmin 1000 in a Cessna 172.

On the other hand, that Garmin 1000 could have came in real handy for a local pilot from around here..........who successfully flew a night IFR trip, only to blast into a hill just above populated subdivisions because of a whiteout condition just after he canceled IFR to land at his non-towered & non ILS airport. With a sudden loss of situational awareness, he made the wrong turn. Just a hand-held moving map GPS with terrain features, would have made all the difference.

Flight into terrain accidents, has been a side interest of mine for many years now. I have plenty of good reasons why. And it's the reason why I'm certain that these "new fangled" instruments such as synthetic vision will eventually make flight safer in the future. Because anyway we look at it, flight into terrain with perfectly running airplanes has occurred over and over, year after year using the proven methods of the past. It's the reason I say that VORs are just not good enough.

At this point, I can just hope that designers of glass panels / GPS systems will get some more commonality between products, and stop making the functions as tough as trying to set time on an old VCR. We shouldn't have to study a 150 page novel (alias manual) just to get the basics working right. Numerous key presses to get somewhere is BS.

L.Adamson --- RV6A