Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Proline 21 or G1000/ G3000


satpak77
12-19-2012, 08:14 PM
which is the more capable system? what horsepower exists to convince an operator to NOT yank a P21 system that works perfectly and install the G1000 ? thanks guys


CapnSkeptic
12-19-2012, 08:48 PM
Is not the major $$ and downtime of the panel conversion not enough 'horsepower'?
From a human factors standpoint I think the ProLine21 is better - much fewer soft buttons and nested menus to page through. I can't see what operational advantage there would be w/Garmin either. Perhaps you get xm weather with Garmin but I'm sure there's an upgrade to the PL21 that can give you that and these days you can probably add in a bluetooth ADS-B box so you'll get real-time wx, traffic etc. bluetoothed right into your iPad.

Tell him to spend the money on your salary or a Full-service contract w/Flight Safety or an additional pilot, or a mechanic or on-board wi-fi or. . . so many better ways to spend that, what, $100k? $200k? panel re-work.

galaxy flyer
12-20-2012, 07:05 AM
Not sure of your type, but is there even an approved STC to replace P21 with a Garmin system? The G3000 or G5000 are the equal levels of avionics, not G1000.

GF


KingAirDriver
12-20-2012, 09:01 AM
I've flown the Garmin "Prodigy" in the Phenom, which is basically the G1000, and I've trained instructed (FSI) in the PL21. I LOVE the ProLine system. The Garmin's nice around Class B airspace for checking sector altitudes for speed restrictions and it's pretty to look at, but I'd take PL21 any day.

Cubdriver
12-20-2012, 09:31 AM
Having spent many an hour working on G3000 prototype systems I am impressed with how well they bring together previously unrelated flight functions like the G1000 panels did ten years ago, but I would also recommend a potential buyer get some quality time using the system before making a purchase. The G3000 is a big move forward in avionics, but has some ways of doing things that you not like as much.

BoilerUP
12-20-2012, 10:02 AM
Why on earth would anybody replace a highly functional PL21 system in a turbine aircraft with the less functional (but arguably 'prettier') G1000?

satpak77
12-20-2012, 06:29 PM
Why on earth would anybody replace a highly functional PL21 system in a turbine aircraft with the less functional (but arguably 'prettier') G1000?

rocket scientists at my place claim they can swap out P21, install G1000, and sell or get some sort of "credit" for the P21. Plane is less than 3 year old B350. supposedly even after down time and install, bean counters say "we will still be ahead"

yes.....w..t..f...

* I may be able to sausage block this but will need to articulate why keep P21....maybe some STC / RVSM / D.E.R. / etc stuff is applicable.

BoilerUP
12-21-2012, 02:51 AM
Bean counters are driving the decision, not the flight department?

Lord help you.

I think the BIG issue is you can't build a hold with a G1000 like you can PL21...

FlyingNasaForm
12-21-2012, 06:26 AM
Why on earth would anybody replace a highly functional PL21 system in a turbine aircraft with the less functional (but arguably 'prettier') G1000?

YES!

I fly a Phenom 100 with the G1000 and I swap it out for a PL4 in a heartbeat. My main issue with the G1000 is that it's a very new avionics platform but the CRJ Collins FMS which says "Copyright 1984" on boot up is way more functional.

I do like the PFD on the G1000 the synthetic vision is awesome. However that doesn't out weigh the short comings of the "FMS".


Things the G1000 can't do:


Draw a hold. You can only hold at an IAF or missed approach holding point.
No predictive fuel planning: It will take your instantaneous fuel flow and ground speed to calculate your landing fuel, however during a power idle descent you can fly to the moon, and during climb you'll crash in about 45 minutes. So if you are holding (using heading bug on the outbound and NAV on the in unbound leg. Don't forget your wind correction, especially fun in a 125kt crosswind) on the way to LGA and get a reroute that adds 200nm to your route the only want to figure out if you are going to make it is it do math by hand. Unless you want to dump your entire flight plan.
No "Fix" page functions like on a Collins FMS. (You don't realize how useful they are until you don't have them)
VNAV doesn't understand "or above" and "or below" on arrivals.
No DME holding function
No route overlay on radar
No way to generate FMS glideslope to a runway w/o an IAP

The list goes on but those are the ones on the top of my head.


To be clear I'm not saying you can't fly a jet without these features. I'd be more than happy to fly a DC9 w/ DAL. What I am saying is an advance avionics system that is very new should have these functions.

The G1000 was designed for piston singles it doesn't have the brains to be in a jet. But it looks pretty so people buy it.

If you have any other questions let me know.

satpak77
12-21-2012, 07:16 AM
YES!

I fly a Phenom 100 with the G1000 and I swap it out for a PL4 in a heartbeat. My main issue with the G1000 is that it's a very new avionics platform but the CRJ Collins FMS which says "Copyright 1984" on boot up is way more functional.

I do like the PFD on the G1000 the synthetic vision is awesome. However that doesn't out weigh the short comings of the "FMS".


Things the G1000 can't do:


Draw a hold. You can only hold at an IAF or missed approach holding point.
No predictive fuel planning: It will take your instantaneous fuel flow and ground speed to calculate your landing fuel, however during a power idle descent you can fly to the moon, and during climb you'll crash in about 45 minutes. So if you are holding (using heading bug on the outbound and NAV on the in unbound leg. Don't forget your wind correction, especially fun in a 125kt crosswind) on the way to LGA and get a reroute that adds 200nm to your route the only want to figure out if you are going to make it is it do math by hand. Unless you want to dump your entire flight plan.
No "Fix" page functions like on a Collins FMS. (You don't realize how useful they are until you don't have them)
VNAV doesn't understand "or above" and "or below" on arrivals.
No DME holding function
No route overlay on radar
No way to generate FMS glideslope to a runway w/o an IAP

The list goes on but those are the ones on the top of my head.


To be clear I'm not saying you can't fly a jet without these features. I'd be more than happy to fly a DC9 w/ DAL. What I am saying is an advance avionics system that is very new should have these functions.

The G1000 was designed for piston singles it doesn't have the brains to be in a jet. But it looks pretty so people buy it.

If you have any other questions let me know.

thats the kind of material I need....keep it coming.....Time for folks to dig deep and tap their anti-bean counter inner self.....

Cubdriver
12-21-2012, 08:09 AM
Actually FlyingNasaForm hits directly on the problem I saw as a test writer for the G3000 system- it is not quite ready to do much of the functions of a traditional Honeywell or Collins FMS, precisely the problem.

G1000 does not even try so we must scratch that option out if we want a true FMS. The G1000 was placed into a few entry level business jets, works ok there as long as you know what your limitations are. But it was never meant to be in a fast airplane such as a CRJ. I certainly would not recommend a retrofit from a Collins ProLine for anything that operates in a Part 121, 135 or high level Part 91 environment.

The G3000 tries a lot harder to bridge the gap by incorporating some FMS functions, but in a limited way. There are no TOLD functions, there are some weak performance functions as mentioned by FNF, some rather contrived navigation functions, and some nav functions I would have to describe as poorly thought out. The 3000 consolidates a lot of the otherwise scattered functions of a Collins or Honeywell cockpit. It adds the novelty of true touch screen functionality to an airplane also, a huge accomplishment.

The touch screen consist of a single pedestal located unit that resembles an FMS box- but be careful here, because it is not a true FMS. The central touch screen unit (central data unit, or CDU) serves to simplify and consolidate things like never before, it puts things into a central location eliminating single purpose button scatter and relieves the PFDs from many duplicated knobs and functions. Great, the result is a clean and logical cockpit that does things very efficiently, looks good and is easy to learn and intuitive.

But the core weakness in my opinion having spent a year developing tests for it, is that Garmin refused to solve the issue of how to a duplicate the functions of a traditional FMS. It drove me nuts writing test plans for the G3000 because I had to decide whether they were attempting to duplicate an FMS and needed to be tested as such, or not. Last I heard even the FAA is not sure.

I decided Garmin was attempting to preserve as much of the G1000 system as possible to save money. It costs a ton of money in R&D mostly tied to certification activities to veer away from a proven system, and while adding just enough traditional FMS functionality will appease some entry level bizjet manufacturers. However it was iffy whether it would work for the FAA at the time I worked on it in 2011, and I promise it was problematic for legacy bizjet pilots who are familiar with older systems.

FlyingNasaForm
12-21-2012, 01:46 PM
thats the kind of material I need....keep it coming.....Time for folks to dig deep and tap their anti-bean counter inner self.....

I had the opportunity to present my requests to Garmin at one point. This (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8892954/G1000.pdf) was the document I gave them. It may be useful to you, and looks a little better than my post. None of these items have been incorporated to the last 2 software upgrades.

Cubdriver - Thanks for the info, I was afraid that the G3000 would be more of a touch screen G1000.


What's the difference between a G3000 and G5000 (other than the Part 23/25 target market)
NetJets is taking delivery of G3000 powered Phenom 300s very soon. Will the avionics be certified any time soon?

satpak77
12-21-2012, 07:44 PM
I had the opportunity to present my requests to Garmin at one point. This (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8892954/G1000.pdf) was the document I gave them. It may be useful to you, and looks a little better than my post. None of these items have been incorporated to the last 2 software upgrades.

Cubdriver - Thanks for the info, I was afraid that the G3000 would be more of a touch screen G1000.


What's the difference between a G3000 and G5000 (other than the Part 23/25 target market)
NetJets is taking delivery of G3000 powered Phenom 300s very soon. Will the avionics be certified any time soon?


Thank you....

GrummanCT
12-22-2012, 12:57 PM
I have extensive experience with PL21 & G1000, and even with the PL21's shortcoming, i'd take the PL any day every day over the Garmin. Like Boiler said, why in the world would you get rid of a great system for a Garmin 530+

Cubdriver
12-22-2012, 03:51 PM
I had the opportunity to present my requests to Garmin at one point. This (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8892954/G1000.pdf) was the document I gave them. It may be useful to you, and looks a little better than my post. None of these items have been incorporated to the last 2 software upgrades.

Cubdriver - Thanks for the info, I was afraid that the G3000 would be more of a touch screen G1000.


What's the difference between a G3000 and G5000 (other than the Part 23/25 target market)
NetJets is taking delivery of G3000 powered Phenom 300s very soon. Will the avionics be certified any time soon?



FNF, I have no experience with the G5000. I think Cessna is planning on using it and one or two other makes. Thanks for that document, I'll look at it soon (15 hour workdays lately).

The thing with these two Garmin systems is they are individually tailored and certified for use with each type certificate. They do not function as drop-in machinery. The airframe manufacturer works closely with Garmin to develop the spec sheet for the system, a living document that changes every month during development of the airframe, and there is an ongoing negotiation between Garmin, the manufacturer, and the FAA as to what, when, and how the system will evolve to meet the needs of each party.

Making matters worse, each and every software load has to be certified individually, and each load contains some assortment of updates that have to be 100% what it is expected to be. It's a big fuss getting to the final software load, it may entail dozens of certified iterations going on for years of people working 60 hour weeks to achieve a type certificate for an installed G3000.

As a speculation, the G5000 will have a formal FMS. It also will be capable of managing much higher levels of systems complexity, everything from an APUs to inertial navigation, extra busses, extra hydraulics- you name it, airliner complexity. The G3000 is similar but far simpler.

The G3000 is nearly mature so it is time for TCs to be granted to aircraft with it. I do not know much about Embraer and am not at liberty to speak beyond my pay grade, but several manufacturers have listed cert dates this year (2012-2013) for their airplanes with the G3000 installed.

satpak77
03-21-2014, 08:16 PM
OK, my orig post is a few months old but I have been flying another B-350 with G1000 and can now make some G1000 v P21 observations. I like the P21 better. I now have 20 hours G1000 time.

With that said (if these can be done, then I have not learned how yet...)

G1000 is not the most "capable" in the VNAV category. The P21 would fly a pseudo-glideslope on a VOR approach, the G1000 will not

No basic Point A direct Point B flight planning is possible. I worked around this by putting (example) KLAX and KMIA at end of FPL and deducing that XXX miles between the two. Then I deleted those entries. On the P21, I would go under Fuel Planning, page ??? 3, and put it there

Radar cannot be overlaid onto route/moving map

TOD doesn't seem to work like the P21. getting it to work properly out of cruise flight seems to be hit and miss

Cannot "draw out the final approach path" aka "make the inbound course degrees big" like in P21. G1000 "Activate Leg" seems goofy

No heading line displayed (when you move heading bug around) on moving map

Entering V-speeds more tedious

With my reduced confidence in VNAV G1000, I am going old-school and using VS to descend.

Chintzy Altitude and heading knobs. No "commercial grade" feel to them. Feel like the radio knobs in a rental car.

Synthetic vision is not "all that." Green and blue screen looks walt-disney-ish and I don't get a pro-pilot feel from it. maybe just me, being anal. shows terrain but we are not talking Google Earth or anything.

ETA at destination only by highlighting a fix, scrolling all the way down to page with destination, then write a note of it on your kneeboard. No permanent "ETA at destination" information anyway on panel or ability to have it

Cannot enter a VOR freq by typing in the ID. "Proceed direct to FUZ". P21 = F-U-Z, enter. G1000 = "can you give us the freq please"

No ground comm

I am sure I will have more later....

Hawker Driver
03-22-2014, 08:31 AM
Not much of a fan w the P21. Loads of data, that, if U r not careful, can be mis-interpreted. Not intuitive at all either..... Expamples: Waypoints "+" that slide down the same side vertical path bar as the glide slope "<>", different data that is displayed white as "armed" that only switches to green when active. Easy to miss. I won't go on......

Lucky8888
03-22-2014, 07:53 PM
I've had both the G1000 and the Proline 21. I think for small GA aircraft, the G1000 is very suitable. For Turbine aircraft however, the G1000 is significantly inadequate in my opinion and I agree with what satpac77 had to say.

My experience with the G1000 is about 2 years old so I stand corrected if some of the "deficiencies" have been fixed.

The biggest problems I saw in the G1000 are:


Can't program custom holds
Can't provide automatic calculation of v speeds, take-off and landing distances based upon weight, temp, etc.
Can do VNAV on descents but not on ascents.
No provision for PDC's, D-ATIS, etc.
Cannot overlay radar sweep on PFD.
No performance calculations.
Cannot provide wind data at each waypoint.
Software releases are few and far between.


My Proline 21 can do all these things and more. I also found it is more intuitive to use, The main reason I got rid of my G1000 aircraft was because of the G1000's lack of capabilities (as a side note, the G3000/G5000 aren't much better, IMO)

Fetzervalve
03-23-2014, 05:36 AM
Recently toured a new Netjets Phenom 300 and they are using the G3000. Would be interesting to hear from any of those Netjets Phenom pilots about their impressions.

The majority of my friends who use the PL21 seem to love it.

DFWAviatior
04-15-2014, 08:52 PM
I've flown both and think both are great systems. They each have advantages and disadvantages.

Here is the best advice you can get: Swapping out an avionics suite is extremely costly, time consuming, and increases your chance of getting little gremlins that you don't want to find when flying hard IFR. If your aircraft was manufactured with the ProLine 21 system...KEEP IT.

Had close friends put a G1000 in their King Air and had several bugs that required two or three trips back to the maintenance facility to get worked out. That equates to added expense and aircraft downtime that your bean counters aren't considering.

Keep the ProLine 21. If they want a Garmin, get them a portable Garmin GPS for their car.