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.

 

I had the opportunity to present my requests to Garmin at one point. This 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....

 

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+

 

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.

 

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....

 

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......

 

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:

1. Can't program custom holds
2. Can't provide automatic calculation of v speeds, take-off and landing distances based upon weight, temp, etc.
3. Can do VNAV on descents but not on ascents.
4. No provision for PDC's, D-ATIS, etc.
5. Cannot overlay radar sweep on PFD.
6. No performance calculations.
7. Cannot provide wind data at each waypoint.
8. 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)

 

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.

 

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.