Finding a workable solution
Basically, the panel consists of two large electronic screens that display all the information found on traditional flight, navigation, and engine and system instruments and gauges. It's all in color and capable of displaying just about anything you can think of, including moving navigation map with terrain features and your flight-plan route, nearby traffic that could pose a conflict, and weather mapping -- Nexrad weather radar and lightning discharges. The two panels replace all the conventional instruments and gauges except for a few back-up instruments in the unlikely event that the electrons stop flowing.
Totally electronic panels are nothing new in aviation, but they are a new phenomenon in the light airplanes that we fly. I find that to be an amazing turn of events. Ten years ago only the visionaries were predicting that in 2005, most new light airplanes would come equipped with an ultrasophisticated and expensive electronic instrument panel.
The fact is, most general aviation manufacturers are offering the complete electronic panel option on many of their new models, right down to the most basic fixed-gear, four-place Cessna 172. Apparently, manufacturers believe they must have a fully electronic panel on the options list to be competitive.
And why not? Who among us wouldn't love to be flying the latest technology, the greatest example of engineers' integration of satellite positioning and information delivery with software databases and various aircraft sensors? I know I would.
Problem is, such capability comes with a pretty hefty price tag, and I'm not ready to step up to that plate yet. Besides, I already own an airplane -- part of one, anyway -- and I just don't think my partners and I are convinced that the cost-benefit ratio is on the side of retrofitting our 1967-vintage piston twin with a 2005-era glass panel.
Not that we are technological agnostics. Our airplane is equipped with a state-of-the-art GPS navigator with color screen, a lightning detector, and a collision avoidance device. Each is a discrete piece of equipment with separate controls and display. Our panel does not even approach the status of a Garmin G1000-equipped Skyhawk's, but it works well enough for us.
If, like my partners and me, you are constrained from ordering up a brand-new electronic instrument panel, then you -- like us -- have to make hard choices on what constitutes need versus want, essential verses nice-to-have, affordable verses bank-account busting. If you are a student or renter pilot you may have no say whatsoever in how you'd like "your" panel equipped, but at least you can make plans for the day when you do own your own airplane, right?
First, a word on need versus want. A super-capable, fully electronic instrument panel is really necessary only for serious cross-country IFR flying. If that's not what you plan to do as a pilot once you gain the requisite ratings and experience, then you don't need all that stuff. Something better suited to the type of flying you enjoy is a more sensible, less-expensive equipment approach.
In my opinion, the decision to upgrade a panel should be driven by two objectives. The first is replacing something that either does not work or is hopelessly outdated. It may be so cumbersome to use or expensive to maintain that it no longer makes sense to keep it.
The second rationale for undertaking an extensive and expensive panel upgrade is to gain capability that you do not presently possess. Upgrading for the sake of being able to say you have the latest stuff is perfectly fine if you can afford it. If, however, you have to make economic choices, let them be driven by what will provide you with new capabilities. That's how we choose for our airplane.
We fly all-weather cross-country trips (today one of the partners is returning to Florida after a weekend flight to Massachusetts, with weather in both directions), and our airplane is equipped for the role. We had two VOR/ILS receivers, a horizontal situation indicator, two communications radios, transponder, audio panel, GPS navigator with color display, Nexrad weather radar receiver that displays on the GPS screen, and a two-axis autopilot (pitch and roll).
Looking over that list, we lacked two basic capabilities. The first was some sort of collision avoidance device to supplement our Mark I eyeballs. The second was a lightning detection device. By monitoring electromagnetic energy associated with lightning discharges, a lightning detector becomes an effective instrument to help a pilot avoid thunderstorm-related convective activity.
So, those were our most recent additions to the panel. The inexpensive (under $1,000) collision avoidance device we bought does a great job of getting my head up and out of the cockpit and looking for other airplanes. We also purchased a Stormscope, and it has proven its worth as well.
I recently returned home after spending the day about 90 miles north. A batch of thunderstorms, some reported as Level 5, blocked my direct route, but the flight service briefer said it looked like I could bypass the worst of the weather if I flew an indirect route to the southwest, then back southeast.
Despite being in the clouds for most of the trip with lethal storms lurking, I was able to fly with confidence thanks to timely Nexrad weather radar updates and real-time Stormscope information. I could see where the worst of the weather was and make sure that I didn't allow a controller to vector me into it.
Our panel may not be totally electronic, but we think it is a very workable answer to the challenge of equipping for maximum capability at something other than maximum price. The only capability we lack totally is some sort of airframe icing protection.
We've even figured out a way to deal with that -- we choose to live in Florida, thereby avoiding conditions likely to yield airframe ice. But the lightning problem remains.
Mark Twombly is a writer and editor who has been flying since 1968. He is a commercial pilot with instrument and multiengine ratings and co-owner of a Piper Aztec.
Related Articles
