Peter wrote:
I would not rate fancy avionics as game changers in GA.
I most definitly would. Flying behind an Aspen PFD/ND in combination with a GNS430W means I have the same nav capability than any airliner. For a short while even more so as airliners only came onto LPV at the time while my 60 year old plane had it. Flying even VFR arrivals fully coupled with RNAV still is something I relish doing. Finally we can fly our spamcans, basically ANY spamcan, with the precision of an airliner. That in my view is a huge game changer.
GPS moving maps have also changed massively over the 20 years. The difference between the former Loran boxes gone GPS and todays GTN boxes are quite massive. Not to speak of synthetic terrain in glass cockpits and TAWS.
Yes, the G1000 was a game changer but so were the Aspens, which allowed the cool features the G1000 had basically in any legacy plane even with an AP with only a HDG mode. For a while, the avionics present in Avidyne or G1000 or Aspen cockpits exceeded the capabilities of legacy Boeing and Airbus avionics by a margin. It was quite new that pilots confronted with those capabilities in say an SR22 would exclaim that they’d love to have that on their Airbusses.
And of course flight planning on your PC or tablet (or even smartphone) is fantastic. Rob Weyers really changed the way this works, everyone else basically tried to up his work. For VFR I still very much like EVFR and even PFMS which I use as a route generator on my PC. And clearly, also the other products like Sky Demon, Garmin Pilot and Foreflight, not to forget Autorouter, have changed flight planning from a teidious job to a fast and reliable task during pre-flight. Not to speak of the kick one gets out arriving within 3 minutes on a 4 hour flight and within 2-3 liters of fuel remaining predicted by those tools. For me, that is the essence of flying to destinations and what I work for: To plan it so that the precision is similar or better than the airliner plans I used to do as a dispatcher.
ADS-B, if implemented properly, is probably the biggest collision avoidance tool ever invented.
Smartphones and tablets today have probably changed society more than anything else, but in terms of aviation, it’s a new world. And imho a better one.
Apart from LPV and +V, any “glass” etc does no more in terms of navigation capability or accuracy than a KLN94. It also does not make the plane more mission-capable; same TAS, same ice protection, same operating ceiling, etc.
If “you” make a trip with specific modern avionics which you would not make with say a KLN90/94+MFD, then “you” are a fool 
The Golze ADL is a great advance, in delivering wx data in flight, anywhere, any altitude.
Apart from LPV and +V, any “glass” etc does no more in terms of navigation capability or accuracy than a KLN94.
Again, different mission profiles and use cases. Having said that IMHO avionics are not (only) about navigation capability. Black hole effect is a real danger, same for CFIT.
If “you” make a trip with specific modern avionics which you would not make with say a KLN90/94+MFD, then “you” are a fool
I could say that if “you” ever flew in the vicinity of a gliding site or paragliding area like the Dolomites on a sunny Sunday afternoon without a Flarm or similar 866Hhz transmitting device then “you” are a fool 
The equipment I carry allows me to see them and they would be warned.
Peter wrote:
Apart from LPV and +V, any “glass” etc does no more in terms of navigation capability or accuracy than a KLN94. It also does not make the plane more mission-capable; same TAS, same ice protection, same operating ceiling, etc.If “you” make a trip with specific modern avionics which you would not make with say a KLN90/94+MFD, then “you” are a fool
LPV alone is worth a up to date set up if you fly IFR. Ok, not in the UK, but everywhere else.
And you get a lot more information and capabilities. Of course you can fly without it, lots of people do. It’s a question of preferrence. And in many cases sour grapes.
Me personally, I would add an Aspen to any airplane I’ve seen which has classical instruments. The value of use is this high for me, that I would not really wish to fly without it or a similar capable setup by Garmin or Dynon. And of all these, the Aspen in my view is the most capable and affordable.
Sour grapes? Can you expand on that?
Every LPV approach is on top of a normal GPS approach, which can be flown with 1990s GPS boxes. So the Q becomes whether you want to fly to places in conditions where you need the extra ~200ft off the minima and there is no ILS and the wx is pretty well on the deck.
I don’t understand how this can be “sour grapes”. It is just whether an IAP is applicable to one’s mission profile. I have not found a case yet, in my 3k hrs.
LPV is of course safer because you get V guidance, but you also get almost identical guidance with +V. These are good things.
Black hole effect is a real danger, same for CFIT.
That is a different thing. And a CFIT happens only if you fly well below the MSA The way to do a CFIT has not changed, since GPS arrived.
Peter wrote:
Apart from LPV and +V, any “glass” etc does no more in terms of navigation capability or accuracy than a KLN94.
I for sure would not be able to fly a holding as precise or accurate with my old KLN then with my my current GNX375 in LNAV and AP roll steering enabled with a 30Kts wind. It reduces significantly workload in a busy terminal environment were GA is put in the hold for the heavies. But you don’t need glass for that, but enhances your situational awareness significantly.
Capability maybe yes not much difference, however accuracy Peter I really doubt it….
G1000 was a game changer
But it turned out to be great disappointment in terms of upgradability. It was advertised as easy-to-upgrade – just change LRU but it turned out to be impossible or almost impossible, leaving the owners heavily dependent on aircraft manufacturer’s will to order software development from Garmin.
From my perspective:
- 2013 Croatia joined EU which eliminated need for customs for majority of my flights
- 2023 Croatia joined EU which eliminated need for immigration for majority of my flights
- less and less ground navaids including removing ILS
- higher and higher airport fees and insane handling fees for zero service delivered
- shrinking GA community, especially in Croatia
LPV is enough of a game changer for GA. In the US, there are 4 times the number of LPV than ILS. Yes, LPV and ILS have the same Cat 1 capability, but LPV is clearly superior. LPV is smoother and simpler to fly. Smoother because it is not affected by aircraft or vehicles on the airport or runway that need an ILS safety area or by local interference in the course or vertical guidance. It is simpler because you use a single avionics system rather than for an ILS where one uses GPS for enroute, STAR, joining the approach if not vectored, switching to localizer for the intermediate and final approach segments and back to GPS for the missed approach. There are many more opportunities for error with an ILS approach, tuning the wrong frequency, not activating the frequency, not changing the CDI to display the localizer rather than the GPS guidance, not switching back to GPS for a missed approach, and not selecting the appropriate autopilot modes. That is why here in the US, most GA pilots have a strong preference for using LPV even when ILS is an available option. Sure you can fly many LNAV approach procedures with a KLN94 and unless the weather is below the procedure MDA, you get to the same place, just with more work and reduced safety afforded by vertical guidance. With your KLN94, you can’t fly an RNAV SID or STAR, you can’t use your autopilot to fly a curved path, such as would be required with a hold, PT, DME arc, or RF turn. With the KLN94, the processor is too slow to provide a usable roll steering guidance and the roll steering it does provide is non standard and near useless. The KLN94 was an improvement over the KLN90B and KLN89B, but never matched the GNS430 legacy capability, much less the WAAS version.
G1000 was a game changer
But it turned out to be great disappointment in terms of upgradability.
No disagreement here. I enjoy my boxes until they last. How long would that be?
Peter wrote:
any “glass” etc does no more in terms of navigation capability or accuracy than a KLN94
Yes it does, Peter. It raises the situational awareness by several steps, and thus “lowers the bar” for a newbie to understand the system.
A simple example: I have OAT on my glass display. It IS a hassle to read the old OAT meter at night, using a torch and trying to read the indication. The other is obvious: I see on the glass display that the autopilot is in fact flying the approach that is programmed. It’s all there. You just have to follow what the plane is doing, that feels like 80% less workload than doing all the approach without all the info “in a box”.
To me the pilot is part of the equipment. And the navigation capability and accuracy of the whole system including the pilot has improved a lot since introduction of glass.
