Re: IPC G1000
- From: Sam Spade <Sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:24:40 -0700
Jim Macklin wrote:
There is a train of thought that pulling CB as switches can weaken the springs and latches that make the CB function. I doubt that is a problem with modern designs. I'd have to look at the TSO, but imagine they are good for thousands of cycles.I would sure clear that with both Garmin and the aircraft manufacturer first. You might reduce the life of certain components by doing that. These are not electromechanical devices at rest like flaps or landing gear. Some of this electronic stuff likes to go through a shutdown sequence. This may, or may not, apply to the G-1000.
At one time Cessna and Piper were using flush CB. I do know that in the Beech aircraft we pulled CB all the time, on the landing gear, flaps, radios, and never had a CB failure.
If I were instructing in a G1000 airplane, I would first use aux. power and run the G1000 on the ground, pulling CB and noting what failed and what did not. I would then start the engine and do the same while on the ground. Then I'd repeat it in-flight, noting any differences and creating my own checklist and reversion list.
My experience with Garmin stuff is limited to the 530. I would never pull the CB for it without first turning the unit off.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: IPC G1000
- From: Al
- Re: IPC G1000
- From: Peter Clark
- Re: IPC G1000
- References:
- IPC G1000
- From: pbreed
- Re: IPC G1000
- From: rps
- Re: IPC G1000
- From: Jim Macklin
- Re: IPC G1000
- From: Robert M. Gary
- Re: IPC G1000
- From: Jim Macklin
- IPC G1000
- Prev by Date: Re: Is an IPC a substitute for 6 approaches?
- Next by Date: Re: ILS question
- Previous by thread: Re: IPC G1000
- Next by thread: Re: IPC G1000
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|