Next Generation G1000

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by rwtucker »

Cschobel wrote:Garmin 1000 has never used windows.
What OS does it use Charlie? I was under the same impression as CFIDave that it is the NT kernel.

Separately, unless they are doing some fancy paging, with attendant risks of crashing, one would guess more than 64MB RAM. The PFD and MFD have their own memory.
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by CFIDave »

It was years ago that I heard that the G1000 was based on a special real-time version of Windows NT (NOT anything like the desktop Windows operating systems), so I might be wrong about that. But there have been many products based on Microsoft RTOS software including hospital-certified medical devices as well as BMW's in-car displays and entertainment systems.

As a true story, I needed to fly an A36 Bonanza for my Commercial checkride just to prove I could operate the landing gear and fulfill the FAA's "complex" aircraft requirement. While taxiing out to the run-up area with the examiner, I got an unmistakeable Windows "blue screen of death" on the Garmin GMX200 multi-function display located in the Bonanza's panel. The GMX200 originally developed by Apollo as the MX20 (and acquired by Garmin) was an example of certified avionics actually based on Windows.

This has never happened on my G1000:
Image
Last edited by CFIDave on Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by rwtucker »

CFIDave wrote:It was years ago that I heard that the G1000 was based on a special real-time version of Windows NT (NOT anything like the desktop Windows operating systems), so I might be wrong about that. But there have been many products based on Microsoft RTOS software including hospital-certified medical devices as well as BMW's in-car displays and entertainment systems. As a true story, I needed to fly an A36 Bonanza for my Commercial checkride just to prove I could operate the landing gear and fulfill the FAA's "complex" aircraft requirement. While taxiing out to the run-up area with the examiner, I got an unmistakeable Windows "blue screen of death" on the Garmin GMX200 multi-function display located in the Bonanza's panel. The GMX200 originally developed by Apollo as the MX20 (and acquired by Garmin) was an example of certified avionics actually based on Windows.
Don't forget NT for the majority of the ATM systems, at least a few years ago.
User avatar
HPNAviator
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:16 pm
First Name: Stephen
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports: KHPN
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by HPNAviator »

Add Piper to the list of companies now supporting the NXi.
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
First Name: Colin
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N972RD
Airports: KFHR
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by Colin »

Someone one BeechTalk said they spoke with Garmin and the upgrade for a KingAir was $50k. I *think* I would do it if it was $30k or less. Some of the stuff in the YouTube video looks really slick.
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
User avatar
reinhardj
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 7:56 pm
First Name: Reinhard
Aircraft Type: DA40D
Aircraft Registration: DEWDI
Airports: EDWQ
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by reinhardj »

We are developing software also for Airbus and are requested, that according to EASA requirements, ALL software for critical software (criticality level A to D, also RTOS) MUST be certified to DO-178C. No Microsoft software is fulfilling this requirement. A glass cockpit has high criticality (Level A), failure condition is catastrophic.
Wikipedia:
"DO-178C, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification is the primary document by which the certification authorities such as FAA, EASA and Transport Canada approve all commercial software-based aerospace systems...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178C#Software_level
Reinhard
DA40D, S/N D4.338
G1000, GDU 12.03, WAAS, GTX 345, SVT, Safetaxi, PilotPak
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by rwtucker »

reinhardj wrote:. . . ALL software for critical software (criticality level A to D, also RTOS) MUST be certified to DO-178C. No Microsoft software is fulfilling this requirement. A glass cockpit has high criticality (Level A), failure condition is catastrophic.
I get this Reinhard and agree with the importance of such standards, although I might be more suspicious of them than some. At the end of the day, we should pay less attention to what such standards claim for themselves on the front side and more to what software designed under them demonstrates empirically over time and when deployed in the real environments. As I suspect is true for many of us, I ran many NT servers for years without a single failure, many thousands of hours each. In contrast, my G1000 has less than 500 hours TT and a mean time between reboots of around 70 minutes, and has failed on two occasions. I know other G1000 operators who have reported software failures and I saw a discussion on a commercial pilot's board concerning the need to reboot one of the A380 systems from time-to-time. While my experience is an 'n' of 1, it has meaning in relation to upside claims.

Separately, it seems odd to imply that Microsoft is not up to par in this regard since documents pertaing to the standards themselves mention Microsoft tools in several places for components of the validation. You will find the discussion below in the following document. http://web1.see.asso.fr/erts2012/Site/0P2RUC89/2D-2.pdf

4. DO-178C Scope of VCC
Microsoft Research’s VCC [18] is a tool that can be
used to verify that existing code conforms to requirements.
The workflow starting with “code” it suggests
conceptually therefore is “opposite” to VSE of
the previous section 3. The largest piece of software
verified by VCC has been Microsoft’s Hyper-V [17].


In sum, this revision to DO-178 'C' level is still a standard that prescribes debugging practices according to the putative level of downside risk. If you want Level A, you make a few more checks that if you want lower levels. There is no meaningfully qualitative difference and these levels and the number of validations is infinitesimally small in relation to the actual number of unique operations the software will be called upon to execute in its intended environment. Ironically, I think it was Bill Gates who noted that MTBF claims in the realm of software running millions of lines of code with billions or more possible permutations in execution involves a certain amount of creative fiction. How many parallel independent systems did NASA run in space shuttles because they determined that it was impossible to fully debug code?

This may sound like I work for MS. I do not, although they were a client many years ago (so long ago that Gates was the CEO). It was then -- after getting to see how they work inside -- that I developed a deep respect for how they work. Incidentally, one of my G1000 failures looked like a case of failing to load drivers correctly. Some of my colleagues believe that this was NTs most common basis for failing at boot time.
User avatar
reinhardj
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 7:56 pm
First Name: Reinhard
Aircraft Type: DA40D
Aircraft Registration: DEWDI
Airports: EDWQ
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by reinhardj »

Robert, in case Microsoft could provide a system fulfilling the requirements, there would have been no need to develop the Verisoft XT software mentioned in your link... We could discuss a lot about full independent implementation of redundant functions (including OS), but this is beyond this thread.
Let's conclude, that it is our major interest to have a reliable software implementation, independent of the underlying operating system. We have to rely on the criticality level agreed between Garmin and the FAA and a thoroughly test and inspection of the implemented software.
We should be more concerned about the missing G1000 upgrades than the RTOS.
Reinhard
DA40D, S/N D4.338
G1000, GDU 12.03, WAAS, GTX 345, SVT, Safetaxi, PilotPak
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by rwtucker »

reinhardj wrote:We should be more concerned about the missing G1000 upgrades than the RTOS.
Well said Reinhard.
User avatar
HPNAviator
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:16 pm
First Name: Stephen
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports: KHPN
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Next Generation G1000

Post by HPNAviator »

Now that Diamond have announced the NXi for the DA40NG, DA42NG and VI, the DA62 with the rumor that the XLT will be supported soon. I wonder if Diamond/Garmin will offer upgrades to existing G1000's and if that will include the non-WAAS versions of the G1000.
Post Reply