Looking at the trailers for FS2020 and elsewhere, it seems like GA aircraft with new Garmin systems almost have better visuals/augmented reality. What am I missing?

You are missing nothing, that is the reality in real world avionics. 

30 minutes ago, KenG said:

You are missing nothing, that is the reality in real world avionics. 

Why then? Surely Boeing and Airbus can beat Garmin for airliners?

Cost. Imagine that you have to re-equip the whole fleet, something that takes a few years. 

Crew training and many years where you have old and new cockpit planes in your fleet.

Way too little benefit for just more eye candy 😉   

 

Also, airliners aren't supposed to fly in/out of some places that GA aircraft do.  They try it periodically, but it's always by mistake and a lot of people usually die.

 

Hm, I did fly a 4 engined airliner into and out of Courchevel for a few years without any problems 😉 

NO fun and V1 = brake release

Edited November 29, 20196 yr by FDEdev

4 hours ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

Why then? Surely Boeing and Airbus can beat Garmin for airliners?

You mean Honeywell and Thales. Boeing and Airbus make airplanes, not avionics. 

There’s a big certification issue with public transport aircraft where everything has to be signed off by the regulators. With GA and private flying it’s easier to retrofit what you want, to a degree.

The thing with airliner avionics is they may be basic compared to what is available today , but they just work, and work well.

All the fancy EFB stuff can be obtained through mounted iPads nowadays anyway.

Edited November 30, 20196 yr by jon b

Between the avionics on the 777 and the Jepp FD Pro X app on the iPad, I don't really see a need for much more tech in the cockpit. But, that's just my opinion...

22 hours ago, jon b said:

There’s a big certification issue with public transport aircraft where everything has to be signed off by the regulators. With GA and private flying it’s easier to retrofit what you want, to a degree.

If it's a certified aircraft it's going to have the certified avionics to go with it.  Frankly, it's absolutely absurd since an experimental can use identical hardware and pay less than (sometimes) half the cost for the same product.  Check out the price difference on the 10.6" G3X for example:

For certified:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/682215

For experimental:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/166058

Edited December 1, 20196 yr by ACR

There may be some great situational awareness displays available in the GA market, but in the air transport realm, even the 1990s type dashboards have capabilities now that are at the cutting edge of technology. Don’t be fooled by the lack of wide screens or vertical situation displays on older planes like an A320, behind the display, they are capable of doing what the limits of current technology allow.

For example, certification to do rnp approaches and cat iii autolanding in near zero visibility are just the most basic of capabilities now. Airliner dashboards can display traffic target callsigns and vectors on the map screens, predict windshear, auto position report to atc over satcom while over the ocean, you can talk with dispatch, atc, medical staff or your parents, over the ocean on satphone, receive instructions and clearances via text messaging from atc over satcom, and even load clearances directly from atc into the fms.

The eye candy is not everything. Comparing the A320 to the E190, whereas the newer E190 cockpit has some of the eye candy displays like the heads up displays and vertical situation displays that were great for situational awareness, the avionics behind it were not as capable as the airbus. Though the airbus cockpit does not have as much eye candy, the autoflight is more capable doing things such as meeting restrictions on arrival descents, or autolanding with no dh versus a dh of 50’ that we had on the E190. The relationship between the E190 and the A320 is similar to that of ga and air transport. The E190 had more visual situational awareness like the vsd and the hud to help the pilots make up for the lack of ability in the flight management while the airbus does not require as much visual awareness for the pilot because the flight management is more capable.

The mission profile of a GA plane and an airliner are different, so they require different emphasis. GA aircraft will do plenty of vfr flying, therefore, situational awareness of terrain and airspace avoidance is important and lends itself to the type of visual displays that you are talking about. While transport aircraft fly 99% ifr, and over long ranges, their avionics are focused on landing approaches in zero zero conditions and where there are no navaids, avoiding terrain and aircraft, and communications anywhere in the world.

Just because the panel looks like it is from the ‘90s doesn’t mean the capabilities are not 2020’s.

Edited December 1, 20196 yr by KevinAu

This maybe an extreme, outlying edge case, but what about Concorde? Her cockpit was 3-crew with pure steam gauges, but "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and she did her job extremely well on 60's tech.

A lot of the avionics in modern GA aircraft air equipped with all the bells in whistles to aid said pilots in situational awareness that is usually lacking. Airline pilots do this stuff all the time and all the information isn't needed because they are much more situationally aware than the average GA Pilot.

Obviously, those part 91 and part 135 corporate pilots are on the same level as airline guys and that's where those fancy GA aviaonics really shine because they are being used by professional pilots.

Another reason the GA avionics are much more modern is because it's a huge selling point for these planes. It's like a car...there's new tech coming out every year.

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 4:59 AM, KevinAu said:

There may be some great situational awareness displays available in the GA market, but in the air transport realm, even the 1990s type dashboards have capabilities now that are at the cutting edge of technology.

Reading this post gives me the impression that airline avionics are all you’ve worked with, and are very unaware of the current state of the art suites outside of airline types. I’ve flown first gen steam gauge jets, through stuff like primus and proline, da-easy, g5000, maybe others, and that’s not even close to the capabilities that the current state of the art avionics suites have in new generation business jets. Auto land is one thing ga does not focus on because the few runways out there where you might need it once in a while, are not at airports we use. Major airline airports are the last resort for a lot of reasons. But ever other function you listed has been there for a long time. Even the falcon easy suite seems dated to me, but still does everything you describe with much greater and easier situational awareness. The sa of the g5000 package is extraordinary, and makes the job a ton easier. A buddy of mine stated at a major 121 carrier a few years ago, and still calls the 737 he’s flying as stone ages compared to the easy and g5000 he used to fly. I wouldn’t be calling the ga stuff eye candy, without knowing what these systems are actually capable of. Btw in my last job I could be up front surfing the internet while listening to Xm radio. Sure made the hours more enjoyable. 🙂

Edited December 5, 20196 yr by n4gix
Removed rediculously long quote!

The original poster was referring to ‘Garmin’ avionics, which gave me the impression that his point was that GA, as in single engine piston aircraft, are better equipped than airliners. And that was the vein in which I responded. I do not disagree that the new Gulfstream bizjets that you speak of have equipment on par, if not better than, the equipment on the most modern airliners. But I don’t think that was the comparison being made by the opening poster.