Questions for you glass-panel folks

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:03 -0500, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:



My questions a

1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction
of
the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
easy?

Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
(missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).


I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
learn
anything of huge value. I took the King course as well but the G1000 has
way
to many menus, submenus, windows etc. compared to the MSFS version that I
felt fairly lost once I sat in front of the real thing. Still the G1000 is
awesome and a lot of fun to learn!

A much better option for getting familiar with the G1000 system is to
buy the $5 CD from Garmin. The simulator is customized to the
aircraft series it's in (Cessna NAVIII for example) and has the
appropriate things enabled for that airframe, and contains all the
features of the G1000 system (just like the 430/530 simulators did for
those boxes).

Yeah I have seen those available just haven't got around to getting it. I
was hoping the King's course had something with it like that, but alas, no.

On Mar 5, 1:05 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
reduce the requirements.

Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.

If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
new computer programmers to learn Cobol.

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

xyzzy wrote:


A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.


A pilot coming on now could very easily fly all his life and never see a
working ADF in an aircraft.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:10:43 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

They do for certified aircraft. See 23.1311(5):

Part 23: Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and
commuter category airplanes

Sec. 23.1311 - Electronic display instrument systems.

(5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and
attitude instrument or individual electronic display indicators for
the altitude, airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the
airplane's primary electrical power system.

I'm sure there's a similar entry in part 25 for transport catagory
aircraft.

Did you really think that Cessna et al would spend the money for the
instruments, expend weight for the instruments, plumbing, and vaccum
pump install etc if they weren't required to be there by something in
the FAR?

I stand corrected. I was going by the IFR requirements and didn't take
into count the Part 23 FARs.

No worries.

That mistake aside, sure they would. What do you think the markup is on
those items when they put them in the plane and sell them to you?

Actually, I think it costs them more to put it in since they would
likely save money by not having to buy, store, inventory, install, and
warranty replace them for two years in the first place, but I don't
know the wholesale prices of the instruments and pumps, or how long it
takes at the plant to drill-press and assemble the panel and hoses. At
807 piston aircraft delivered last year (does the Caravan use the
mechanical stuff - another 80 there) it probably adds up pretty quick
all costs considered. But that's completely opinion I've got no
information one way or the other.

Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system
could support FSX.

Yep, we're running FSX. The Mooney that comes with FSX has the G1000
system built-in.

Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS?

Yes. We are running multiple screens with very good performance.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Let me get this straight, you were simulating flying a computer on
your computer? You need to get out more!

Ha! Never thought about it that way...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
learn
anything of huge value.

Is this in the latest version of MSFS?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:xbFzj.63032$yE1.18737@attbi_s21...
I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought
it
might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
learn
anything of huge value.

Is this in the latest version of MSFS?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Yep I have whatever the latest is, "X" I think?

Yep I have whatever the latest is, "X" I think?

Dang, that's disappointing. Can you give me a run-down of what's missing?
Is the G1000 functional, with some subtle things missing, or are there big
chunks of functionality that they simply forgot to include?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mar 5, 4:36 pm, xyzzy wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:05 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:



2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
reduce the requirements.

Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.

If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
new computer programmers to learn Cobol.

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

Nope.

There may be one that I know in a company of +500.

C++ and Java are it for the majority of desktop and SMP code written

Dan