![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael" wrote in message oups.com... Matt Barrow wrote: If the pilot has years of experience on "steam gauges"and none under EFIS, there can be (likely is) a steep learning curve. I'm sure anything CAN be, but what is likely is another matter entirely. My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in actual IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel pilot who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other way around. Probably so, due to the very different scan requirements. Thing is, here and now/today, how many expereinced pilots came up on steam gauges vs. EFIS? There is certainly a learning curve involved in getting maximum benefit from the avionics, but the functionality a steam gauge pilot gets from the steam gauges is easily obtained. It may take some time to get the hang of the flight plan functions (and maybe even the GPS approach functions) out of the moving map GPS, but getting the direct-to function and the ILS/VOR functionality going is easy and intuitive - and the steam gauge pilot doesn't NEED any more than that, because he's used to working with less. One thing I found harder to get used to was adapting/making changes _in flight_ under the EFIS system (when I was new to it). Once I got several flights in the logs, it became pretty easy. And that was after working with CAD systems for many years. As mentioned, much of the initial training for jets (ie, CJ) is the EFIS and FMS and those classes can run over two WEEKS. Different situation. The jets NEED that level of automation so that a single pilot of average ability can fly them IFR. They're fast, they're slippery, they're relatively demanding. Steam gauge functionality won't cut it for the average pilot, so he will have to learn the full functionality. Yes, but that doesn't addres WHY so much training is on the glass screens, compared to actually flying the fast, slippeery aircraft. This discussion is about a Cessna-182. It's hard to find a more stable, docile, and simple IFR platform. You would be VERY hard pressed to find an experienced steam gauge pilot (in ANY airplane) who would find it a challenge to fly a C-182 IFR, regardless of the avionics. And the discussion is not about flying a 182 under IFR, it's about flying a totally different avionics system under IFR. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
C182 - Intermittent Alternator | WinstonCup | Owning | 9 | November 12th 04 12:22 AM |
c182 fuel burn | Rob Timmerman | Owning | 18 | July 7th 04 03:46 PM |
C182 Glass Panel | Scott Schluer | Piloting | 15 | February 27th 04 03:52 PM |
Garmin G1000 | Foster | Owning | 2 | July 20th 03 06:45 PM |