![]() |
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 24 Sep 2005 11:43:12 -0700, "Michael"
wrote: snip Nobody can hand-fly a Bonanza (or similar airplane) SMOOTHLY while copying a clearance, flipping through charts, and generally messing with stuff. There will be minor heading and altitude deviations even with the best of pilots. Also, nobody can hand-fly such an airplane for hours (especially in the soup) without becoming fatigued. That's why an autopilot is nice to have. It's strange you should have brought up that particular item. My first hour and eight minutes in the Deb were spent in a building storm that was at least moderate turbulence, zero visibility and only my second time in actual. I ended up flying the entire flight on manual. Ask why I know to the minute the time we were solid IMC. GAWD, but I was sick. Lunch bag tucked under my leg for quick access, turbulence tot he point where it was almost impossible to hit the correct switch without many tries, and torrential rain. At least we found no leaks in the Deb. Whipped at the end of the trip would be an understatement. But there's a difference between minor heading and altitude deviations and loss of control. Someone making the jump from a Skyhawk-class airplane to a 300 hp Bonanza (or Cirrus) will likely lose control when he tries to do several things at once. The solution is discipline and training. Learn to have the approach (including the first segment of the missed) briefed so you never have to do anything but fly once you're inside the marker. Learn to divide attention and perform tasks in short segments. The skills required are no different in the Cirrus than they are in the Skyhawk, it's just that the Skyhawk lets you get by with a lot more sloppiness. That's not a bad thing - it's the reason why it's a whole lot easier to teach someone to fly instruments in a Skyhawk-class airplane and then transition him to a Bonanza or Mooney than it is to start in the fast slippery airplane. I know, I've done it both ways. The problem occurs when the pilot is told that the solution is not skill development but automation. Instead of being told "If you have to fly this plane partial panel, it will be more difficult so you need more training and practice" he is told "You can't fly this plane partial panel, so just couple up the autopilot to the GPS and have it fly the approach" - which is, no ****, what glass-panel Cirrus pilots are told. Instead of being told "you need to learn to divide your In that case it's no wonder the insurance rates are so high. attention between flying your existing clearance and checking your new one" he is told "you need to learn how to enter your route into the navigation computer and have it autosequence for you, so you can turn the autopilot on at any time and keep it on as long as necessary." Instead of being told "Now that you're flying higher and faster you need to plan your descent" he's told "you need to program your Vnav profile so it can prompt you for a descent and provide guidance." As long as all the automation works, the Skyhawk IFR pilot can be a Cirrus IFR pilot with his existing skill set - but then he needs to This is no different than telling a VFR pilot to set the auto pilot and let it fly if he/she runs into bad weather, or poor visibility. You have not created a better pilot, you have given him/her a crutch to make up for lack of skill which is a very poor teaching method and dangerous practice. learn how to use all the automation to make up for what he can't do. Personally, I think that's a ****-poor way to do things. It's a very dangerous way to do things. It's great to do one the pilot is proficient in the particular airplane and has become proficient with the systems, , but still the learning of the glass panel needs to be incremental and not a "all-at-once", or know it all before you type of thing. Systems have a way of failing at the most inopportune time. That is not the time to be using the system and autopilot as a crutch. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cambridge 302 learning curve cont. | Tuno | Soaring | 4 | July 5th 04 10:10 AM |
C182 Glass Panel | Scott Schluer | Piloting | 15 | February 27th 04 03:52 PM |
learning curve in fs 2002.. | David Ciemny | Simulators | 5 | December 30th 03 12:18 AM |
18m polar curve | Alan Irving | Soaring | 1 | December 15th 03 11:45 PM |
Lesson in Glass | JimC | Owning | 3 | August 6th 03 01:09 AM |