Glass big learning curve?

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

"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.
In that case it's no wonder the insurance rates are so high.

In one sense, no. I don't believe there is a single accident
attributed to lack of partial panel proficiency in a Cirrus, with the
possible exception of the guy who launched into 800 ft ceilings on the
first flight after major panel work and wound up pulling the chute.
The airplane is quite reliable. People are not crashing because they
are depending on systems that fail.

But in another sense you are right. People are crasing because their
skill level is not up to the airplane, and this basic problem is not
being addressed. Limited panel flying has intrinsic value over and
above coping with the particular failure being simulated - it forces
the pilot to become sharper, to get more out of the instruments, and to
become smoother. It improves all aspects of his flying.

As long as all the automation works, the Skyhawk IFR pilot can be a
Cirrus IFR pilot with his existing skill set
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.

Let's say it's a difference in degree only, and not in kind. On my
first flight in the glass panel Cirrus I asked the owner why there was
no CDI other than in the PFD. He didn't see my point. I explained
that if the PFD went out, the only approach we could shoot would be a
GPS or GPS overlay (using the Garmin display) since there were 2
GNS-430's but no external CDI for either. I felt this was acceptable
(what are the odds of PFD failure in conditions where GPS approach
conditions are not in range?) but suboptimal. He then explained that
the factory recommends not shooting a manual approach with a failed PFD
at all - just couple up the autopilot and let it do the job. This
despite the fact that altimeter, ASI, compass, and AI are all
available.

But at least part of the problem must be laid squarely at the feet of
the people doing the teaching and testing. This pilot took his IFR
checkride in his Cirrus, and the DE insisted he do a manual LOC
approach with the PFD off. Of course the GPS is NOT as accurate as a
LOC close in, but the DE didn't want to hear it. Thus I am reluctant
to blame the peope who are not being properly trained - what chance do
they have if even the DE's have no clue?

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.

Like I said,
Personally, I think that's a ****-poor way to do things.

The real hazard, though, is not that the system that the pilot is
depending on will fail. These are fairly new airplanes, and those
systems are reliable. They're not failing a lot. The real problem is
that the system only does what it's built to do. Training makes a
pilot better overall. Substitute systems for training, and you better
hope you have systems to do EVERYTHING the pilot does, because without
the training, you will have an inferior pilot.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...

The real hazard, though, is not that the system that the pilot is
depending on will fail. These are fairly new airplanes, and those
systems are reliable. They're not failing a lot. The real problem is
that the system only does what it's built to do. Training makes a
pilot better overall. Substitute systems for training, and you better
hope you have systems to do EVERYTHING the pilot does, because without
the training, you will have an inferior pilot.

Michael

I have kept out of this debate but the above raises a significant
opportunity.
I don't know what exists yet in the US, but in Oz there is some classroom
training associated with flying the Cirrus however I am unaware of any
"glass cockpit" course per se.
Our regulator has kept the syllabus to the days of rag and string and pommie
motors, with a lot of emphasis on technical matters of no real use.
What is needed is a part of the syllabus / course / book on the management
and use of the glass cockpit, based around the current Avidyne/Garmin gear.
It's the way of the future and training should respond accordingly to assist
pilots to make the transition. Particularly us "matures" as the next
generation will be flying these cockpits as the norm.
Brian