G1000 vs Steam guages initial thoughts...

But when it all goes TU, a heading and time to find by DR,
the place within fuel endurance that is VFR, and being
prepared to just hold an altitude and heading, and have an
idea of where you are when you break out an hour or two
later at 8,000 feet 300 miles from you last knew your
position and then find an airport.
I would expect ATC to notice the transponder failed and try
to call, and after no response, track raw returns and clear
everything out of your path. I would expect 2 F-16s to
joint up and lead the way to someplace or shoot my ass down
if I was headed toward a major target, er city.



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Mt point is that the G1000 is easy that the pilot WILL
| become totally dependent on the nav display for
situational
| awareness. If it fails, the pilot will not have any
idea on
| how or where to go. Backup battery is fine, but in many
| areas there isn't an airport of any king within 30
minutes,
| and an IFR approach will be difficult. I'm not worried
| about the control being lost, I'm worried about the
pilot
| being lost.
|
| But again, I think you would notice both screens going
blank. Teaching
| students to look for errors in displayed pitch is probably
not useful
| (or probable).
|
| An IFR approach with a totally dead G1000 isn't possible
under any
| situation. You have no VORs, no GPSs, and only can talk on
121.5. You
| just can't shoot an approach with the backup A/S,
altimeter, and
| attitude indicator.
|
| The chance of a total failure of the G1000 is much less
than the chance
| that my Mooney loses its only electrical bus and my
handheld GPS fails
| at the same time.
|
| All that being said, I really don't see a situation where
a student
| becomes dis-engaged from the system. Flying the G1000
system can be
| demanding. Flying an ILS in my old Mooney is (in many
ways) much easier
| than programming the approach sequence in the G1000. The
G1000 may be
| safer but the Mooney does not require as much pilot
attention.
|
| -Robert
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote:
I would expect 2 F-16s to joint up

Not within 50 feet of the aircraft or for 8 hours before engine start.

You can see 50 feet in a formation, even in a cloud.


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
| I would expect 2 F-16s to joint up
|
| Not within 50 feet of the aircraft or for 8 hours before
engine start.

That's not what Roy meant.
He must know more about "jointing up" than we senior citizens. :-)

My late brother-in-law said a SAC rule was:
"No smoking within 24 hours of flying, and
No drinking within 50 feet of an airplane."

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:WS5Kg.6624$SZ3.5252@dukeread04...
You can see 50 feet in a formation, even in a cloud.


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
| I would expect 2 F-16s to joint up
|
| Not within 50 feet of the aircraft or for 8 hours before
engine start.

It is hard to proofread your own work. I didn't see the
typo, joint instead of join. Missed his humor, too.


"John R. Copeland" wrote in
message news That's not what Roy meant.
He must know more about "jointing up" than we senior
citizens. :-)

My late brother-in-law said a SAC rule was:
"No smoking within 24 hours of flying, and
No drinking within 50 feet of an airplane."

"Jim Macklin" wrote
in message news:WS5Kg.6624$SZ3.5252@dukeread04...
You can see 50 feet in a formation, even in a cloud.


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
| I would expect 2 F-16s to joint up
|
| Not within 50 feet of the aircraft or for 8 hours before
engine start.

Jim Macklin wrote:
But when it all goes TU, a heading and time to find by DR,
the place within fuel endurance that is VFR, and being
prepared to just hold an altitude and heading, and have an
idea of where you are when you break out an hour or two
later at 8,000 feet 300 miles from you last knew your
position and then find an airport.

That's just basic IFR training. The same thing can happen in a steam
gauge airplane. The only difference is that G1000 has more backups. If
you lose your single alternator in a Bonanza and you're IMC for an hour
or so, short of a handheld, you're in the same situation.
However, the original discussion was about second guessing the accuracy
of the information. That is critical in steam gauges since they often
fail in strange ways (like my night IMC "tilted but functional AI").
However, its MUCH less likely in the G1000. In the G1000 you'll either
get red X's or, worse case, blank screen, but not slightly off data.

-Robert

You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
"basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
thinking is done by the machine.



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| But when it all goes TU, a heading and time to find by
DR,
| the place within fuel endurance that is VFR, and being
| prepared to just hold an altitude and heading, and have
an
| idea of where you are when you break out an hour or two
| later at 8,000 feet 300 miles from you last knew your
| position and then find an airport.
|
| That's just basic IFR training. The same thing can happen
in a steam
| gauge airplane. The only difference is that G1000 has more
backups. If
| you lose your single alternator in a Bonanza and you're
IMC for an hour
| or so, short of a handheld, you're in the same situation.
| However, the original discussion was about second guessing
the accuracy
| of the information. That is critical in steam gauges since
they often
| fail in strange ways (like my night IMC "tilted but
functional AI").
| However, its MUCH less likely in the G1000. In the G1000
you'll either
| get red X's or, worse case, blank screen, but not slightly
off data.
|
| -Robert
|

Jim Macklin wrote:
You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
"basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
thinking is done by the machine.

Fair enough, but what is the goal? Is the student "thinking" to second
guess the computer or is the student "thinking" in order to handle a
situation where both computers shut down? Second guessing the PFD is
not as necessary as old gauges because the computer shows a red X for
any fault (vs. the slow death roll of the old gauges). However, the
student still has 3 steam gauges to look at if he wishes (airspeed,
altimeter, attitude).
If the student is "thinking" in case the system shuts down, I think the
proper answer to that is always to carry a portable GPS when flying
IFR. The days of keep track of an emergency heading and time to head
towards an airport in IMC are probably gone. Flying against a portable
GPS is much safer. That applies equally to steam and glass. A full
electrical failure in my steam Mooney is much more likely than in the
glass so a 296 sits right on my yoke.

-Robert

"Jim Macklin" wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
$SZ3.4096@dukeread04:

You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
"basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
thinking is done by the machine.


The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and any
modern full screen GPS...

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:07:38 GMT, Judah wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
$SZ3.4096@dukeread04:

You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
"basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
thinking is done by the machine.


The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and any
modern full screen GPS...

Yup and there are a *lot* of pilots who end up depending on the GPS
without realizing it. The same is true for a good autopilot in IFR
versus hand flying. If you spend a lot of time in the soup you spend
a lot of time on autopilot. Enough time that if it fails it can be a
shock. Still, the competent pilot practices hand flying in IFR,
flying by map, watch and compass, and flying the back up instruments.

I wonder what the percentages are of dependent pilots versus those who
stay competent on the backups?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com