GPS vs ADF

Michael wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Some folks with a lot of professional flying experience find some of
this stuff quite flexible and useful.


And I do as well.


Sure don't have to be an engineer.


I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
their 430's, 530's, etc.


But, it is sure equipment specific. I am proficient in the
use of the Garmin 530 but that took some time.


How much time did it take to become proficient in the use of other
navigation equipment, once the basic instrument rating was attained?

Well, I got my instrument rating in 1958. ;-)


I wouldn't even attempt to use any other panel mount without a similar
amount of learning and practice.


Which took how long? I've heard estimates in the 10-40 hour range.

Around 10 hours using the Garmin trainer integrated with MSFS.


I also find using the 530 in a single
pilot environment without an autopilot to be a excessive knob twisting,
bad human-factors situation.


So let's see. You find that you need a significant amount of learning
and practice to use one particular make of GPS, that much of this won't
carry over to another make, and that even after you have learned to use
it, the workload required to use it single pilot without autopilot to
be excessive. I'm not surprised.

Yes, I am a retired airline pilot who, after a lot of early G/A
experience, got used to a far better human-factors environment in
airline flight operations.

I find it to be quite flexible and useful, and without those caveats -
I find the workload of a 530 to be quite low, and the learning curve to
be quite short. Of course I have a graduate degree in engineering and
significant experience designing and using computerized equipment.

A lot of it has to do with a trained mind that could be in disciplines
other than engineering.

It didn't have to be that way. If it were up to me, GPS approaches
would be designed the same way as on-field VOR-DME approaches without a
FAF. You have the MAP/holding fix and a radial. You select the MAP,
put the unit in OBS mode, select the radial, and fly the standard
approach with PT in a manner familiar to every instrument rating holder
out there. If you need stepdown fixes, you add them. The interface to
the essential unit functionality could thus be standard and familiar.
But it wasn't done that way.

You are thinking too much in light aircraft terms. All this stuff is
designed for the airlines, who own the FAA.