Questions for you glass-panel folks

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:xbFzj.63032$yE1.18737@attbi_s21...
I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought
it
might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
learn
anything of huge value.

Is this in the latest version of MSFS?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Yep I have whatever the latest is, "X" I think?

WingFlaps writes:

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by Reality XP
avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to the
real thing.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
WingFlaps writes:

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by
Reality XP
avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to
the
real thing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!

How would you know what the real thing was like sim-boi???

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

WingFlaps writes:

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by
Reality XP avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the
simulation to the real thing.

Idiot. You don't know **** from shinola.

On Mar 7, 8:55*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
WingFlaps writes:
Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

It's a simulation, not a game. *The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by Reality XP
avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to the
real thing.

All details including the bugs?

Cheers

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:42:56 -0500, Peter Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:



My questions a

1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
easy?

Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
(missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).

The flight director is not implemented in every G1000 out there.

2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

I seriously doubt it. They'd have to have a restriction to G1000, or
restriction to Avydine (like the old centerline thrust thing) and i
doubt there's any interest in re-writing that part of part 61.

Actually it's the other way around. There is serious consideration to
require additional training for glass panel use. The reason being, too
many pilots jump in with little or no training and attempt to use
everything right off the bat.

Not all controls are intuitive and trying to learn to insert, change
and delete waypoints while in the clouds is not considered to be a
good thing..
The training I've seen is cumbersome and can be confusing as again
they try to teach everything in a short course.

Flying behind a glass panel is very easy. The scan is simpler than
steam gages as everything is "right there" and well laid out. Some
pilots do have a major problem changing their thinking to the new
layout. I have no problems with it or timing an approach with a
digital watch just reading the numbers (not a countdown timer) while
others find it impossible.

Just spend time flying VFR behind one, then add functions one at a
time after studying the manual or Garmin simulator. Taken stepwise
it's an easy undertaking. Taken all at once it can be overwhelming.

It's when you try to use all of the major functions that the need for
training, spending time working with the Garmin simulator, or better
yet, study then go out with a safety pilot so you can spend time with
your "head in the cockpit" learning hands on.

Renting may be a royal pain as some require you know how to do
"everything" before they'll even let you take it out VFR.

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

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:42:56 -0500, Peter Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:



My questions a

1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction
of
the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
easy?

Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
(missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).

The flight director is not implemented in every G1000 out there.

2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

I seriously doubt it. They'd have to have a restriction to G1000, or
restriction to Avydine (like the old centerline thrust thing) and i
doubt there's any interest in re-writing that part of part 61.

Actually it's the other way around. There is serious consideration to
require additional training for glass panel use. The reason being, too
many pilots jump in with little or no training and attempt to use
everything right off the bat.

Not all controls are intuitive and trying to learn to insert, change
and delete waypoints while in the clouds is not considered to be a
good thing..
The training I've seen is cumbersome and can be confusing as again
they try to teach everything in a short course.

Flying behind a glass panel is very easy. The scan is simpler than
steam gages as everything is "right there" and well laid out. Some
pilots do have a major problem changing their thinking to the new
layout. I have no problems with it or timing an approach with a
digital watch just reading the numbers (not a countdown timer) while
others find it impossible.

Just spend time flying VFR behind one, then add functions one at a
time after studying the manual or Garmin simulator. Taken stepwise
it's an easy undertaking. Taken all at once it can be overwhelming.

It's when you try to use all of the major functions that the need for
training, spending time working with the Garmin simulator, or better
yet, study then go out with a safety pilot so you can spend time with
your "head in the cockpit" learning hands on.

Renting may be a royal pain as some require you know how to do
"everything" before they'll even let you take it out VFR.

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


Where I rent I think it is 5 hours dual and a sign off to fly the G1000 all
you want after that.

On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck wrote:
2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
reduce the requirements.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
reduce the requirements.

Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.

If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
new computer programmers to learn Cobol. The skill set that the FAA is
testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.

I suppose the same thing happened when the old A/N radio ranges were
supplanted by the VORs?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:05:31 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
reduce the requirements.

Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.

If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
new computer programmers to learn Cobol. The skill set that the FAA is
testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.

I suppose the same thing happened when the old A/N radio ranges were
supplanted by the VORs?

Technically you still need to switch to the VOR to drive the HSI for
VOR approaches. You can't just leave it in GPS mode unless you're on
an RNAV approach. And shooting an ILS localizer is still the same
regardless of G1000 or not. Agree that ADF is quite useless nowadays
in domestic operations, but they're still prevelant (and required for
IFR flight) in JAR countries, and are factory installed in G1000
aircraft which are exported to those places, so having a basic
knoweldge of them isn't unreasonable.