Questions for you glass-panel folks

On Mar 5, 1:05 pm, "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.

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

xyzzy wrote:


A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.


A pilot coming on now could very easily fly all his life and never see a
working ADF in an aircraft.

On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
xyzzy wrote:

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

A pilot coming on now could very easily fly all his life and never see a
working ADF in an aircraft.


Is that really so bad?

I mean..for old times sake and all...

Of 5 airplanes flown in the past 3 months only one had an ADF. And I
don't know anyone who has used it because there's only one ADF
approach within 120 miles (KLBE).

A local airport has ADF REQUIRED on the LOC 5, but GPS provides that
fix.

Dan

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:42:20 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

xyzzy wrote:


A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.


A pilot coming on now could very easily fly all his life and never see a
working ADF in an aircraft.

But don't throw out the old Loran just yet. They are talking about
mandating LORAN as the ground based backup for GPS and getting rid of
the VORs along with the NDBs. I liked NDBs as there is always
something around on which you can get a fix..
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mar 5, 4:36 pm, xyzzy wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:05 pm, "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.

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

Nope.

There may be one that I know in a company of +500.

C++ and Java are it for the majority of desktop and SMP code written

Dan

On 2008-03-05, Dan wrote:
A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

Nope.

There may be one that I know in a company of +500.

And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
and C++ code?

There's nothing like stepping through assembler and seeing your code
munch the return address on the stack to understand why it's so
important to do basic things like check buffers.

You can always tell programmers who don't understand what the raw iron
is basically doing, too - huge convoluted nested 'if' statements where
some simple bit twiddling would suffice.

Any programmers, certainly any writing C or C++, need to have had
exposure to assembly language. The architecture doesn't matter, a simple
8 bit one would do, the principles are the same. Most good university
courses will still include assembly language when teaching students.

Knowledge at the raw iron level is also very useful when debugging C
code. You won't have debug symbols for everything (or indeed source code
for everything).

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

xyzzy writes:

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.

This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the exception
of those who were actually training to write programs in assembly language.

You still have to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

It's a good idea, but it's hardly necessary. In the future, the basic stuff
will be skipped, especially for commercial pilots.

Mxsmanic wrote:
xyzzy writes:

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.

This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the exception
of those who were actually training to write programs in assembly language.

Bull****. It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
degree. And numerous other universities required it as well. That was in
the past, obviously. But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students
to some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

xyzzy writes:

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.

This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the
exception of those who were actually training to write programs in
assembly language.

You still have to learn the basics before you can learn the modern
stuff.

It's a good idea, but it's hardly necessary. In the future, the basic
stuff will be skipped, especially for commercial pilots.


Never? More bull **** from an asshole who doesn't know **** from
shinola.

Of course, no one will have to learn to walk. We'll all just start
running.

I'd call you a moron, but that would be boosting your IQ by several
million orders of magnitude.

On Mar 6, 3:03 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a good idea, but it's hardly necessary. In the future, the basic stuff
will be skipped, especially for commercial pilots.

The Commercial ticket is about as basic as you get, Mr. Know-it-all.

It's a purely VFR practical with the emphasis on high proficiency on
all the basic maneuvers.

How in the world does what you say said square with what a "commercial
pilot" really is?

As an aside.. when I first saw the level of vitriol directed your way,
I thought, "No one is deserving of this treatment."

I was wrong.


Dan