Questions for you glass-panel folks

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

My son is flying at one of the major aviation schools, and they've gone just
about 100% glass (OK, they have one C-150, a 182, and a Citabria), but all
the C-172s and Diamond Twins are glass. No change in the curriculum, the
written, or the checkride.

On a side note for us over-40's, I've flown a G1000 C-172. Loved the
"instrument" depictions and all. But, bugged the hell out of me because
while I have progressive lenses in my glasses, my flying sunglasses are the
old style lined bifocals. The comm freqs on the G1000 are at the top of the
screen, and the "eyebrow" of the glareshield sticks out enough that if you
have the seat adjusted high and if you have short legs, the eyebrow cuts off
the top line of the G1000. So I have to duck my head down to see the freqs,
and, of course, that puts that part of the display into the distance part of
the lens. Drove me crazy. Maybe you can reposition things around on the
display; I wasn't in there for a formal checkout so I dunno....

Carl


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

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 5 Mar, 15:37, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
So we've been flying our new "Penguin" -- our brand-new 2-place simulator -- *
during Movie Night at the Inn (see it hehttp://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm), and last night we
started "flying" the G1000-equipped Mooney for the first time.

No one in the room (and there was probably 30,000 hours worth of GA
experience in that room) has flown a new glass cockpit. *Most of the Movie
Night regulars are more into the antique/classic aircraft, and I've only
flown behind "steam gauges" -- so we quite frankly didn't know what the hell
we were doing, at first.

However, once we got the hang of the thing, it seemed incredibly, almost
laughably easy to fly an instrument approach. * Set things up, follow the
flight director with occasional reference to the moving map, and bingo -- *
you're landing in virtually zero-zero visibility. *With that huge glass
artificial horizon and crisp, graphic depiction, shooting instrument
approaches just couldn't be easier.

In 2002, before we bought the hotel, I was weeks away from taking the IR
check-ride -- so I've got some experience with doing instrument approaches
the old-fashioned way. *The difference between the two is absolutely
stunning since, with almost zero training, anyone in the room could fly a
passably safe approach in almost zero visibility.

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?

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

I'm fairly surprised that the FAA hasn't made changes to the rating that
address this exciting advance in capability. *I haven't read or heard anyone
talking about any simplified instrument rating that this equipment seems to
allow, but it sure seems like it would be a great step forward in flight
safety for the FAA to do something along these lines.

I haven't looked at the instrument written test for six years, but if it
still concentrates as much on VOR and NDB approaches as it did in 2002, it
would seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of flying these new
birds. * Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment?

After "flying" the sim last night, my eyes have really been opened to the
brave new world of glass, and I now more fully understand the enthusiasm
pilots have displayed toward them despite their incredibly high cost.

Good grief, he's channeling Antyhony now.



Bertie

On 5 Mar, 22:23, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Let me get this straight, you were simulating flying a computer on
your computer? You need to get out more!

Ha! *Never thought

Surprise.


Bertie

On 5 Mar, 17:05, "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.

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?

This is depressing beyond words. Another advocate for dumming
down....




Bertie

On a side note for us over-40's, I've flown a G1000 C-172. Loved the
"instrument" depictions and all. But, bugged the hell out of me because
while I have progressive lenses in my glasses, my flying sunglasses are
the old style lined bifocals. The comm freqs on the G1000 are at the top
of the screen, and the "eyebrow" of the glareshield sticks out enough that
if you have the seat adjusted high and if you have short legs, the eyebrow
cuts off the top line of the G1000. So I have to duck my head down to see
the freqs,

I've found this to be true with our Garmin 496 as well. Worse, my polarized
clip-on sunglasses make most of the already muddy 496 display unreadable, so
I end up having to take my sunglasses off to read the danged thing.

This is the main reason we have relegated the 496 to the co-pilot's side of
the plane. The Lowrance 2000c, with its high-contrast yellow background,
simply has a much more readable display, so we use it as our primary
navigational tool mounted on the pilot's yoke.

The 496, with its dinky, muddy green/brown, low-contrast screen (which is
oriented in less-than-ideal landscape mode) is panel-docked for the co-pilot
to dick around with. Quite frankly it's a really nice entertainment center
(with XM radio), and it has the weather depicted nicely for the co-pilot to
interpret -- but (when compared to the competition) it's a truly
sub-standard GPS in nearly all other respects.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2008-03-06, Jay Honeck wrote:
The 496, with its dinky, muddy green/brown, low-contrast screen (which is
oriented in less-than-ideal landscape mode) is panel-docked for the co-pilot
to dick around with. Quite frankly it's a really nice entertainment center
(with XM radio), and it has the weather depicted nicely for the co-pilot to
interpret -- but (when compared to the competition) it's a truly
sub-standard GPS in nearly all other respects.

Yeah, but will the Lowrance and AvMap units integrate into a Garmin panel?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

The FAA doesn't have a "curriculum" period.

If you're talking about the written, it's been woefully out of date
since before the beginning of the GPS era.

Even notwithstanding the G1000, the advent of the moving map GPS
has greatly changed situational awareness for IFR.

Much as I like my autopilot, you could have my moving map GPS
for IFR when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

On Mar 5, 4:19 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system
could support FSX.

Yep, we're running FSX. The Mooney that comes with FSX has the G1000
system built-in.

Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS?

Yes. We are running multiple screens with very good performance.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I showed my 11 year old, who took a Young Eagle flight last year, your
setup and there was much drooling.

Richard

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:53:55 -0500, Ron Natalie
wrote:

The FAA doesn't have a "curriculum" period.

Although they do vet and approve curriculums for use in part 141
schools.