Questions for you glass-panel folks

Dan wrote:
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

Not that it is bad other than time spent learning how to do approaches
with a piece of equipment you not only might never use but probably
won't ever even see is a waste of time and money.

When I was getting my private in the late 70's there wasn't an NDB
approach anywhere near us. The CFI would regularly placard the ADF that
was in one of their planes IN-OP when ever they sent a pilot for a check
ride.

Yeah, but will the Lowrance and AvMap units integrate into a Garmin panel?

By "integrate" do you mean "talk to" the other units?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

But flying with the new technology only happens with a very small
minority of pilots. Probably at least 80% of pilots flying small singles
do not have IFR-approved GPS. Until the majority of light singles have
IFR-approved GPS, the FAA simply aren't in a position to drop those
kinds of requirements.

Unless they do a 'lite' instrument rating, restricted to IFR GPS
equipped planes only, a bit like the centreline twin rating.

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

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.

On 2008-03-05, WingFlaps wrote:
Let me get this straight, you were simulating flying a computer on
your computer? You need to get out more!

I note from Airbus A380 cockpit photos is that there appears to be a
standard Windows PC built into both the captain's and first officer's
side of the plane, with a swing out keyboard/trackball. Presumably this
is for the typical non-flying 'information systems'.

I wonder if anyone's loaded Flight Sim onto one of these :-)

Or better still, if anyone's loaded Flight Sim onto the cockpit PCs of
the full motion A380 simulator!

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

On 2008-03-05, Michael wrote:
I find it moronic that many FBO's/clubs are requiring special training
for these systems. It's the steam gauges that should require special
training. Glass is trivially easy.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to go "dummy mode on" when they are
confronted with anything that looks like a computer with lots of knobs
and switches on.

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

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:TNFzj.9962$TT4.1117@attbi_s22...
Yep I have whatever the latest is, "X" I think?

Dang, that's disappointing. Can you give me a run-down of what's
missing? Is the G1000 functional, with some subtle things missing, or are
there big chunks of functionality that they simply forgot to include?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Not all the sub menus are there like engine leaning (which is something I
wanted to understand better), some of the cool stuff like the XM weather
overlay, I don't *think* it has terrain. Not all the buttons work, not as
many softkey options but I haven't flown the G1000 for a couple months due
to work and weather so my memory is a little hazy. I haven't played with
MSFS since late last year so I just can't remember it all either. Still at
least it is there in some shape, there could even be an updated panel done
by someone with all the features intact I just don't get into the flight sim
stuff like I used to so I haven't looked online.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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

The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
me interested.

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

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:13:50 -0500, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:03 -0500, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
news 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).


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. I took the King course as well but the G1000 has
way
to many menus, submenus, windows etc. compared to the MSFS version that I
felt fairly lost once I sat in front of the real thing. Still the G1000 is
awesome and a lot of fun to learn!

A much better option for getting familiar with the G1000 system is to
buy the $5 CD from Garmin. The simulator is customized to the

The original Garmin sims were downloadable for free.(IIRC)

aircraft series it's in (Cessna NAVIII for example) and has the
appropriate things enabled for that airframe, and contains all the
features of the G1000 system (just like the 430/530 simulators did for
those boxes).

Yeah I have seen those available just haven't got around to getting it. I
was hoping the King's course had something with it like that, but alas, no.

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