Instrument Rating Question

On Aug 31, 7:37*am, VOR-DME wrote:
Good question - good thread.
Lots of divergant responses, with good reasoning behind them.
For what it's worth, I chose to do my IR on the traditional panel, for the
reasons mentioned by other contributors. I figured it would be easier to
transition from gauges to glass than the other way around, also as a
non-owner there is always a strong possibility that a plane I rent (at
least in the immediate future)would not be glass, so good IFR familiarity
on the traditional panel seemed a must for me. Finally, I figured the
transition from steam to glass meant more dual instruction, and I take that
as an advantage, even if it comes at a cost.

Related question : Autopilot or no. I chose to do my IR without autopilot,
for similar reasons to the above, however I am a strong believer in
autopilots, have studied their use, and consider them to be an important
safety feature in single-pilot IFR. Others aill disagree.

I define risk as the number of things that can go bad. It's lots
higher with the glass cockpit. Lightning, electrical problems, etc
are more likely with the electronics.

In article
,
Stubby wrote:

I define risk as the number of things that can go bad. It's lots
higher with the glass cockpit. Lightning, electrical problems, etc
are more likely with the electronics.

This is a poor picture of risk. Compare jumping off a cliff with no
parachute to baking a cake. Very few things can go wrong during the
former operation, but the risk is extremely high. Many things can go
wrong during the latter, but the risk is extremely low. For a complete
picture, you need to multiply each potential problem by its danger and
its probability.

This is not to take away from your overall point. I'm sure that the risk
is higher even taking these into account, which is why glass cockpits
still have old-style backup gauges.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In article
,
says...


I define risk as the number of things that can go bad. It's lots
higher with the glass cockpit. Lightning, electrical problems, etc
are more likely with the electronics.

I think many pilots will take exception to your definition of risk.
Even if we do look at it your way, the total number of things that can go
wrong an any flight would probably indicate a strong preference for the
increased sutuational awareness afforded by the glass cockpit environment. The
unlikely eventuality of a failure of the glass cockpit itself, while low on
the list of probabilities, is managed by the inclusion of traditional
instruments for backup.

It is later easier to transition from steam gauges to G1000 than the opposite direction. If I were you,
I'd start with the traditional ones.

Exactly. A G1000 is just an electronic device. And, there are people
on this forum (still, I think) who have had G1000s fail in IMC, at
night, over water. If your G1000 fails and you have to rely on steam
gauges, it would be one hell of a bad time to have to learn what
virtually ever other instrument pilot already knows. We've also seen
Garmin 430s fail. (Cell phone!)

With gauges, if you lose, say, your attitude indicator, whatever. You
can get all the info you need from the other instruments and it's
unlikely you're going to lose them all. If your Garmin fails, you have
a problem.

Plus, if you're ever flying in a non-equipped airplane and you get
stuck in IMC, you can't just flip on the G1000. You don't want your
flying to be dependent upon one type of system unless you're only
going to fly that type of system.

My .02. Cheers!

Chris Gattman
CFI, KTTD

On Aug 31, 4:37*am, VOR-DME wrote:

Related question : Autopilot or no. I chose to do my IR without autopilot,
for similar reasons to the above, however I am a strong believer in
autopilots, have studied their use, and consider them to be an important
safety feature in single-pilot IFR. Others aill disagree.

Whoops. Forgot to mention autopilot. It's disabled in almost all of
our company aircraft but the twin. We don't want instrument students
(or -especially- students) getting lazy or dependent upon it.

Autopilot for real-world single-pilot IFR is very useful but we want
instrument students to be able to fly without it, exactly as is
required during the checkride. It's trivially easy to show them how
and when to use it once they've mastered instrument flying.

-c

"C Gattman" wrote in message
...

It is later easier to transition from steam gauges to G1000 than the
opposite direction. If I were you,
I'd start with the traditional ones.

Exactly. A G1000 is just an electronic device. And, there are people
on this forum (still, I think) who have had G1000s fail in IMC, at
night, over water. If your G1000 fails and you have to rely on steam
gauges, it would be one hell of a bad time to have to learn what
virtually ever other instrument pilot already knows. We've also seen
Garmin 430s fail. (Cell phone!)

Hmmm... when I was learning the G1000, much of the lesson plan entailed
transition to the backup steam gauges.

With gauges, if you lose, say, your attitude indicator, whatever. You
can get all the info you need from the other instruments and it's
unlikely you're going to lose them all. If your Garmin fails, you have
a problem.


Just curious: What is the MTBF for G1000 vs steam gauges?

Plus, if you're ever flying in a non-equipped airplane and you get
stuck in IMC, you can't just flip on the G1000. You don't want your
flying to be dependent upon one type of system unless you're only
going to fly that type of system.


Agreed that unless you're going to utilize one aircraft or one series, you
need to learn the "stick shift" method. At least with such systems as the
G1000, the vast majority of your failure contention training can be done in
a sim.

Matt

"C Gattman" wrote in message
...
On Aug 31, 4:37 am, VOR-DME wrote:

Related question : Autopilot or no. I chose to do my IR without autopilot,
for similar reasons to the above, however I am a strong believer in
autopilots, have studied their use, and consider them to be an important
safety feature in single-pilot IFR. Others aill disagree.

: Whoops. Forgot to mention autopilot. It's disabled in almost all of
: our company aircraft but the twin. We don't want instrument students
: (or -especially- students) getting lazy or dependent upon it.

You mean like the ATP guys are dependant on it?

: Autopilot for real-world single-pilot IFR is very useful but we want
: instrument students to be able to fly without it, exactly as is
: required during the checkride. It's trivially easy to show them how
: and when to use it once they've mastered instrument flying.

I'd think you want them to have good familiarity with using it under all
conditions.

On Sep 16, 7:33*am, "Matt Barrow" wrote:

: Whoops. Forgot to mention autopilot. It's disabled in almost all of
: our company aircraft but the twin. We don't want instrument students
: (or -especially- students) getting lazy or dependent upon it.

You mean like the ATP guys are dependant on it?

The ATP pilots around our shop would be the first to agree. There are
a few regulars including UPS pilots and a couple who both fly FedEx
heavies and they joke about their own stick and rudder skills all the
time. One of them, a retired Air Force pilot who currently flies for
UPS, is putting his son through flight school and hangs out with us
when his son is flying. One thing you learn is that ATP pilots are
people too.

Another hired me to take him and his son in a "real airplane" so while
we were circling over their house in a 172, I told the son "Most CFIs
just want to fly jets, and the jet pilots say they long to fly small
planes again" and his father told him "You don't know how true that
is." I asked him carefully why he didn't take his own son flying and
he said "no way."

: Autopilot for real-world single-pilot IFR is very useful but we want instrument students to be able to fly without it, exactly as is
: required during the checkride. It's trivially easy to show them how and when to use it once they've mastered instrument flying.

I'd think you want them to have good familiarity with using it under all conditions.

Sure, but, if you have a teenage son and a new truck, you're probably
going to make sure he can drive himself before teaching him how to use
the cruise control. It's usually best to start with the fundamentals
and incorporate the shortcuts once the student has mastered the
required basics like straight-and-level flight in IMC. Having said
that, you definitely don't want somebody operating autopilot unless
they know how to use. During a checkride, an examiner would probably
expect you to discuss or demonstrate its use if the airplane was so
equipped.

-c

On Aug 24, 11:41*am, "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:
Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye candy!
They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old) but they
have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam gauges for
my private but not sure which way I should go for my instrument. As time
goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more and more common but I
don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXybnTbjBl8

On Aug 24, 3:39*pm, Tauno Voipio wrote:
Darkwing wrote:
Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for
my Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics
is my biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's
with G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent
for VFR because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I
like eye candy! They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4
years old) but they have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I
trained on steam gauges for my private but not sure which way I should
go for my instrument. As time goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft
will be more and more common but I don't know if that is a crutch for
learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?

It is later easier to transition from steam gauges
to G1000 than the opposite direction. If I were you,
I'd start with the traditional ones.

--

Tauno Voipio (CPL(A), CFII)
Steam gauges: OH-PYM, PA-28RT201T
G1000: OH-STS, DA-42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXybnTbjBl8