Checkout in a G1000 C182

Matt Barrow wrote:
My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in
actual
IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel
pilot
who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other
way
around.

Probably so, due to the very different scan requirements.

Thing is, here and now/today, how many expereinced pilots came up on
steam
gauges vs. EFIS?

You know, a friend of mine remembers an FBO (many years ago) where
anyone could rent a taildragger, but there were minimum hour
requirements to rent a tri-gear airplane. That was because all the
trikes were expensive and new, while the taildraggers were old and
cheap - and anyway, everyone learned on taildraggers so it was no big
deal. Didn't last, of course.

Sure, right now most people learn on steam gauges. But with the
trainers coming out with glass panels, this won't last. I'm just
waiting for someone to set up a glass-panel C-172 (or equivalnet) with
a pair of 430's for nav and no external CDI, and advertise his
minimum-hours instrument rating. No partial panel. No NDB. No DME.
No compass turns. No timed turns. If the PFD fails, just drive the
little airplane around on the GPS screen as you follow the purple line.
Just wait...

One thing I found harder to get used to was adapting/making changes
_in
flight_ under the EFIS system (when I was new to it).

What changes are there to make if all you are using is the direct-goto
and VOR-ILS functionality? This is my point - if you use the flight
plan feature and the other advanced features, then yes, making changes
in flight is tougher. But if you simply set up the system to give you
the minimum functionality that you get from steam gauges, you never
have to change a thing in flight except the destination waypoint or
VOR/LOC frequency - and the steam gauge pilot can do that.

Yes, but that doesn't addres WHY so much training is on the glass
screens,
compared to actually flying the fast, slippeery aircraft.

Because the training aims for full functionality, which is necessary
for safe flight in those fast and slippery aircraft. It wouldn't be an
issue if they were only teaching basic functionality.

And the discussion is not about flying a 182 under IFR, it's about
flying a
totally different avionics system under IFR.

Irrelevant - it's still a C-182. Therefore it doesn't matter what
avionics you have - they ALL give you minimum functionality easily, and
for the C-182 the minimum functionality is all you need.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Matt Barrow wrote:
My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in
actual
IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel
pilot
who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other
way
around.

Probably so, due to the very different scan requirements.

Thing is, here and now/today, how many expereinced pilots came up on
steam
gauges vs. EFIS?

You know, a friend of mine remembers an FBO (many years ago) where
anyone could rent a taildragger, but there were minimum hour
requirements to rent a tri-gear airplane. That was because all the
trikes were expensive and new, while the taildraggers were old and
cheap - and anyway, everyone learned on taildraggers so it was no big
deal. Didn't last, of course.

Sure, right now most people learn on steam gauges. But with the
trainers coming out with glass panels, this won't last.

Yup...but at this moment in time it's EXPENSIVE, whicle the development and
STC coss get amortized.

I'm just
waiting for someone to set up a glass-panel C-172 (or equivalnet) with
a pair of 430's for nav and no external CDI, and advertise his
minimum-hours instrument rating. No partial panel. No NDB. No DME.
No compass turns. No timed turns. If the PFD fails, just drive the
little airplane around on the GPS screen as you follow the purple line.
Just wait...

Sooner than you think, me thinks! :~)


One thing I found harder to get used to was adapting/making changes
_in
flight_ under the EFIS system (when I was new to it).

What changes are there to make if all you are using is the direct-goto
and VOR-ILS functionality?

Change in routing.

This is my point - if you use the flight
plan feature and the other advanced features, then yes, making changes
in flight is tougher.

But if you simply set up the system to give you
the minimum functionality that you get from steam gauges, you never
have to change a thing in flight except the destination waypoint or
VOR/LOC frequency - and the steam gauge pilot can do that.

Doesn't work in certain hardware.


Yes, but that doesn't addres WHY so much training is on the glass
screens,
compared to actually flying the fast, slippeery aircraft.

Because the training aims for full functionality, which is necessary
for safe flight in those fast and slippery aircraft. It wouldn't be an
issue if they were only teaching basic functionality.

Quite, but the training I was speaking of is 13 days in class (no, CLASS
days, not calendar days), and that was with very professional training
staff.


And the discussion is not about flying a 182 under IFR, it's about
flying a
totally different avionics system under IFR.

Irrelevant - it's still a C-182.

Completely relevant -- the issue is the avionics; if they fly the same
aircraft with the standard "steam gauges", there is no tranistion
requirement. And as mentioned, getting familiar with it so as to be
proficient (and demonstrating such) in the air is a bit different than
merely in a classroom

Therefore it doesn't matter what
avionics you have - they ALL give you minimum functionality easily, and
for the C-182 the minimum functionality is all you need.

And then when someone prangs it, guess who gets sued. And even if not, guess
who takes the class then bitches that the gear doesn't work as advertised
and "all they gave me was the basics, but I need full IFR (or some such)?

In summary, they are practicing CYA. Just like doctors that call for $600
worth of test when you go in for a hangnail.

Let me ask you, how much time do you have behind a glass panel?

And then when someone prangs it, guess who gets sued.

Now we're at the heart of the matter. It's FUD.

Let me ask you, how much time do you have behind a glass panel?

I have about 5 hours in all-glass (the late-model Cirrus) and about
another 20 hours in planes without a glass PFD but lots with advanced
avionics (430/430, 430/530, and 430/MX20 stacks with traffic and
weather integrated). Maybe a quarter of that is actual IMC. And
really it took about 20 minutes to figure it out. On my first flight
in the Cirrus, I had to bail out the pilot flying it when he blew the
approach, and I found it to be no big deal. But then I have 100+ hours
actual IMC on steam gauges.

Now let me ask you - how much actual IMC do you have on steam gauges?

Michael