Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

wrote in message ...


C J Campbell wrote:


G-1000. I had a difficult time maintaining my altitude; the altitude and
airspeed tapes just didn't seem to be in the right place for my scan. A
little practice would be necessary to get proficient.

Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters
and
V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and
restricted
to type.

That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
standardization and no type requirements.


All the manufacturers that are offering the G-1000 that I know of include
enough training that it could be considered equivalent to a type rating. I
suspect insurance companies will require it for subsequent owners and
renters. Cessna is sending us the syllabi for training pilots in the G-1000
next week. On Tuesday I will try to wangle a demo flight in the G-1000
equipped 182 for comparison. Cessna's installation appears to have some
differences from the Diamond installation, such as the way it uses backup
batteries.

The funny thing about this is that so many planes are coming out with this
panel. Once you become familiar with it, the instrumentation on all these
different types will be virtually identical. A person familiar with G-1000
on one type would probably require far less time to transition to another
type than it used to take.

Hi,

The funny thing about this is that so many planes are coming out with this
panel. Once you become familiar with it, the instrumentation on all these
different types will be virtually identical. A person familiar with G-1000
on one type would probably require far less time to transition to another
type than it used to take.

It will even be more easy to handle this stuff while the number of airplanes
G1000 equipped raises. There's a correlation between the number of users of
a machine in the past and the (less) difficulty in learning to handle it.

British biologist Rupert Sheldrake wrote a couple of books about these
'morphgenetic fields' as he calls them. It's the same phenomenon why a
QWERTY keyboard is a lot easier to use for a total newbie than alle the
ergonomicaly designed stuff that was introduced the last years...

Kind regards,
Peter

Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters and
V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and restricted
to type.

That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
standardization and no type requirements.


While you have a point, IMHO one has to be very careful not to fall into the "it#s
bad because it's different" trap. Otherwise, we would never have (had) any
progress at all.

At other times, we complain about too much regulation in flying. In this case,
you're calling for it. I don't think you can have it both ways - and I DO think
most pilots are still able to learn, and many might even enjoy it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters and
V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and restricted
to type.

That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
standardization and no type requirements.


While you have a point, IMHO one has to be very careful not to fall into the "it#s
bad because it's different" trap. Otherwise, we would never have (had) any
progress at all.

No, "it's" not bad at all. How "it's" used will be either good or bad, or somewhere
between. For the airline pilot, the fancy stuff is good because he or she is isolated
to that equipment with adequate training and exposure for proficiency to occur.

And, keep in mind the airline crews have two sets of eyes, two pairs of hands, and FMS
alphanumeric keyboards with which to enter data, as opposed to twisting knobs.



At other times, we complain about too much regulation in flying. In this case,
you're calling for it. I don't think you can have it both ways - and I DO think
most pilots are still able to learn, and many might even enjoy it.

I don't believe I called for regulation, although you apparently inferred that from my
comparison to type ratings.

The record for light aircraft IFR operations is not good. Making the equipment more
complex, albeit more capable, could make things worse without really good training
(i.e., not the blind leading the blind) and a commitment to currency and proficiency.

In article , wrote:

The record for light aircraft IFR operations is not good.

huh? While it's not perfect, and some other categories of operations
are better, the record for light aircraft IFR operations is
in fact pretty good.

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , wrote:

The record for light aircraft IFR operations is not good.

huh? While it's not perfect, and some other categories of operations
are better, the record for light aircraft IFR operations is
in fact pretty good.


I guess we have different ideas of what's good. ;-)

Making the equipment more
complex,


Yes, but is it? A GPS moving map approach is more complex than an NDB
approach? Or a DME arc? or anything else very complex? You sure? I'm
not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Making the equipment more
complex,


Yes, but is it? A GPS moving map approach is more complex than an NDB
approach? Or a DME arc? or anything else very complex? You sure? I'm
not.


You fly GPS approaches using the moving map? I use the CDI and the along
track distance cross-checking with the approach chart.

Once the approach is loaded from the database, and the pilot is headed
for the correct fix as per the procedure for the circumstances, flying an
LNAV approach is easier than flying an NDB approach, and far more
accurate. But, it is more difficult than flying an ILS approach and not
as safe. Flying a Baro VNAV approach (once all the database issues are
resolved) is very similar to flying an ILS and is about as safe.

But, so far as I know, no light aircraft has IFR-certified Baro VNAV.

Is there a means to leave the transponder on? Ground radar is being tested at
Providence now, and is likely going to be showing up at air carrier airports
around the country soon requires the transponder on for any movement on the
ground. Providence announces on ATIS that transponder use is mandatory on all
taxiways and runways. If the trasnponder automatically goes to standby when the
airspeed is below stall, this could be a big problem.

C J Campbell wrote:

... The transponder, which
automatically sets itself to ALT when your airspeed reaches 30 knots, shut
itself off as we taxied off the runway.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...
Is there a means to leave the transponder on? Ground radar is being
tested at
Providence now, and is likely going to be showing up at air carrier
airports
around the country soon requires the transponder on for any movement on
the
ground. Providence announces on ATIS that transponder use is mandatory on
all
taxiways and runways. If the trasnponder automatically goes to standby
when the
airspeed is below stall, this could be a big problem.


There should be; I'll check it out.