If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
C182 - Intermittent Alternator | WinstonCup | Owning | 9 | November 12th 04 12:22 AM |
c182 fuel burn | Rob Timmerman | Owning | 18 | July 7th 04 03:46 PM |
C182 Glass Panel | Scott Schluer | Piloting | 15 | February 27th 04 03:52 PM |
Garmin G1000 | Foster | Owning | 2 | July 20th 03 06:45 PM |