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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
So we've been flying our new "Penguin" -- our brand-new 2-place simulator --
during Movie Night at the Inn (see it he http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ), and last night we started "flying" the G1000-equipped Mooney for the first time. No one in the room (and there was probably 30,000 hours worth of GA experience in that room) has flown a new glass cockpit. Most of the Movie Night regulars are more into the antique/classic aircraft, and I've only flown behind "steam gauges" -- so we quite frankly didn't know what the hell we were doing, at first. However, once we got the hang of the thing, it seemed incredibly, almost laughably easy to fly an instrument approach. Set things up, follow the flight director with occasional reference to the moving map, and bingo -- you're landing in virtually zero-zero visibility. With that huge glass artificial horizon and crisp, graphic depiction, shooting instrument approaches just couldn't be easier. In 2002, before we bought the hotel, I was weeks away from taking the IR check-ride -- so I've got some experience with doing instrument approaches the old-fashioned way. The difference between the two is absolutely stunning since, with almost zero training, anyone in the room could fly a passably safe approach in almost zero visibility. 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? 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit? I'm fairly surprised that the FAA hasn't made changes to the rating that address this exciting advance in capability. I haven't read or heard anyone talking about any simplified instrument rating that this equipment seems to allow, but it sure seems like it would be a great step forward in flight safety for the FAA to do something along these lines. I haven't looked at the instrument written test for six years, but if it still concentrates as much on VOR and NDB approaches as it did in 2002, it would seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of flying these new birds. Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment? After "flying" the sim last night, my eyes have really been opened to the brave new world of glass, and I now more fully understand the enthusiasm pilots have displayed toward them despite their incredibly high cost. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
On 2008-03-05, 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. -- From the sunny Isle of Man. Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
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? -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:05:31 GMT, "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? Technically you still need to switch to the VOR to drive the HSI for VOR approaches. You can't just leave it in GPS mode unless you're on an RNAV approach. And shooting an ILS localizer is still the same regardless of G1000 or not. Agree that ADF is quite useless nowadays in domestic operations, but they're still prevelant (and required for IFR flight) in JAR countries, and are factory installed in G1000 aircraft which are exported to those places, so having a basic knoweldge of them isn't unreasonable. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-03-05, 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. I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings. Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus? Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR flight. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote: Dylan Smith wrote: On 2008-03-05, 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. I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings. Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus? Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR flight. Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote: Dylan Smith wrote: On 2008-03-05, 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. I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings. Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus? Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR flight. Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)? There is Airspeed and Altimeter on the 1000. There is no requirement for a steam back-up. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
"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! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Questions for you glass-panel folks
On Mar 5, 9:37 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
So we've been flying our new "Penguin" -- our brand-new 2-place simulator -- during Movie Night at the Inn (see it hehttp://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm), and last night we started "flying" the G1000-equipped Mooney for the first time. No one in the room (and there was probably 30,000 hours worth of GA experience in that room) has flown a new glass cockpit. Most of the Movie Night regulars are more into the antique/classic aircraft, and I've only flown behind "steam gauges" -- so we quite frankly didn't know what the hell we were doing, at first. However, once we got the hang of the thing, it seemed incredibly, almost laughably easy to fly an instrument approach. Set things up, follow the flight director with occasional reference to the moving map, and bingo -- you're landing in virtually zero-zero visibility. With that huge glass artificial horizon and crisp, graphic depiction, shooting instrument approaches just couldn't be easier. In 2002, before we bought the hotel, I was weeks away from taking the IR check-ride -- so I've got some experience with doing instrument approaches the old-fashioned way. The difference between the two is absolutely stunning since, with almost zero training, anyone in the room could fly a passably safe approach in almost zero visibility. 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? 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit? I'm fairly surprised that the FAA hasn't made changes to the rating that address this exciting advance in capability. I haven't read or heard anyone talking about any simplified instrument rating that this equipment seems to allow, but it sure seems like it would be a great step forward in flight safety for the FAA to do something along these lines. I haven't looked at the instrument written test for six years, but if it still concentrates as much on VOR and NDB approaches as it did in 2002, it would seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of flying these new birds. Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment? After "flying" the sim last night, my eyes have really been opened to the brave new world of glass, and I now more fully understand the enthusiasm pilots have displayed toward them despite their incredibly high cost. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system could support FSX. Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS? Richard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Glass Panel Longevity | john smith | Piloting | 47 | October 24th 06 04:52 AM |
Glass Panel construction DVD | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | July 20th 06 05:41 AM |
A Glass Panel for my old airplane? | Brenor Brophy | Owning | 8 | July 25th 05 07:36 AM |
Glass Panel Scan? | G Farris | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | October 13th 04 04:14 AM |
C182 Glass Panel | Scott Schluer | Piloting | 15 | February 27th 04 03:52 PM |