Questions for you glass-panel folks

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:36:53 -0800 (PST), xyzzy
wrote:

On Mar 5, 1:05 pm, "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.

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

Not that I know of. I earned my BS degree in CS (graduated in 90 and
*started* on my Masters) At that time Assembler was not required. OTOH
I took a course in microprocessor design and programming that was in
machine language. We had to use the Assembly Language "bingo Card" to
look up the code and then convert to Hex. We entered everything in
Hex (into volatile memory) and were expected to run the program, get
the proper results and exit gracefully. Then the instructor would run
it again.:-)) We even had to do addition by rotating left and right
in the registers and physically manipulate (write to and read from)
the stacks when doing procedure calls and returns. "GoTos" were not
allowed.

The final exam was a two parter. The first was 50 questions. 10 were
T&F, the rest either took calculations or an essay answer. The second
half was to write a fairly sizeable program in Assembler. I think it
took about 7 pages of instructions. Couple guys handed theirs in
while I was only about half done. I was almost ready to panic except I
found they had given up. Made it through the whole course only to
give up half way through the final exam.

That was one of the courses I aced.:-)) Let's not talk about
networks and calculating bandwidth for a given string at a given speed
though.:-)) Lots of Calculus there. In Grad school I took two
courses and taught 5 as a GA. The first was the Design and Analysis
of Algorithms while the second was Digital Image Processing. The
first was easy. We only went to 5 level simultaneous equations. By
the second week in the image processing we were already using Fourier
Analysis (Not FF) and from there is was all down hill.:-))
Fortunately A very good job offer came along about that time.

However with CS as in GPS you do have to crawl before you can walk.
they still start out with Pascal to teach "top down" and structure,
but move to C++ early on.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 5 Mar, 17:05, "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.

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?

This is depressing beyond words. Another advocate for dumming
down....




Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
On 5 Mar, 17:05, "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.

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?

This is depressing beyond words. Another advocate for dumming
down....

Bertie

The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
me interested.

Darkwing wrote:
The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
me interested.

You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
switches...

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:40:03 -0500, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
On 5 Mar, 17:05, "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.

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?

This is depressing beyond words. Another advocate for dumming
down....

Bertie

The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
me interested.

Ah, my old Ohio Scientific C2-8P. A one MHz 6502, 48K of dynamic ram
(16K X1 at 30 some bucks a chip) and dual 8" floppy drives. Cost me 4
Grand WITHOUT a monitor or keyboard. Those I had to find on my own.
You booted it by entering Go 800 (I think) and then typing in the
address for the disk drive as well as the track and sector to start
(IIRC) That was 1979 or 80.

Today I can build up two multi core, state of the art machines with
big time graphics cards, 4 Gig of at least DDR2-800 RAM, and a
Terabyte of HD space and my OS on a 10,000 RPM Raptor. I think I could
even include the 22" wide screen monitors and do it for less than that
C2-8P.

My first HD cost a $100 a megabyte. Tonight I installed a heavy duty
750 Gig HD that cost 26 cents a Gigabyte. IOW a 10 Meg drive cost me
a thousand bucks in the early 80's and I just picked up a WD RE
version of the 750 Gig for $200. Were I to settle for the SE version
and shop around I could get it for around $140. Actually there were
one Terabyte drives available for about $240 or 24 cents a Gig.
A little over a year ago I paid near $300 for 2 Gigs of DDR-2 800 (PC
6400) RAM. Now I can get the same stuff (make and model) for less
than $100. Actually 4 Gigs is around $140. Check NewEgg. sigh

One thing to remember about the new technology. When it comes to
small planes that tech is still a small fraction of what's out there.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

But flying with the new technology only happens with a very small
minority of pilots. Probably at least 80% of pilots flying small singles
do not have IFR-approved GPS. Until the majority of light singles have
IFR-approved GPS, the FAA simply aren't in a position to drop those
kinds of requirements.

Unless they do a 'lite' instrument rating, restricted to IFR GPS
equipped planes only, a bit like the centreline twin rating.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

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.

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)?

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.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:37:43 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

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.

The KOEL for the Cessna NAV III aircraft requires all three be
operating for day/night IFR. I expect the Cirrus would have a similar
KOEL requirement for their steam backups but don't have a Cirrus POH
or IM handy.