Answers to stupid questions

Capt. Chaos said:
Better to put the pfd into basic mode and the mfd into hsi mode.
Click to expand...
I'm laughing at this because I recently purchased a plane with the Chelton and this was the only way I could figure out how to shoot an approach. That system makes a KLN-94 and CNX-80 seem like a walk in the park for the non-initiated. With a little time and training I'm warming up to it, but daggoned that's an unfriendly system to figure out on your own in IMC.
 
milleR said:
I'm laughing at this because I recently purchased a plane with the Chelton and this was the only way I could figure out how to shoot an approach. That system makes a KLN-94 and CNX-80 seem like a walk in the park for the non-initiated. With a little time and training I'm warming up to it, but daggoned that's an unfriendly system to figure out on your own in IMC.
Click to expand...

Man... perspective is a funny thing. I find it 100% intuitive compared to, say, a Garmin 430-series.

"Dammit, that was the wrong knob... again. Oh crap, I should have pushed instead of hitting enter. Oh bleep, I should have hit enter instead of pushing the thing. What the heck did it just do? Where the heck am I? How do I get back to where I was!?"

-Fox
(By now, though, I've got the 430 down pretty good)
 
Ehh. I still don't understand rigs or how minimum regular line "guarantees" work.

Even though APC says we have a regular line guarantee, which we do not.
 
I actually like the Chelton - it's the best PFD/MFD combo I've ever used. The G1000 is nice, but it lacks some of the cool functionality the Chelton lets you use. The learning curve is a little steeper than a G1000, but it's relatively intuitive after you spend about 30 minutes playing with it.
 
milleR said:
I'm laughing at this because I recently purchased a plane with the Chelton and this was the only way I could figure out how to shoot an approach. That system makes a KLN-94 and CNX-80 seem like a walk in the park for the non-initiated. With a little time and training I'm warming up to it, but daggoned that's an unfriendly system to figure out on your own in IMC.
Click to expand...
Love me some Chelton, if you ever redo your panel let me know, I want first dibs on that system if it ever comes out.
 
Acrofox said:
Man... perspective is a funny thing. I find it 100% intuitive compared to, say, a Garmin 430-series.

"Dammit, that was the wrong knob... again. Oh crap, I should have pushed instead of hitting enter. Oh bleep, I should have hit enter instead of pushing the thing. What the heck did it just do? Where the heck am I? How do I get back to where I was!?"

-Fox
(By now, though, I've got the 430 down pretty good)
Click to expand...
That almost perfectly sums up my daily interactions with the Chelton. It's cumbersome, actions I'm accustomed to performing with one or two buttons, the Chelton require three or four. Everything is a menu, even the heading bug. It's a pain. I'd dump it for a G600/750 tomorrow if I had the cash. Still light years ahead of gyros and steam gauges, but I'm not a fan . . yet.
 
milleR said:
That almost perfectly sums up my daily interactions with the Chelton. It's cumbersome, actions I'm accustomed to performing with one or two buttons, the Chelton require three or four. Everything is a menu, even the heading bug. It's a pain. I'd dump it for a G600/750 tomorrow if I had the cash. Still light years ahead of gyros and steam gauges, but I'm not a fan . . yet.
Click to expand...

The bugs are one of a tiny handful of things I find slightly annoying... but I don't use them like most people do, anyway.
(I set bugs->altitude->minimum altitude all the time when flying in crap weather, just to catch me if I do something stupid... I set target altitude fairly infrequently, and I rarely use the heading bug.) Having the bugs as menu items is a little gitschy.

There are a few other places where it could supply intelligent defaults, and a few places where I would have designed the UI a little differently... but in general it's a pretty good system.

Then again, I don't know how it is for doing daily IFR stuff, as that's really not our bag.

-Fox
 
Acrofox said:
The bugs are one of a tiny handful of things I find slightly annoying... but I don't use them like most people do, anyway.
(I set bugs->altitude->minimum altitude all the time when flying in crap weather, just to catch me if I do something stupid... I set target altitude fairly infrequently, and I rarely use the heading bug.) Having the bugs as menu items is a little gitschy.

There are a few other places where it could supply intelligent defaults, and a few places where I would have designed the UI a little differently... but in general it's a pretty good system.

Then again, I don't know how it is for doing daily IFR stuff, as that's really not our bag.

-Fox
Click to expand...

The Bug work well IFR, it would be nice it the Alt bug didn't take 2 key strokes, but after 8000hrs chelton time it is second nature. Plus you can set VNAV bugs from the flight plan menu and put the Van autopilot in approach mode and it will fly the VNAV profile. The green boxes make any approach stupid simple and easy to set up a constant decent profile all the way down. The heading bug isn't much use unless you have a autopilot for it to drive. But the big bonus is that you can create a hold over anything in the database and the AP will fly it.
 
milleR said:
That almost perfectly sums up my daily interactions with the Chelton. It's cumbersome, actions I'm accustomed to performing with one or two buttons, the Chelton require three or four. Everything is a menu, even the heading bug. It's a pain. I'd dump it for a G600/750 tomorrow if I had the cash. Still light years ahead of gyros and steam gauges, but I'm not a fan . . yet.
Click to expand...
Chelton is great. I think the UI is better than the 430/530 and Garmin is just now starting to catch up to Chelton in terms of capabilities like programmable VNAV and HITS.
 
Capt. Chaos said:
The Bug work well IFR, it would be nice it the Alt bug didn't take 2 key strokes, but after 8000hrs chelton time it is second nature. Plus you can set VNAV bugs from the flight plan menu and put the Van autopilot in approach mode and it will fly the VNAV profile. The green boxes make any approach stupid simple and easy to set up a constant decent profile all the way down. The heading bug isn't much use unless you have a autopilot for it to drive. But the big bonus is that you can create a hold over anything in the database and the AP will fly it.
Click to expand...

Menu . . . Bugs . . . Tgt Alt . . . *dial in* . . . *press to enter*

You got a shortcut you'd care to share? I mean, it's better than nothing but that's a lot of work to set the altitude bug.

Want to sync the heading bug? Hdg . . . Sync . . Exit. Oh by the way, as soon as you press Hdg the autopilot is going to start a turn to wherever the bug is until you exit. Cumbersome.

I agree about the Vnav and boxes, those are great features.
 
Acrofox said:
... was supplied, according to their terms of service, by pilots like you who interviewed there.



Just because something is common doesn't make it right. That website could be put together in a few composite days of side work. Hosting that website, given the volume of traffic that potential airline pilots generate, would cost less than $55/mo. (at the outside) Maintaining the information is the most difficult part, but selling it to a captive audience for $20 is flat out exploitative, in my book.

People seem to think that it's difficult to build stuff like that. It's not. It's easy. Really easy. It's also really cheap to run something like that, if you know what you're doing. The hard part, and the expensive part, is getting the actual data... and that, apparently, is being given to them for free by the people who sign up and then come back to "pay it forward".

If they deserve to get paid for their work, you deserve to get paid for "writing up the review of your interview, adding info to the gouge, etc."



The thing is, I wouldn't be angry about this if the site stated up front that it was a pay site. It doesn't.
Right on the front page it says:
"Get the most current interview information on the web FREE!"
Then it says "See more—click here to get a free membership!"
... then you step through the forms, get to what you're looking for, and bam—"PAY US MONEY TO SEE ANYTHING USEFUL."

That's very scammy, and I don't like it. It reminds me of trying to find porn on the internet in the old days.

In the end, I'll probably end up giving them money anyway, and that's what pisses me off the most about it. I certainly won't give them any interview feedback, if I get invited for an interview somewhere—I'll save that for the sites that don't charge.

-Fox
Click to expand...

Good grief, dude, first LogtenPro, now Aviation Interviews? Why do you get so pissed off that someone dare make a profit by providing a product or service? Unless they can see a sizable return on their investment of time, they aren't going to make the web site, and then you wouldn't have the gouge. Pay up, pass the interview, enjoy the job, and thank them for their product that helped make it happen.
 
Derg said:
Ehh. I still don't understand rigs or how minimum regular line "guarantees" work.

Even though APC says we have a regular line guarantee, which we do not.
Click to expand...
It's really simple. At least it is here.

Here, if you are a guaranteed lineholder (based on your seniority in the category) and PBS solves your line below the minimum monthly guarantee, you get a partial line guarantee day (a dummy day on your schedule), that credits equivalent to the difference between MMG and your credit line value.

Of course, the last time that I had this happen was the 1 month where we were overstaffed on the Brasilia, which was a while back...if the required minimum line value is 90:00 you won't be seeing a PLG day.

Regarding rigs, we have a duty rig for scheduled duty beyond 14 (I believe) hours, and for split duty overnights. No trip rig. MDG is 4.0.
 
I would not worry too much about contract for the interview. I would, however, try to understand it if comparing airlines. I am amazed at how many pilots go off to different regionals, especially today when they are hurting for FO's, without understanding the difference in work rules/pay at the different carriers.
 
Blackhawk said:
I would not worry too much about contract for the interview. I would, however, try to understand it if comparing airlines. I am amazed at how many pilots go off to different regionals, especially today when they are hurting for FO's, without understanding the difference in work rules/pay at the different carriers.
Click to expand...

It's a catch 22, though. Go to a company with a great contract, wait 10 years for upgrade. Go to a carrier with a crappy contract, upgrade in 18 months. If your goal is to get to mainline, I'd focus more on upgrade time.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
It's a catch 22, though. Go to a company with a great contract, wait 10 years for upgrade. Go to a carrier with a crappy contract, upgrade in 18 months. If your goal is to get to mainline, I'd focus more on upgrade time.
Click to expand...
This. work rules and pay are only one small piece of the puzzle. As is upgrade time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top