p1l07m4n
SF340 Pirate, First Mate
I had to fly partial panel almost every flight towards the end of my instrument training. Learned a lot by flying around using an attitude indicator, altimeter, and the magnetic compass.
Avionics and Autopilots
- Thread starter FlyMarines09
- Start date
I had to fly partial panel almost every flight towards the end of my instrument training. Learned a lot by flying around using an attitude indicator, altimeter, and the magnetic compass.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I've lost a few attitude gyros over the years. One airspeed indicator, weirdly. A number of engine gauges. None of them were as exciting as when the Captain's panel went all red Xs for about ten seconds at 41,000 feet the other day. Glass is neat, and it certainly allows for more efficient operation of the aircraft, but safer? I'm not entirely convinced. IMHO, being a pilot who can use the bejeezus out of the FMS is like being a programmer who is great at Windows. Cool, but I hope you're versed in DOS/UNIX/Whatever.
ratherbflying74
New Member
Well, I think I am actually going to stick with steam for a bit and not do the DA-40 for now. I do own the Garmin aera 560 and also have been flying a lot in a DA-20 with 430/420 in the panel, however, the M20J is a little too rough. I found a 172 RG that is nicer, so I can still get some retract time while finshing this Instrument rating up. I was hoping the Mooney was nicer but it seems very neglected IMO.....and the RG is a LOT less $$/Hour
scooter2525
Very well Member
I'm with Boris. I have about 20 hours in glass and 2500TT (not a huge number but for comparisons sake...). No hurry to get back to the glass. Sure its nice and helps a little with situational awareness, but for decades people have safely flown with steam gauges and will continue to do so. I see glass being a crutch on the lower level on things. Hand flying a fast steam aircraft will help develop skillz to keep proficiency up. Not having flown a large category aircraft, its hard to say the difference, but if/when I get to that point, I'm going to appreciate I spent flying in crap weather on a solid system.
scooter2525
Very well Member
Good choice on sticking with the steam. $<hour is good.
C150J
Well-Known Member
jrh
Well-Known Member
<sigh>
Same old, same old here.
I've said it numerous times before, but I'll say it again:
The people who are critical of glass cockpits are usually the ones with the least amount of experience (if any) in them.
As a whole, it's tough to find really good quality glass cockpit training. Getting "checked out" for one hour in a G1000 cockpit is not even scratching the surface of its capabilities.
Glass cockpits are pretty much the greatest thing since the turbine engine was invented, yet we have to drag most old school pilots kicking and screaming in to the 21st century.
Same old, same old here.
I've said it numerous times before, but I'll say it again:
The people who are critical of glass cockpits are usually the ones with the least amount of experience (if any) in them.
As a whole, it's tough to find really good quality glass cockpit training. Getting "checked out" for one hour in a G1000 cockpit is not even scratching the surface of its capabilities.
Glass cockpits are pretty much the greatest thing since the turbine engine was invented, yet we have to drag most old school pilots kicking and screaming in to the 21st century.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Good move. Cheaper is always better. That Mooney must be bad, because most of the Cutlass RG's I've ever seen are really beat up. Good luck with the instrument rating, its a lot of fun, while a lot of work at the same time.
Yup. From time to time, I find things I'd never seen before in the G1000. Very true about the 1 hour not really showing the power of the system. But for the VFR weekend warrior, it may be enough.
The worst thing about the G1000, is I can go out to the ramp here in Daytona, and find 2, maybe 3 different versions of the software. That gets frustrating, trying to remember which software can do what.
jrh
Well-Known Member
I think the VFR weekend warrior is exactly the type of pilot who needs the more thorough checkout. They're the ones who are most likely going to need to divert because they aren't proficient at crosswind landings, need the airspace alerts because they didn't pay close enough attention to planning their route, need the fuel range ring to keep tabs on their fuel situation, etc.
Basically, they're the ones who need the most help from the system.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
ratherbflying74
New Member
Truth be told I am going to check out the RG this morning, but I have been told that it is in fairly good shape. The M20J was so beat up...I LOVE Mooney's...it was so upsetting. But, at $149/hr I would want something I would really feel comfortable in, like the DA-40. The flying club's "board"(where the M20J is) are known for being slightly "cheap" about maintaining things or getting to "squawked" items quickly. I don't think I want to be a part of that. I want to be safe, for myself/family.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
How much time is glass is necessary to form an opinion, would you say? You may or may not be right about the wonders of glass cockpits (I'm sure my opinion on the matter is obvious), but this appeal to authority fallacy is rather transparent. How about this: I've got more time in steam than you have in airplanes, you simply can't understand how great steam is until you have, let's say 4000 hours with it. Sounds kind of ridiculous, doesn't it?
So, rather than get out the measuring tapes and lay our logbooks on the table, let's talk about the actual, tangible benefits of a glass cockpit. AFAICS, they're A) More convenient and B) Lighter. OTOH, as I said, I've never seen a steam gauge panel just QUIT.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Wouldn't even say lighter... All the LRU's, extra batteries and wiring in a G1000 Cessna make it so heavy that it is basically a two place aircraft.
As I said before, glass or steam gauges do exactly the same thing. Glass cockpits might have some convenience features (loading approaches, identifying Morse for VOR's, etc), but it doesn't fundamentally change anything about how the airplane operates.
fish314
Well-Known Member
I've got about equal time instructing primary students (Air Force UPT students, that is) in both the T-37 (OLD, OLD gauges) and the T-6 (glass system-- probably not as nice as the G1000, though). I've also got a couple thousand hours in the KC-135, with various different versions of avionics, (mostly glass cockpits, though).
I think that there are some definite advantages to either system... but at the same time, I think that beginner instrument training should either be done with the steam gauges, or with most of the nicer features of the glass system disabled. It seems that with a moving map display constantly available to the student, they tend not learn any of the other tools for maintaining SA. The moving maps are great... so great, that it is very tempting to rely on them exclusively. When I used to turn off the map mode, many students would be totally lost despite having a bearing pointer, full electronic HSI with two course needles, a DME and a distance to a GPS waypoint all available.
These features are great, but there are certain skills that every instrument pilot should acquire. These include intercepting courses and radials, turning from radials to arcs, and vice versa, identifying ones' position based on basic NAVAID information, keeping track of one's position during an approach, etc. Also, I've noticed that people tend to have less difficulty moving up the technology ladder than down it (although your results may vary!)
As for autopilots, they're great, especially for long duration sorties. I can't imagine flying a 10 hour plus sortie for example, without one, even with 2 pilots aboard. Well, I guess I can imagine it, but it would be a royal pain. Still, managing the automation is a separate skill that needs to be learned. For example, when the autopilot makes a turn that it "shouldn't" have, it can be tempting to try to correct the situation by reprogramming it rather than turning it off and hand-flying the correction first. And since the pilot hand-flying the airplane is the ultimate back-up to these systems, autopilots are another feature that fledgling instrument pilots should do without until they've developed good basic skills.
I think that there are some definite advantages to either system... but at the same time, I think that beginner instrument training should either be done with the steam gauges, or with most of the nicer features of the glass system disabled. It seems that with a moving map display constantly available to the student, they tend not learn any of the other tools for maintaining SA. The moving maps are great... so great, that it is very tempting to rely on them exclusively. When I used to turn off the map mode, many students would be totally lost despite having a bearing pointer, full electronic HSI with two course needles, a DME and a distance to a GPS waypoint all available.
These features are great, but there are certain skills that every instrument pilot should acquire. These include intercepting courses and radials, turning from radials to arcs, and vice versa, identifying ones' position based on basic NAVAID information, keeping track of one's position during an approach, etc. Also, I've noticed that people tend to have less difficulty moving up the technology ladder than down it (although your results may vary!)
As for autopilots, they're great, especially for long duration sorties. I can't imagine flying a 10 hour plus sortie for example, without one, even with 2 pilots aboard. Well, I guess I can imagine it, but it would be a royal pain. Still, managing the automation is a separate skill that needs to be learned. For example, when the autopilot makes a turn that it "shouldn't" have, it can be tempting to try to correct the situation by reprogramming it rather than turning it off and hand-flying the correction first. And since the pilot hand-flying the airplane is the ultimate back-up to these systems, autopilots are another feature that fledgling instrument pilots should do without until they've developed good basic skills.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
I'd agree to that. I've flown GA and 121 both with steam gauges and full glass and it really doesn't change too much. I do think the scan is a little different, but that's because glass integrates the information in a more user-friendly format.
Wouldn't know about the A/C in the Saab. Definitely beat out the A/C in the 1900 though. That was fun. Sometime I need to get my arse back out your way and we'll actually log some glider time like we'd been planning.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
This is the best post I have seen about glass for quite some time. I feel exactly the same. Both about autopilots and glass.
I would only add that I find that if a pilot does not have good basic SA skills from steam gauges they wont be able to use the glass panel to its full capability.
And the guy with the mooney who is considering moving up to glass - don't do it you'll be a better pilot if you stick with steam gauges for a while.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Didn't remember what you were comparing it too
Anyway, the gliders have a very sophisticated panel. A Plexiglas window with a piece of yarn taped to it. Amazingly, we are able to discern pitch attitude, yaw, and heading with that... Navigation is often best done with road maps.
They mostly have altimeters too - I don't believe these are actually required instruments per the FARs, but are mostly used for bragging about how high you got.
Altimeter, Variometer (a very good VSI), and ASI are really the only common glider instruments.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat:
Excellent points, and I would hope that folks develop a proper scan and not rely too much on the black line and the little airplane.
ratherbflying74
New Member
I am indeed going to stick with steam for now. I went to see the 172RG and they actually just put a late 70's M20J on line service that is MUCH nicer than the other M20J on the other side of town. and...it's less $$!! So...I think I am going to train for the IFR in that as well as do some flying with the family. I am pretty pumped and should be up in it by beg of next week....
Thanks to all for the help....and you are right "bigwavedave", this is a great post!
jrh
Well-Known Member
Yes. That's because it is.
But I was referring to comments like this:
I don't have a magic number for when somebody can form an "educated" opinion about glass, but I'm pretty sure 20 hours ain't it. That's like a 20 hour student pilot trying to argue if a Cessna or a Mooney is a better airplane. Regardless of if they're right or wrong, they simply don't have the background to say with any real authority. They don't know how much they don't know.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I dare you to find an instructor with more than, say, 300 hours in glass cockpits who still says they're junk. I've never met one. Pilots who fly glass long term almost universally become convinced of how good it is.
Guys like myself and Roger, Roger have been flying and teaching in both types of panels a lot. We've used them VFR, IFR, local, XC, quiet airports, busy airports, you name it, and have seen how fantastic they are.
There are very good reasons why no major manufacturer is still producing conventional panel aircraft anymore. It's not just marketing or glitz and glamor. It's for real. The system is better on numerous fronts.
Does that mean conventional panels are bad? Heck no! You're talking to a guy who flies a strictly-VFR tailwheel plane from the middle of World War II. I know all about the old school way of doing things. Everything has a time and place. But if I had the choice of training in a glass panel, I'd take the glass almost every time...assuming I had an instructor capable of teaching me the ins and outs of the system and how to utilize it to its full potential. Finding quality glass cockpit instruction is really the weak link nowadays.