Avionics and Autopilots

[jrh]

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 sort of disagree.

While I fully agree with the idea of instrument pilots being capable of hand flying in the event of an autopilot failure, I have a unique way of performing instrument training.

During the initial basic attitude portion of training, obviously everything is hand flown.

When we move in to holding patterns, we do mostly hand flying, mixed with autopilot usage if they're having a hard time visualizing something with the hold. This way they're slowly introduced to the autopilot's features and how to use the autopilot to manage workload.

When we get in to approaches, I always have the pilot do at least one and possibly two approaches of a particular type (ILS, VOR, etc.) using the autopilot the entire first time. Then we follow up with hand flown approaches.

The reason I do it this way is because instrument flying is such a mental activity. A monkey can fly headings and altitudes. Maintaining strong SA is where the work is at. I've found if I reduce the pilot's workload by using the autopilot when trying to learn a new type of approach, they're able to get the mental side of the flying figured out much faster. Then, once they have the mental side solid, adding in the added distraction of hand flying is no big deal. Plus, they become proficient at autopilot usage along the way, rather than "tacking on" how to use the autopilot at the very end of their training.

I started doing this when I saw a lot of pilots repeatedly have trouble juggling the workload of hand flying, learning approaches, and talking on the radio simultaneously. Because they couldn't handle the workload, their training slowed down and they had to keep repeating flights.

I've had great success using these techniques. YMMV.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

When we get in to approaches, I always have the pilot do at least one and possibly two approaches of a particular type (ILS, VOR, etc.) using the autopilot the entire first time. Then we follow up with hand flown approaches.

The reason I do it this way is because instrument flying is such a mental activity. A monkey can fly headings and altitudes. Maintaining strong SA is where the work is at. I've found if I reduce the pilot's workload by using the autopilot when trying to learn a new type of approach, they're able to get the mental side of the flying figured out much faster. Then, once they have the mental side solid, adding in the added distraction of hand flying is no big deal. Plus, they become proficient at autopilot usage along the way, rather than "tacking on" how to use the autopilot at the very end of their training.

I started doing this when I saw a lot of pilots repeatedly have trouble juggling the workload of hand flying, learning approaches, and talking on the radio simultaneously. Because they couldn't handle the workload, their training slowed down and they had to keep repeating flights.

I've had great success using these techniques. YMMV.

Pure genius. My instructor for instrument stuff started me out by him flying the approach, with me following along while looking at the whole thing visually. We didn't have the autopilot in the plane, so couldn't really do that, but I'll tell you, as a student, it made things seem so much easier to conceptualize.

 

[scooter2525]

I'm not saying glass is crap. Its a powerful tool. Very powerful. Necessary at the beginning level of learning? Thats up to the student and where they go really. For me, on my day to day job, it isn't anything that I need. I can say with certain at this stage of the game, I can fly safely without it. I wouldn't know every little thing the g1000 can do after 50 hours (forgot I had some twin time with it) and I'm sure their are things that would make my life a little easier, but for students, especially IFR tickets getting some basics in steam gauges will make for a well rounded pilot.

JRH, I get the impression that you have instructed quite a bit. Your coming from a background spent with students. I haven't instructed a single hour in my flying career. I'm on my way to change that, figure the more variety of experience I have, the better pilot I will be. I think about my wife and her use of her garmin (on the road). She will use it all the time to get around which is great, but without it, her situational awareness drops considerably. The basic skill of navigation is lost without it (pilotage, dead reckoning etc). My concern is the same with a weekend warrier when that system goes down, will they be just as lost because of that dependency? Hope not.

 

[jrh]

I'm not saying glass is crap. Its a powerful tool. Very powerful. Necessary at the beginning level of learning? Thats up to the student and where they go really. For me, on my day to day job, it isn't anything that I need. I can say with certain at this stage of the game, I can fly safely without it.

That's fine. I'm not trying to say everyone needs glass. A pilot can certainly fly safely without it.

What I'm trying to convey is just how nice glass really is. People got by just fine for thousands of years without running water in their houses. But that doesn't negate how nice it is to have indoor plumbing. Does having indoor plumbing make people any less of housekeepers, or something along those lines? No way...it just means they're living in a modern age. Same with glass cockpits. Just because a pilot uses a glass cockpit doesn't make them any less of a pilot.

I know you haven't come out and straight up said that, but that's the vibe I get from a lot of pilots around here.

I wouldn't know every little thing the g1000 can do after 50 hours (forgot I had some twin time with it) and I'm sure their are things that would make my life a little easier, but for students, especially IFR tickets getting some basics in steam gauges will make for a well rounded pilot.

I don't mean this as a personal attack at all...but do you think you're really qualified to be saying things like this, after admittedly having not spent much time in glass cockpits and no time teaching?

See, this is the problem with advice on the internet. You're making judgments on things that, to be absolutely blunt, I don't think you have any idea about.

I'm solidly convinced that a person can be every bit as strong with instrument flying regardless of the cockpit they train in. There is no reason to get the basics in conventional panels before moving to glass.

JRH, I get the impression that you have instructed quite a bit. Your coming from a background spent with students.

Yes, students...and aircraft ferrying, and flying jumpers, and owning a plane. Not sure what you're trying to say though.

I haven't instructed a single hour in my flying career. I'm on my way to change that, figure the more variety of experience I have, the better pilot I will be. I think about my wife and her use of her garmin (on the road). She will use it all the time to get around which is great, but without it, her situational awareness drops considerably. The basic skill of navigation is lost without it (pilotage, dead reckoning etc). My concern is the same with a weekend warrier when that system goes down, will they be just as lost because of that dependency? Hope not.

They won't be lost as long as they have proper training, which is what I've been preaching all along.

 

[Firebird2XC]

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.

Interesting. Definitely have to make that happen sometime in the future.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Just because a pilot uses a glass cockpit doesn't make them any less of a pilot.

I should hope not. I use a glass cockpit, and I couldn't be any less of a pilot! Wait, that came out wrong.

I don't think one is less of a pilot due to the gizmos in their airplane. I do, however, think that one is less of a pilot if they are incapable of reverting to steam. There's a reason those peanut gauges aren't on CRTs. And I do not buy for an instant the notion that one can learn on glass to fly on steam...intuitively seems unlikely, hearsay would indicate otherwise, and I've seen one or two counter-examples walking around and talking (and making fools of themselves) in real life.

 

[FlyMarines09]

Interesting comments. I'm glad to get some insightful feedback on the topic. Thanks, my perspective is changing already!

 

[scooter2525]

What I'm trying to convey is just how nice glass really is. I agree with you here 100%.




I don't mean this as a personal attack at all...but do you think you're really qualified to be saying things like this, after admittedly having not spent much time in glass cockpits and no time teaching? As for the ins and outs of instruction in glass vs steam, no, I don't have any weight. But I stick with my statement. I say that with a career interest in mind and that pilots who have spent considerable amount of time in glass struggle and some even fail while training in operators that demand proficiency with steam gauges in IFR conditions.

See, this is the problem with advice on the internet. You're making judgments on things that, to be absolutely blunt, I don't think you have any idea about. I disagree. Your coming from a training perspective, I'm coming from a flying the line perspective. I'm not saying that one is better then the other, but they are different.




Yes, students...and aircraft ferrying, and flying jumpers, and owning a plane. Not sure what you're trying to say though. Just getting an idea of where your perspective is coming from. Experience is a good indication of where someone will form there opinions. Your time spent in the cockpit is different then mine (again, nothing wrong with that) which is where we both come up with different ideas in the glass vs no glass discussion.



They won't be lost as long as they have proper training, which is what I've been preaching all along. Which is a good thing.

I think we both agree that glass is a safe way to fly, and is a very nice way to navigate on a daily basis. I think where we differ is how the transition from glass to steam goes. My experience around a training department has found that those with tons of glass time struggle going to steam. They struggle to the point that employers tend not to interview those candidates because of the failure rate. Just because I haven't instructed though (yet) doesn't mean I have a valid point in this career we call aviation.

 

[FlyMarines09]

Well I plan on doing my training with steam gauges, and then taking some time with glass. That is my point, students that have only learned in glass (common sense would tell me) they'd have issues utilizing the steam system. Not to mention, as some have already pointed out, the glass cockpit seems to be used as a crutch with all of the features and automation. It seems like pilots will be losing some of the necessary skills they need to become or remain proficient. People get the wrong idea that airplanes fly themselves, that there is no real skill involved flying. I'm concerned that glass cockpits will take the challenge out of flying, making it a pretty straight forward thing, making pilots more systems analysts. I'm not disagreeing that glass is safe and that the same forces in flight are involved and that it is more or less the same information being presented in a different way.

I don't imagine steam gauge aircraft going away in the next 50 years, there will be a need for pilots to fly them. Airlines and flight departments will still utilize them. Perhaps, over time, some of the negative aspects of the new technology will be weeded out and we can continue to bring the challenge into flying.

Like I said, I have about 15 hours in a skyhawk and 152. I have almost 0 flying experience, certainly none in a glass. This is just my perspective as a non pilot. The main thing that draws me into aviation and piloting is the challenge of it. I just feel that the challenge is starting to fade away and technology will continue to take over for a long time come. I just hope that classic aircraft are around at least until I retire from flying...

 

[Pilotforhire587]

I still like the challenge of flying with old steam gauges... If you can call an HSI a steam gauge, but that being said the G1000 has a lot more capabilities than anything I have seen flying turboprops around the country. That is with the exception of two MU2 airframes that have glass in the, one is a g650 and the other is a g1000

 

[Fly_Unity]

I still think the Garmin 1000 is just as challenging as any steam gauge airplane. In fact all it does is displays the information. Your scan is going to be different, but other than that its identical. You still got to do approach briefings, Id Vor's, Check or verify frequencies, 5 T's, Time holds and apply wind correction etc etc. I have to do checkrides every 6 months if both types (steam and glass) and I dont find one easier than the other.

What I like about the Garmin 1000 is I got, Terrain (good at night especially in the mountains if you want to pick your VFR routes by avoiding the red once you get to altitude), Weather, Nexrad, Airmets, Sigmets, Metars, TAF's, cloud cover, Cloud tops. Winds aloft, Turbulence for your specific altitude, lightning, Cell Movement, Icing forecast for your current altitude, and icing tops, 3 day forcast, PIREPS, AIREPS, (Its quite fun, I can call center and give them a PIREP about Ice, and within minutes there is a a PIREP on my MFD showing me what I just told center. The wind feature is fun, tell exactly how many knot crosswind you currently have in final and can give an accurate Windshear PIREP. And there is a slew of other features. Easier? no. It just gives the same information plus more. Glass is just as challenging IMSO.

Now if we want to talk about something that makes piloting easier we can start talking about Autopilots....

 

[Boris Badenov]

Easier? no. It just gives the same information plus more. Glass is just as challenging IMSO.

IMSO? "In my simple opinion?" I don't think the general opinion is that flying glass makes it appropriate for children to fly. On the other hand, I could fly a steam gauge plane for years, climb out, and, with a minimal amount of training, climb in to a glass plane and fly without getting violated or killed. I wouldn't know how to use the Magic, but if you could teach me how to get to green needles, I'd probably be ok. OTOH, you take a guy out of the glass and put him in a steam aircraft with similar performance, and more than likely, he's going to be all to seek. One isn't better than the other, but you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone who's flown both that steam isn't more manly.

Now if we want to talk about something that makes piloting easier we can start talking about Autopilots....

On this, we agree entirely. I'd rather fly /U with an autopilot than /W without.

 

[Roger, Roger]

I'd rather fly... with an autopilot than... without.

Things I never thought I'd read from you....

 

[Boris Badenov]

Things I never thought I'd read from you....

You have not be reading carefully, comrade. I may eat teargas canisters for breakfast, but I'm LAZY. One of the many things that made the Mitsi 10 gajillion times better than the 99 was the presence of an autopilot. I don't need VNAV or Approach mode, or any of that jazz. But I for damn sure NEED to be able to read my book or watch my movie during those endless hours in cruise, no matter what's in the back.

 

[dasleben]

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.

Guess it depends on how the system is designed. That really shouldn't be a big deal in most transport jets. I don't remember how many the ERJ had, but the aircraft I'm in now has three independent symbol generators for the glass. CA is on the left, FO is on the right, and there's a center just for backup purposes (among a few other things). If anyone's screens goes blank, just hit the magic button and it comes back. Plenty of redundancy to go around.

I do have plenty of single-pilot steam experience along with the glass time, and I still am a big proponent of the glass. The only thing is that a pilot needs to know when to turn it all off and fly the airplane like an airplane. That's pretty much what you said here, I think...

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.

...and I agree 100%. :beer:

 

[Boris Badenov]

That is with the exception of two MU2 airframes that have glass in the, one is a g650 and the other is a g1000

I just saw this. I kind of like glass, but an MU-2 with glass is like a charging stallion with a turret. It's just Wrong. I felt dirty flying a Mitsi with a 430...a glass cockpit is an abomination.

 

[Polar742]

I learned on a 6-pack back in the era of TRSA and ARSAs. (You youngin's might have to wiki that).

However after I passed my initial "formative" years, I have spent the vast majority of my time in two-crew full glass airplanes (with a brief - albeit eye-opening time in a "old school" jet). At the end of the day, you get to the same place. You just use your mind differently.

In the glass machines (I'm guessing the same in tprops and 40's technology pistons with all the fancy stuff), you fly mostly in a strategic environment. Most of the flying is done at the gate, and enroute you are ensuring you didn't make a mistake 14 minutes or 14 hours ago, as well as adjusting you plan. You are able to spend most of your time thinking further down the road, and there is very little tactical flying. For a work environment, could anything be better?

In a purely steam airplane, you fly mostly in a tactical environment. You do all of your planning on a sheet of paper, then you are continually twisting knobs, pushing buttons, flipping switches and moving levers to manipulate the airplane to do what you want. This gives you less time to really focus on the long term, as you have to divide your attention between the NOW of staying on an airway and the THEN of weather coming up, or unexpected winds arising. Again, in a professional environment, way more work than needs to be done with today's level of highly reliable technology.


Conversely, like "Da Beagle", I agree on my off time, little is more fulfilling than having a bit of ski rope 200' behind another plane, and you have your butt, yaw string, airspeed and altimeter to keep you going. I think taking 20-30 minutes to properly set up a glass airplane for a flight of 1 hour is way too much of my fun time.

YMMV

 

[Boris Badenov]

As usual, I agree with Martin. That said, I do think there is a point at which the automation overcomes you. There are certain "thunderstorm-deviation" circumstances (for example) for which I would rather be flying steam than glass. It's all about workload. At a certain point, programming all the Magic takes time away from thinking and (yes, hippie, I know, but..."feeling") where you are and what's going on with the weather and the airplane. Glass is like ATC. They're both treated as though they're fundamental to flying the airplane safely, but what they're really about (in both cases) is compressing the amount of space the metal things fly in without swapping paint. The problem is when Pilots start to think that the technology that's about Efficiency is really about Safety. If you have a VOR receiver and a radar, you can effectively navigate your way to where you're going just as well as a Jeeeeeeet Captain with 25 billion hours and fourteen FMSes. What you can't do is slot yourself into a system that demands X number of landings per hour at LaGuardia (or whatever).

To wit, Steam is a primary skill, a necessary skill. Glass is a skill that is a circumstantial necessity. The system wouldn't function as it should if most people weren't flying (and competent in) glass. But if all the glass magically turned off tomorrow, most likely no one would crash and die, the system would just grind to a halt. The problem is that certain recently-weened little pilot-babies think Glass is necessary to fly a plane, and would dig a big smoking hole if it went away. If you can't fly an airplane without vectors to the final approach course or a glass cockpit, go work at Wal-Mart.

 

[Chief Captain]

I'm not the world's most experienced glass pilot, but here are my views on the glass cockpit...

It has no place in private pilot, or initial instrument training. Once the student is a decent instrument pilot, unleash the G1000. He needs to know how to fly on the conventional instruments and developing a mental pictue of his surroundings before he has garmin paint thepicture for him. Our planes have G430's and I hardly let students use the moving map display. Nothing ever fails to the AUTOMATIC mode, and when the screens go blank in IMC, you need to be comfortable reading those mechanical backup gauges.

I LOVE the G1000, primarily because of the precision. When I'm flying glass, I can maintain a heading of 223 degrees pretty well, whereas on a conventional instrument, I'm flying some heading between 220 and 225- assuming the DG is set properly. the problem is compounded by the parallax error encountered when trying to read the gauges from the right seat as a CFI. When flying the glass, you're seeing the same thing the student sees.

For the record, I don't do the 1hr G1000 checkout thing. It really does the student a disservice, because the student spends that time trying to set the altimeter and tune the radio. I take them on a short xc along an airway so they get a chance to dig deep into the system and learn about some of the bells and whistles.

 

[averyrm]

It's a lot easier to teach instrument students in a simple steam-gauged aircraft.

Only because if there is no autopilot and no moving map GPS, you don't get the question "Why can't we turn on the GPS?" or "Why can't I just let the autopilot fly it."

Pilots. Buncha whiners.