How going cheap nearly killed somebody

[Cessnaflyer]

Don't even get me started on this.

GPSs and "gee whiz" computers have the potential to revolutionize safety in GA flying.

The problem is that so few instructors know how to teach these pieces of equipment properly.

As an industry, we act like modern = bad. I couldn't disagree more.

What you're talking about is a training problem, not an equipment or expense problem. We need to be teaching pilots how to integrate these pieces of equipment in to their operation without sacrificing skills in other areas (such as looking inside too much). Flipping off the GPS and acting like it shouldn't exist is not the answer.

I agree with all of what you said. The problem though is no matter how well you teach it to some people, they will never look up once they are solo in the airplane. I find this happens with a lot of students that transfer from 6 packs and love to configure and play with it.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Has going expensive ever nearly killed any one?

JFK, JR

 

[jrh]

JFK, JR

Money had nothing to do with it, that was a training / decision making / judgment accident.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Money had nothing to do with it, that was a training / decision making / judgment accident.

:yeahthat:VFR into IMC (or if not IMC, at least MVFR with no horizon reference).
Still one of the top killers of pilots.

 

[jrh]

I agree with all of what you said. The problem though is no matter how well you teach it to some people, they will never look up once they are solo in the airplane. I find this happens with a lot of students that transfer from 6 packs and love to configure and play with it.

So the answer is to not have the equipment in the plane?

There has to be a better solution than that.

 

[ILSstud]

I agree with all of what you said. The problem though is no matter how well you teach it to some people, they will never look up once they are solo in the airplane. I find this happens with a lot of students that transfer from 6 packs and love to configure and play with it.

kill avionics bus 1 and 2 and that should solve the problem

In all seriousness I never truly appreciated how technology without training can kill you until I got my currency back a few months ago. I went up with an instructor friend of mine and we did various scenarios in the G-1000. At the time, I never really flew the G1000 for IFR flights (mostly because it was a little more expensive to rent than the 6 pack). After nearly ending up in the ground due to me mishandling the autopilot it became crystal clear that poor training in a cockpit like that can kill you. Luckily, my instructor was AMAZING and after his training flights and a G1000 book later I feel very confident. Glass cockpits in GA definitely can revolutionize how we fly, but it is up to us as pilots and instructors to scout out the necessary knowledge to take advantage of it. Whether we want to believe glass cockpits are the future or not, they are certainly becoming the norm and as such we need to train for it. That said, I think primary flight training up till half way through your instrument rating should still be in a conventional 6 pack.

I worked on a study at my university for the FAA comparing glass cockpit scans versus 6-pack scans. We used eye metering equipment and measured pulse rate in a simulator. It was pretty interesting to see how quickly a lack of understanding of technology can really lead to a bad day.

 

[MikeD]

So the answer is to not have the equipment in the plane?

There has to be a better solution than that.

IMHO, alot of it is going to depend on the particular student pilot's baseline attitude, then what the CFI does to foster, grow, alter, or completely change that attitude depending on what he has to have to deal with. There's a time and place for automation just as there is for the basics (as stand-alone's); normally they're constantly intertwined and being used together to varying percentages. Getting the student to this level of thinking and discipline has, and will continue to be, the CFIs challenge.

 

[Old Pete]

Has going expensive ever nearly killed any one?

Has overpaying for a product or service ever saved a life?

 

[Goldmember]

Well I guess we'll just blame every accident that happens on training then...Awesome, let's throw one more thing on the CFIs.

To a certain extent you are right, training is an issue in glass panel planes, but the simple fact is a new pilot starting training has 1 million things to absorb to learn good stick and decision making skills. Complicated equipment makes that absorption all the more difficult. We as CFI's all know the student is only going to get about 1/4th of what you say each lesson, if that. So what if they miss the parts about scanning for traffic in favor of playing the video game up front? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE GLASS PANEL STUFF. I just think it is too much for a new student pilot to handle, just as I think learning to be a private pilot in a complex airplane is a little much. I prefer transitition training, but that's just my .02.

 

[MikeD]

So what if they miss the parts about scanning for traffic in favor of playing the video game up front? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE GLASS PANEL STUFF. I just think it is too much for a new student pilot to handle, just as I think learning to be a private pilot in a complex airplane is a little much. I prefer transitition training, but that's just my .02.

Thats why students should learn the basics first, then add the gizmos.

 

[ILSstud]

Thats why students should learn the basics first, then add the gizmos.

:yeahthat:

 

[Douglas]

I just think it is too much for a new student pilot to handle, just as I think learning to be a private pilot in a complex airplane is a little much.

I whole heartedly disagree.

I don't mean any offense by this question at all---- have you tried a G-1000 Student Pilot?

My experience showed me that there was absolutely no lag time in learning to fly. Obviously they couldn't make it smoke and using the system to its full potential only came later on X-C.

I think G-1000s are fine primary trainers.
----
My own personal teaching philosophy on G-1000 student pilots is, just because the expensive equipment is there, it doesn't mean that my students gets to use it.
The majority of my G-1000 students used that airplane because it was the newer and in their mind safer airplane.

 

[Hacker15e]

Has going expensive ever nearly killed any one?

Sure....I know of a number of wealthy folks who purchased too much of an airplane for their primary trainer.

There are also plenty of people who have purchased/flown something well beyond their capabilities in the same way (like the P-51 pilot killed on his initial solo a couple years ago).

 

[jrh]

Well I guess we'll just blame every accident that happens on training then...Awesome, let's throw one more thing on the CFIs.

To a certain extent you are right, training is an issue in glass panel planes, but the simple fact is a new pilot starting training has 1 million things to absorb to learn good stick and decision making skills. Complicated equipment makes that absorption all the more difficult. We as CFI's all know the student is only going to get about 1/4th of what you say each lesson, if that. So what if they miss the parts about scanning for traffic in favor of playing the video game up front? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE GLASS PANEL STUFF. I just think it is too much for a new student pilot to handle, just as I think learning to be a private pilot in a complex airplane is a little much. I prefer transitition training, but that's just my .02.

Then let me ask this...

Where do we draw the line? When is a plane simple enough or too complicated for a student pilot to handle?

My primary trainer was a Cherokee Archer with dual VORs, dual COM radios, DME, and an autopilot.

Would a Cessna 150 with nothing but a single NAV/COM radio have been better?

Or maybe a Cub with nothing but airspeed, altimeter, and engine gauges would have made me a better pilot? Heck, if it was good enough for pilots in the '50s, it oughta be good enough today!


For some reason a lot of people don't want to acknowledge the natural progression of technology. The Archer that I did my primary training in looked like the space shuttle compared to a Cub. Pilots from the 1950s could have used the exact same argument you've presented against glass panels, only against my Archer...too many distractions, too many bells and whistles, too much for a student to handle, etc.

But looking back on it, it was no big deal...I learned the tools, I learned how to fly, and everything turned out alright. Nowadays, we consider the Archer to be a relatively straight forward, modest aircraft because that's what we're all used to.

There's no reason glass panel / GPS operations shouldn't be treated in the same way.

 

[MikeD]

Then let me ask this...

Where do we draw the line? When is a plane simple enough or too complicated for a student pilot to handle?

My primary trainer was a Cherokee Archer with dual VORs, dual COM radios, DME, and an autopilot.

Would a Cessna 150 with nothing but a single NAV/COM radio have been better?

Or maybe a Cub with nothing but airspeed, altimeter, and engine gauges would have made me a better pilot? Heck, if it was good enough for pilots in the '50s, it oughta be good enough today!


For some reason a lot of people don't want to acknowledge the natural progression of technology. The Archer that I did my primary training in looked like the space shuttle compared to a Cub. Pilots from the 1950s could have used the exact same argument you've presented against glass panels, only against my Archer...too many distractions, too many bells and whistles, too much for a student to handle, etc.

But looking back on it, it was no big deal...I learned the tools, I learned how to fly, and everything turned out alright. Nowadays, we consider the Archer to be a relatively straight forward, modest aircraft because that's what we're all used to.

There's no reason glass panel / GPS operations shouldn't be treated in the same way.

You definitely have to work with what you have. You can have dual VORs, DME, etc. But like anything, you start with the basics and work those in eventually during training. I wouldn't think glass/GPS should be any different......work them in when appropriate too.

 

[Barty]

I whole heartedly disagree.

I don't mean any offense by this question at all---- have you tried a G-1000 Student Pilot?

My experience showed me that there was absolutely no lag time in learning to fly. Obviously they couldn't make it smoke and using the system to its full potential only came later on X-C.

I think G-1000s are fine primary trainers.
----
My own personal teaching philosophy on G-1000 student pilots is, just because the expensive equipment is there, it doesn't mean that my students gets to use it.
The majority of my G-1000 students used that airplane because it was the newer and in their mind safer airplane.

My main argument against using the G1000 equipped airplanes, or at least having them as the only option on the flight line, is cost. If you're running off business because of the extra $40-70/hr vs a simpler airplane, is it really worth it? That is what led me to choose one club over another when I was looking around last year. One at the field I fly at had a couple of Cirri, and 3 172SPs at $130/hr. The other had a couple of 172P models for $99/hr, plus a GNS430 equipped 172P and AA5B for $7-9/hr more.

The less people you have flying the airplanes, the more you've got to charge to keep them flying. I think schools that keep nothing but new or nearly new aircraft around are putting themselves at a disadvantage because it makes them heavily reliant on loans for most people to get their training. Whereas the outfit with a couple of cheaper to fly airplanes can spread out his costs a little better by attracting the business of the weekend warrior, pay-as-you go crowd. I believe going forward many schools are going to have to adapt to that model as financing dries up.

I think schools could do themselves a service in dispelling the notions about older airplanes being less safe by opening up the maintenance logs to students, maybe as part of ground school. I don't have any second thoughts about flying the mid-70s, early 80s aircraft I normally fly because I know they're being well maintained. I can ask for the Mx logs at any time and they'll pull them out of the cabinet, not to mention that on every dispatch sheet it has the dates of the last annual, oil change, 100hr, pitot static/transponder check, etc.

 

[jrh]

My main argument against using the G1000 equipped airplanes, or at least having them as the only option on the flight line, is cost. If you're running off business because of the extra $40-70/hr vs a simpler airplane, is it really worth it?

Yes. Trust me, I work with a school that only flies late model Cessnas and it's worth it.

Of course it depends on the operation's business model, but I'm very glad we have ours set up the way we do.

The thing to remember is that what seems affordable/expensive for you is not necessarily the same for everyone else in the world.

For you, personally, somehow, somewhere along the line, you've seen what you consider to be an acceptably nice aircraft at an acceptable price. You've found *good value* in the lower prices. Nothing wrong with that.

However, there is a large demographic that doesn't see things the same way. There are many people who appreciate having 4 seats instead of 2. Many people see the benefits of having a bigger engine or more payload capabilities. Many people want to have the added safety or convenience features of datalink weather. Many people want to train in what they plan to fly after they get their license. Shoot, many people just feel more comfortable or safer in something that was made 4 years ago rather than 40.

Any number of reasons might persuade a person to choose a more expensive aircraft. It's the same reason we don't all drive Geo Metros...we want different capabilities out of our cars and are willing to pay various amounts accordingly.

From a business perspective, I can tell you without a doubt that I prefer working with clientel who are attracted to nicer aircraft rather than the "cheapest price" types. They are more likely to complete training, more likely to see the value in a good instructor, etc. What's wrong with setting up a business to take advantage of these benefits?

The less people you have flying the airplanes, the more you've got to charge to keep them flying. I think schools that keep nothing but new or nearly new aircraft around are putting themselves at a disadvantage because it makes them heavily reliant on loans for most people to get their training. Whereas the outfit with a couple of cheaper to fly airplanes can spread out his costs a little better by attracting the business of the weekend warrior, pay-as-you go crowd. I believe going forward many schools are going to have to adapt to that model as financing dries up.

Those are valid points. The way my operation has decided to fill the void is through LSA training in SkyCatchers (whenever they arrive). People still get to fly brand new, glass panel aircraft for $30/hour less.


Now, let me talk in long range, future-of-aviation terms for a minute. This relates to the vision of what we're trying to do at the flight school I work with.

What is going to happen if nobody ever sees the benefits of new aircraft? What if everyone is always trained to go for the oldest, simplest, cheapest form of flying possible? What is going to happen to the aviation industry 20 years from now?

Will aircraft manufacturers be able to stay in business when nobody wants their products? Will affluent business people keep flying themselves to meetings when they have to get out of their 2025 model year Lexus and get in to a beat up 50-60 year old airframe?

If the industry starts to wither, what will happen to our small town airports? Will they get shut down? Will they be deserted except for a few old timers (us) buzzing around in "classics" from the 1970s?

Just a few points to ponder. Old aircraft have their place. Trust me, I fly a plane from 1946. But I don't think perpetually using old aircraft and dogging on new aircraft is the best approach for long term success as an industry. Long term planning is what will allow us to keep doing what we all love (like flying my plane from 1946).

 

[ILSstud]

Just a few points to ponder. Old aircraft have their place. Trust me, I fly a plane from 1946. But I don't think perpetually using old aircraft and dogging on new aircraft is the best approach for long term success as an industry. Long term planning is what will allow us to keep doing what we all love (like flying my plane from 1946).

:yeahthat:

Aviation technology did stagnate for quite sometime between the 1970s-1990s. Was there the same sort of discussion say when VOR indicators became common? I am far too young to even begin to speculate on that, but I can imagine that there was skepticism. I think if you find a program that truly teaches the G1000, or any other glass cockpit for that matter, you have the potential to really unlock a lot of the great things it can do for you. However, I have seen my fair share of schools that have the "you will figure it out mentality." Let's be honest, a 1-3 hr checkout will not teach you everything about the G1000.

 

[Douglas]

Let's be honest, a 1-3 hr checkout will not teach you everything about the G1000.

You are right, I don't think it is enough time to know everything, but normally around the three hour mark the person being checked out starts whining about being able to figure it out on their own, "come on I can do this, I will figure the rest out".

My main argument against using the G1000 equipped airplanes, or at least having them as the only option on the flight line, is cost.

Agreed, I am a firm believer in the C-150.
Though I am already a little cynical and believe that average man is already priced out of flight instruction.

 

[Barty]

Agreed, I am a firm believer in the C-150.
Though I am already a little cynical and believe that average man is already priced out of flight instruction.

I don't think it has to be that way though.

I started flying in 2000, and since then, I have noticed a definite trend (locally, anyway) in schools catering to the folks wanting to become airline pilots and less so towards the average joe who has always had the dream to fly. Case in point, I can't find a 150/152 to rent anywhere in the Atlanta area. When I was flying between 2000-2002, almost any place you went to had at least one availble. Sure, they're not fast and they can't carry alot, but if you just want to go up and fly on a nice clear day, it is all you need. Save the glass and GPS for instrument training or overnight trips when the extra avonics will be appreciated should the weather not hold up the entire time.