Is it just me or does this look a little nuts?

[Kestrel452]

I find it equally scary to think a pilot could get an instrument rating in a 152 and then jump in a glass cockpit and try to fly it IFR.

Without proper transition training, both scenarios could get real scary real quick.

I don't know about that one bro. I fly G1000 172s at Page Field whenever we go down to the Florida house. Those screens make flying a PIECE OF CAKE. Who the hell even needs a chart in them? You have a giant ass screen telling you everything you need to know and all your instruments are consolidated into a single box.

 

[jrh]

Rex, I wasn't complaining about needing a GPS for VFR nav. I was afraid of night navigation because I had never done so before, but since doing so I realize it just takes practice. The main reason I had for buying a GPS was not so it would fly the route for me, but so I didnt bust airspace in Chicago.

To not worry about anyone else would be selfish.

Oh, so technology is good...as long as it meets YOUR definition of necessary?

Ok, fine.

Take a look at the MFD in your buddy's picture. How far away from Class Bravo is he?

I see zero miles. He's actually under a Class B shelf.

Nice double standard.

 

[Inverted]

Probably pull the plates from the Avidyne MFD. At least that's what I'd do.

But I suppose in your hypothetical world the MFD would go blank simultaneously with the iPad, right?



The safest bet would be to fly a glider. That way you don't have to worry about an engine failure. And use an abacus for calculations, coupled with celestial navigation, because E6B wiz wheels are way too modern. What happens if the little wheel in the middle breaks??? What are you gonna do then? The stars are a way safer bet. That's how *real* pilots fly.

Or maybe a person should start off by leaping from cliffs using a Birdman wingsuit. Learn how to fly hardcore, Icarus-style. Learn the fine art of producing lift with one's arms, rather than any of this fancy "factory-built wings" crap. It takes a real man to do that kind of flying.


Do I need a tag?

damn beat me to it.

 

[Kestrel452]

Oh god. Welcome to the 1960's

e6b's and steam gauges are the past it's time to move on. We don't do mathmatics with an abacus why compute critical flight computations on a wizwheel.

As for the glass no that's not too much glass. Look at all the information presented to him. There's no question who is using every available resource.

And I fly and love cubs so don't say I don't understand "real flying" because I do. I just heavily believe aviation needs to catch up to current technology.

The benefits of having a glass cockpit isn't whats being argued. The point is these kids are going to be learning in a setup that doesnt require them to develop SA skills. Hell, I can tell you I am still terrible at finding my way back to KLAF after just going out 10-20 miles to do some maneuvers. If I was put in that Cirrus all i'd have to do is look at that fancy map. Put a Cirrus kid in the plane i fly, they're going to have a rougher time than I do in the warrior thats for sure. It's not what looks cooler or works better, its which one should you start out in.

 

[The Gardener]

Probably pull the plates from the Avidyne MFD. At least that's what I'd do.

But I suppose in your hypothetical world the MFD would go blank simultaneously with the iPad, right?



The safest bet would be to fly a glider. That way you don't have to worry about an engine failure. And use an abacus for calculations, coupled with celestial navigation, because E6B wiz wheels are way too modern. What happens if the little wheel in the middle breaks??? What are you gonna do then? The stars are a way safer bet. That's how *real* pilots fly.

Or maybe a person should start off by leaping from cliffs using a Birdman wingsuit. Learn how to fly hardcore, Icarus-style. Learn the fine art of producing lift with one's arms, rather than any of this fancy "factory-built wings" crap. It takes a real man to do that kind of flying.


Do I need a tag?

Post of the month. Thank you!

I find it equally scary to think a pilot could get an instrument rating in a 152 and then jump in a glass cockpit and try to fly it IFR.

Without proper transition training, both scenarios could get real scary real quick.

Xzactly! It is a scary idea but having the FAA introduce yet another training requirement is even more scary. I just wish they'd add;

91.1 No pilot at any time shale do anything stupid.

 

[Nark]

I'm with jrh on this one.

AOPA showcased a dude who had way to much money, flew his glass cockpitted Meridian into the side of a mountain in Sitka because he couldn't program it.

I've flow with basic VFR, and Highway-in-the -sky glass. If you can transition from one to another, great. If not, you have no right being in my proximity.

 

[MikeD]

Oh god. Welcome to the 1960's

e6b's and steam gauges are the past it's time to move on. We don't do mathmatics with an abacus why compute critical flight computations on a wizwheel.

As for the glass no that's not too much glass. Look at all the information presented to him. There's no question who is using every available resource.

And I fly and love cubs so don't say I don't understand "real flying" because I do. I just heavily believe aviation needs to catch up to current technology.

Know both. Steam certainly isn't in the past. Unless the last steam gauge aircraft was flown to the boneyard and no one told me.

Those who say one is any better than the other are wrong. Both methods are fairly equal, depending on what one wants to do. They're each a different skill set to accomplish the same thing. So lets quit the asinine comparisons we seem to have a thread about weekly.

Just because you think aviation needs to catch up with current technology, doesn't mean the basics go out the window.

And thats coming from someone who's flown the most basic jet, to the most advanced.

 

[thehobbit]

Probably pull the plates from the Avidyne MFD. At least that's what I'd do.

But I suppose in your hypothetical world the MFD would go blank simultaneously with the iPad, right?



The safest bet would be to fly a glider. That way you don't have to worry about an engine failure. And use an abacus for calculations, coupled with celestial navigation, because E6B wiz wheels are way too modern. What happens if the little wheel in the middle breaks??? What are you gonna do then? The stars are a way safer bet. That's how *real* pilots fly.

Or maybe a person should start off by leaping from cliffs using a Birdman wingsuit. Learn how to fly hardcore, Icarus-style. Learn the fine art of producing lift with one's arms, rather than any of this fancy "factory-built wings" crap. It takes a real man to do that kind of flying.


Do I need a tag?

sarcasm, truth in jest.

 

[Inverted]

Wait, so you are arguing that a glass cockpit pilot doesn't develop those skills. And you don't have thos skills developed flying your warrior, then what's the arguement here? take 2 pilots that don't know where they are and cannot navigate on pilotage but one has a huge screen, I'd say that provides pretty good situational awareness...

And it's not what you should start out in. Train in what you plan on flying. If you think glass is a gimmick or if it's going away you're dead wrong. Glass is here a it's being put in every newly manufacturered aircraft in some form or another. Glass doesn't make anyone less of a pilot. Not relying on your training and fundamentals is what gets you.

If you don't think I look outside of the Pilatus to see that powerline that's depicted on my screen just like I'd do a sectional you're wrong. I don't do anything differently in a glass cockpit airplane than I do round gauges. And I fly both daily. From a situational awareness standpoint how can you even begin to argue that glass won't give you better SA? that's insane...

 

[Joe Gremlin]

Does anybody else think it's a little scary that somebody can get his instrument rating in a glass cockpit and then legally go fly a beat up 152 with a six pack and a VOR in the clouds?

Its no more scary than someone doing all their private and instrument in a beat up 152 and then buying a Bonanza and flying it home at night in solid IMC and that's been legal since any of us have been breathing*.


*Complex and high performance endorsements aside of course, but you get my point.

 

[jrh]

I don't know about that one bro. I fly G1000 172s at Page Field whenever we go down to the Florida house. Those screens make flying a PIECE OF CAKE. Who the hell even needs a chart in them? You have a giant ass screen telling you everything you need to know and all your instruments are consolidated into a single box.

If I didn't do transition training with pilots all the time, I'd probably say the same thing. Some pilots (you might be one of them) pick up the glass cockpit technology really quick.

Others get information overload. They get lost in the menus. They have a hard time interpreting the HSI. They have trouble setting up bearing pointers to determine crossing radials. They don't know how to modify/amend a flight plan once it's programmed into the system. They get confused by what the autopilot is doing and how to make it do what they want it to do.

Trust me, the transition goes both ways.

 

[jrh]

Those who say one is any better than the other are wrong. Both methods are fairly equal, depending on what one wants to do. They're each a different skill set to accomplish the same thing. So lets quit the asinine comparisons we seem to have a thread about weekly.

:yeahthat:

I love you, MikeD.

 

[ozziecat35]

I just wanted to comment on the fact that OP's buddy (or parents) has the cash for Purdue's flight program AND an iPad?? Daymn!

 

[MikeD]

And it's not what you should start out in. Train in what you plan on flying. If you think glass is a gimmick or if it's going away you're dead wrong. Glass is here a it's being put in every newly manufacturered aircraft in some form or another. Glass doesn't make anyone less of a pilot. Not relying on your training and fundamentals is what gets you.

Glass isn't going away anymore than steam gauges are. Both are simply different ways of accomplishing the same thing.

If you don't think I look outside of the Pilatus to see that powerline that's depicted on my screen just like I'd do a sectional you're wrong. I don't do anything differently in a glass cockpit airplane than I do round gauges. And I fly both daily. From a situational awareness standpoint how can you even begin to argue that glass won't give you better SA? that's insane...

The only problem I can see with glass is the possibility of an overabundance of information, or just information saturation that can lower SA. However, that isn't necessarily the fault of the airplane....the airplane simply provides the info; it's how the pilot manages that info that determines his/her SA level. You could have someone with more SA in a steam plane than a glass one, and vice versa, or even equal. Just depends on the particular stick actuator sitting in the seat. Again, two separate ways to get to the same destination.

 

[element94]

I'm doing my PPL in a /U 1978 Piper Warrior. She doesn't look like much but she's got it where it counts.

I don't mean to nag, but you're not even a certificated pilot yet and are already acting like chicken little.

I love glass, I've flown it multiple times. It doesn't relieve me of 91.3, 91.13, or 91.103. Ultimately, our personality is what determines how diligent of a pilot we are, not whatever technology is in the cockpit. I can only imagine the debates the airmail pilots had when we wanted to start navigating only by reference to instruments, or when we started using IRU's or GPS in lieu of VOR's and NDB's.

The chances of the glass cockpit system failing are astronomically low, many thousands if not millions of times below the analog gauges. If you're looking for reliability, I'll take glass any day. With RAIM, a redundant GPS constellation, and accuracy that allows us to do approaches to ILS minima, I'm also going to trust that moving map over my eyes any day. That being said, the FAA isn't removing pilotage from the PTS for any certificate level. We still have to demonstrate it to a satisfactory level during our practical test.

I know of very few commercial operators out there that don't have some sort of GPS, and the few exceptions that come to mind are VFR-only operations. I'm not going to hop in a 152 with one VOR receiver (no glideslope) and shoot a LOC BC approach to minimums in actual conditions. While legal, it'd be incredibly stupid, and goes back to 91.3. A reasonable pilot probably wouldn't even hop in a familiar airplane and shoot an approach to minimums in actual if they've never done it before...

Experience, both past and recent being the key to proficiency, glass only pilots will become just as proficient as the rest of us with proper training and practice. They already know how to fly, we're just changing how the information is getting to them.

 

[rvg203]

This is why I am doing my primary training in a glider. I have had plenty experience with glass in a sim (built my own, dont hate me:laff flying all types of airliners with an FMS, EADI, EHSI, and the works. Starting my training (real world), I wanted to go back to square one and learn the art of flying with a compass and watch while looking out the window. Real stick and rudder stuff. Too many guys my age who start their training want to learn in the glass because they think it is "cool" and "easy" and pilotage, dead reckoning, steam gauges, and E-6B's are "stupid", "old", "hard to use", and "unnecessary".

Don't get me wrong, glass cockpits are awesome and do wonders for SA, but I still feel people should at least learn in something without a moving map. The art of pilotage and dead reckoning should be appreciated, not just blown off like I see with some people my age. Using the whiz wheel, plotter, and a sectional have given me a lot more knowledge of what is actually going on, as opposed to seeing it on a screen and taking it at face value. I learn better when I actually understand the process of what is happening as opposed to just looking at the end result on a pretty display. Not to say primary glass students don't, but I feel I have learned more about flying going about it the old school way.

Reed

 

[trafficinsight]

Does anybody else think it's a little scary that somebody can get his instrument rating in a glass cockpit and then legally go fly a beat up 152 with a six pack and a VOR in the clouds?

Nope, not scary at all. This is America and if you wanna go kill yourself then get to it, and good luck!

I've said it before, I'm a fan of anything that makes dry vacuum pumps go the way of the dodo. Glass is what it is, a student who is taught well will know the system's limitations and his or her own limitations.

 

[Douglas]

Depends OP, is that 141 or 61 glass?

 

[JOEFRIDAY2]

I don't believe this is too much glass. Glass is here to stay and it is not going away. It's safer. It's easier. There are many benefits to it that far exceed any of the old steam gauges.

However, with that being said, if you don't know how to fly glass then you should not fly glass.

Glass cockpits require that you know how to use them. All that technology will not do you any good if you don't know how to use it.

Joe

 

[bksslc]

I have never flown a glass pannel plane, never even sat in one yet. Did my pvt/inst/comm. all on steam gauges. That said, i would love to fly with that guys set up.