Tougher Flying Through Automation!!!

mtsu_av8er

mtsu_av8er

Well-Known Member
I've been doing alot of flying lately in a very nice 206 with all the bells and whistles, and it's amazing how far behind the power curve you can get when you have every piece of available information right at your fingertips!

In the 206, I have a GNS-530, -430, Traffic Advisories, Stormscope, Electronic HSI, autopilot, coffe maker, waterbed and shower curtain display case. Personally, when I get overwhelmed, I ignore the #2 GPS, click on the autopilot and go back to the basics. Once I'm all caught up, I bring back the systems that I really need. Eventually, I'm up to par again and I can use all of my available resources.

Whenever I train primary students in the 172SP (with lots of techno-crap), I tend to remove the extra stuff from the picture and let the student concentrate on flying. Then, I train them to use the autopilot, MFD, etc. I find that a little easier on the student, and I don't overwhelm him/her with "De-cluttering the MFD" and "Adjusting the Barometric Pressure setting in the autopilot".

Today, I covered for a friend in a Cirrus and owner/operator preparing for an instrument checkride. I was amazed at how far behind the airplane she got while setting up for a straight-in VOR approach . Even with all of the stuff in the Cirrus, I'd just tune & ID the VOR, and fly the approach. Instead, the pilot had the VOR tuned, the approach loaded in both GPS units, about 3 timers, the teapot boiling, a turkey in the over and the traffic uplink from about every airport in the mid-south (just in case . . .). It was almost comical watching her do checklists (including her own personal "programming" checklist) to ensure she got it all.

After a few approaches, I showed her how easy a VOR approach could be, and she was amazed that it could be so simple. Her instructor had simply never showed her that you didn't have to do all of that crap for a simple approach.

So, my questions:

For the CFI's flying high performance, high speed/low drag aircraft - how are you training students in the area of information management? How can you teach students not to be completely reliant on multiple screens, all while making sure that the student understands the value of all available resources?

For the students out there - where are you having the most trouble in managing all of these resources? Where are we (the instructors) missing the mark? How can we improve? When are you finding yourselves behind then power curve?

I'm eager to read your responses!!!
 
It's all in the "back to basics", Lloyd. Start with the basics, like it appears you're doing, and slowly integrate the automation one or a few steps at a time. That's how it had to be done with my neanderthal brain when I went from complete low-tech in the jet I used to fly, to complete high-tech in the jet I fly now. One of the biggest things to remember is when the automation is finally learned, not to forget to go "back to basics" every so often and fly the no-MFD, no-HUD instrument penetration/approach, etc.
 
I think that when doing a VOR or NDB approach with a GPS it is almost always a mistake to actually load the approach. It is usually better to just put the navaid into the GPS as the active waypoint. Then you always know how far you are from the navaid.

If you load the approach, it starts giving you your distance from all the waypoints on the approach instead of how far you are from the navaid. Since this is different from what is depicted on the plate, it can get very confusing. For an ILS, I would either enter the identifier if it had DME, or put the outer marker in as the active waypoint and slave it to the RMI.

One thing that I would like to try with something like the Cirrus that has an autopilot is to load the approach and use it for the missed. In an FMS equipped jet on the missed from an ILS, you will usually switch back to FMS and go to 'nav' for the flight director/autopilot. It would be interesting to see how this would work out in a light plane.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think that when doing a VOR or NDB approach with a GPS it is almost always a mistake to actually load the approach. It is usually better to just put the navaid into the GPS as the active waypoint. Then you always know how far you are from the navaid.


[/ QUOTE ]

I must be a bit out of touch with GPS approaches, I haven't done one in about 1.5 years. However, I remember a requirement of using the GPS to shoot the approach as a primary means of guidence is to load the approach. This allows the GPS to calculate if the signal integrity is good throughout the approach procedure (and allows it to go "active", allowing you to descend inside the FAF).

If you're simply using it for DME, then what you're saying is fine, but you've gotta use the old-fashioned OBS/HSI/RMI to do it coupled with the Nav radio as primary guidence.

~wheelsup
 
I teach to just get DME off the GPS for the VOR and ILS approaches. That's how the plates are designed. Your final is X dme off the VOR not 0 dme from a fix that has the name of the final fix. That and it is a lot easier and a lot quicker just to get the DME and set the navs in. After that *IF* time permits I have them back up the approach by loading it on the 2nd GPS. This is of course assuming we aren't actually shooting a GPS approach. Out of all the instructors where I am now, I seem to be alone in the approach, but most of our short program add ons seem to like it more that way.

On a side note, one of our newer planes out here has TIS in it. Most students are embracing it as a way to enhance SA and traffic avoidence. However, many of them, when they go up for a checkride request to take a different plane as it is one more thing that could distract them.

Ethan
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that when doing a VOR or NDB approach with a GPS it is almost always a mistake to actually load the approach. It is usually better to just put the navaid into the GPS as the active waypoint. Then you always know how far you are from the navaid.


[/ QUOTE ]

I must be a bit out of touch with GPS approaches, I haven't done one in about 1.5 years. However, I remember a requirement of using the GPS to shoot the approach as a primary means of guidence is to load the approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're absolutely correct, wheelsup. However, that's for GPS approaches, not for straight VOR, VOR/DME or NDB approaches.

One of the things I'm trying to figure out is why people feel the need to load a VOR approach in the GPS and try to keep up with it, when you're not supposed to be using it for anything more than just [i/guidance[/i].
 
[ QUOTE ]
Whenever I train primary students in the 172SP (with lots of techno-crap)...Then, I train them to use the autopilot...

[/ QUOTE ]
AUTOPILOT??!!!! In a primary trainer???? There's the problem right there. Oh the humanity....

[ QUOTE ]
How can you teach students not to be completely reliant on multiple screens, all while making sure that the student understands the value of all available resources?

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't show them all the gadgets until VERY late in the training. If you build a strong foundation in the BASIC instrumentation, that is what they will fall back on. If all they know is Super, high power, techno moving mapology, they have no foundation in which to fall back to. Those trained on the basics will use the "super gadgets" as enhanced situational awareness. If the "magic" ever quits, it'll be no big deal. If a person is trained from the beginning on the "magic" ever loses it......they are going to have a very bad day.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If all they know is Super, high power, techno moving mapology, they have no foundation in which to fall back to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But....but.... they're learning the way the airline pilots fly, right?
sarcasm.gif


Yet another reason why I stand by my philosophy to learn in good, old fashioned beat up planes and add the cool PFM stuff later.....
 
I've had some interesting experiences teaching instrument students and primaries in the SR20 and SR22. Like you said, Lloyd, if the gee-whiz gadetry is emphasized in the beginning, that's where the student will look for their information and SA until the end of time. Beginning training with the screens dimmed or with only the basic functions allows the student to learn with traditional pilotage, eyes-outside methodology. After they have a foundation in *flying*, the technology can be introduced as a supplemental method of increasing SA, managing workload, and increasing information and decision making skills.


[ QUOTE ]
I was amazed at how far behind the airplane she got while setting up for a straight-in VOR approach .

[/ QUOTE ]

Why people feel the need to overload themselves or students by teaching all the whiz-bang toys from the beginning, I'll never know. Instead of overloading a pilot, all that technology can and should be used to decrease workload (while increasing SA and information used for ADM). Just because it's in the plane doesn't mean you have to use it!
 
This is just my opinion, but I like the new planes and all the new equipment. Sure beats a old Cessna 152 with duct tape on the wings and flaps that don't work anymore. If the radio fails in a new Cirrus, you still have the GPS and tracking systems to get you to your destination safely. If the radio falis in the 152, you're screwed. And for those who say, "just look at the ground," say you're on an xc in an unfamiliar area or in low visibility conditions. You can't spend time fumbling with charts when you need to be flying the airplane, especially if you're in in an unfamiliar area or in MVFR/IFR conditions.
 
What happens when you loose the electrical system and everything goes blank? Sure you've got a battery, but it will only power all your avionics for a finite amount of time, after which if you don't know the basics of how to fly an airplane and navigate using time tested methods then you're hosed.

Believe it or not, pilots flew for a long, long time without the avionics that we have today. No GPS, no VOR, heck, not even any NDB's.

And you said exactly what you need to do when the crap hits the fan; fly the airplane. Keeping the plane right side up is a lot more important that knowing where you at geographically. And if you're flying in visibility THAT low (or in IFR conditions) without the proper training, you've shot yourself in the foot. During your instrument training you get taught how to fly the aircraft when a bunch of stuff fails. If you loose all your avionics, you should STILL be able to know where you are on a map, figure out a heading to where the VFR weather is (you know where it is, right?) and then make it happen.
 
XC in an unfamiliar area? You brought your sectional right? Low vis? Did you file an IFR flight plan? If so, losing comms should be a non-event. Relying too much on gadgetry sets you up for big trouble when it fails. Believe it or not, they still make airplanes without radios installed, and it's even LEGAL.
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is just my opinion, but I like the new planes and all the new equipment. Sure beats a old Cessna 152 with duct tape on the wings and flaps that don't work anymore. If the radio fails in a new Cirrus, you still have the GPS and tracking systems to get you to your destination safely. If the radio falis in the 152, you're screwed. And for those who say, "just look at the ground," say you're on an xc in an unfamiliar area or in low visibility conditions. You can't spend time fumbling with charts when you need to be flying the airplane, especially if you're in in an unfamiliar area or in MVFR/IFR conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, no offense, but I've noticed that most of your posts on here are textual diareahha. This one is no excpetion. Shouldn't you be in math class or something?
 
[ QUOTE ]
XC in an unfamiliar area? You brought your sectional right? Low vis? Did you file an IFR flight plan? If so, losing comms should be a non-event. Relying too much on gadgetry sets you up for big trouble when it fails. Believe it or not, they still make airplanes without radios installed, and it's even LEGAL.
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Low vis.......you should be saying, get your ass under the weather, and then use the sectional/pilotage.

Heck, even in IMC, good ole DR will still work for you.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is just my opinion... If the radio fails in a new Cirrus, you still have the GPS and tracking systems to get you to your destination safely. If the radio falis in the 152, you're screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you cannot fly without such crutches as a GPS and/or radio...YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS FLYING AN AIRPLANE (Was that plain enough)

[ QUOTE ]
And for those who say, "just look at the ground," say you're on an xc in an unfamiliar area or in low visibility conditions. You can't spend time fumbling with charts when you need to be flying the airplane, especially if you're in in an unfamiliar area or in MVFR/IFR conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]
(Still shaking head...)
Refer to previous response.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is just my opinion, but I like the new planes and all the new equipment. Sure beats a old Cessna 152 with duct tape on the wings and flaps that don't work anymore. If the radio fails in a new Cirrus, you still have the GPS and tracking systems to get you to your destination safely. If the radio falis in the 152, you're screwed. And for those who say, "just look at the ground," say you're on an xc in an unfamiliar area or in low visibility conditions. You can't spend time fumbling with charts when you need to be flying the airplane, especially if you're in in an unfamiliar area or in MVFR/IFR conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

See EatSleepFly's post, et al.

First of all, you wouldn't be flying a 152 if the flaps don't work. Second of all, GPS will not just "get you there safely", you must follow proper radio-fail procedures and follow proper procedures to enter the airport traffic pattern (depending if it's controlled or not...light gun signals, etc). Without knowledge of these, you are doomed. Furthermore, you assume that because you rely on your GPS so much that you have absolutely no working knowledge on how to track a VOR course back to the airport. This is the problem with GPS's.

I prefer to use VOR's more than the Garmin 430 - it just makes sense to since you will not always be able to afford a nice shiny new Cirrus SR-22 to rent when your burger-flipping job can only afford you an old 150.

And what do you mean you can't spend time "fumbling with the charts"...why do you not have them out anyway? They should always be readily available if needed and should never be a large task to use them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is just my opinion, but I like the new planes and all the new equipment. Sure beats a old Cessna 152 with duct tape on the wings and flaps that don't work anymore. If the radio fails in a new Cirrus, you still have the GPS and tracking systems to get you to your destination safely. If the radio falis in the 152, you're screwed. And for those who say, "just look at the ground," say you're on an xc in an unfamiliar area or in low visibility conditions. You can't spend time fumbling with charts when you need to be flying the airplane, especially if you're in in an unfamiliar area or in MVFR/IFR conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

See EatSleepFly's post, et al.

First of all, you wouldn't be flying a 152 if the flaps don't work. Second of all, GPS will not just "get you there safely", you must follow proper radio-fail procedures and follow proper procedures to enter the airport traffic pattern (depending if it's controlled or not...light gun signals, etc). Without knowledge of these, you are a hazard to yourself and others. Furthermore, you assume that because you rely on your GPS so much that you have absolutely no working knowledge on how to track a VOR course back to the airport. This is the problem with GPS's.

I prefer to use VOR's more than the Garmin 430 - it just makes sense to since you will not always be able to afford a nice shiny new Cirrus SR-22 to rent when your burger-flipping job can only afford you an old 150.

And what do you mean you can't spend time "fumbling with the charts"...why do you not have them out anyway? They should always be readily available if needed and should never be a large task to use them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is just my opinion, but I like the new planes and all the new equipment. Sure beats a old Cessna 152 with duct tape on the wings and flaps that don't work anymore. If the radio fails in a new Cirrus, you still have the GPS and tracking systems to get you to your destination safely. If the radio falis in the 152, you're screwed. And for those who say, "just look at the ground," say you're on an xc in an unfamiliar area or in low visibility conditions. You can't spend time fumbling with charts when you need to be flying the airplane, especially if you're in in an unfamiliar area or in MVFR/IFR conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly why I worry about training studs in a TAA. Pilots get so fixated on the technology that they forget (or never learn) fundamental skills that are invaluable. The technology should be supplemental to the basic skills of a pilot, not a substitute for a solid foundation in situational awareness and cockpit resource management, let alone basic aircraft control.

I, too, would much rather be flying an SR22 than any single recip Cessna. In fact, I'd much rather teach in an SR20/SR22. But I'm not going to teach use of the technology as a crutch. Woe unto all pilots whose navigation skills consist of "Direct to" on the GPS and "NAV - ALT - VS" on the autopilot. Get your head out of the cockpit, use your charts to confirm what the diodes and LCDs are telling you, and don't trust computers to provide a desirable outcome to a flight. It's up to you to babysit every gadget that you're using up there!

Finally, technology seems to be providing a false sense of security and bravado to many pilots out there. How many of the recent TAA accidents have been a result of VFR flight into MVFR/IFR conditions? Many. How many have been a result of trusting to autopilot and GPS to take you where you need to go safely? Many. The suggestion that a technologically advanced aircraft should make it easier to fly VFR into MVFR/IMC is EXACTLY why we need to pound into pilots that technology is not a subsitute for old-fashioned decision making, situational awareness, and basic aircraft navigational skills.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you cannot fly without such crutches as a GPS and/or radio...YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS FLYING AN AIRPLANE (Was that plain enough)

[/ QUOTE ]

yeahthat.gif


If anyone ever needed a perfect example of how bad SA will get you in a lot of trouble, just ask the ex-pilot who let his piss poor SA put him right over the White House.

I like the gadgets. I'd love to have an all glass cockpit because it's more reliable than the steam gauges.

But you know what? As much as I like that stuff, if I had my eyes closed for oh, five, ten minutes, and then was told, tell me where we are, I'd be able to find it.

I had to do that three times before they let me go on my XC solo during my private training.

And it won't be over the White House.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
...Woe unto all pilots whose navigation skills consist of "Direct to" on the GPS and "NAV - ALT - VS" on the autopilot. Get your head out of the cockpit, use your charts to confirm what the diodes and LCDs are telling you, and don't trust computers to provide a desirable outcome to a flight. It's up to you to babysit every gadget that you're using up there!


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

Dad always told me "You've got to be smarter than the tools you're using".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top