I flew with somebody recently who just got their instrument rating a few
months ago, in a GPS-equipped airplane. His GPS and BAI skills were fine,
but when I suggested we fly one leg without the GPS, just using VORs and a
chart for en-route navigation, he said he had never done that in training.

He was taught that if the GPS should ever die, the fallback would be to use
the #2 radio to request vectors. The only real use he had made of VORs was
to fly a VOR approach (mostly partial-panel, because that's what the
checkride required), never en-route. Is this really the way new instrument
students are being taught these days? Is the VOR already dead in the
classroom?

Clearly not dead, as I can vouch from my Instrument training a little
over a year ago, but it's obvious that training standards do vary. IMO
no pilot should ever be content until he/she knows how to use every
piece of equipment on board.

Hmmm...what a coincidence.
I am presently being taught VOR as a student pilot in AZ. My instructor told
me that that will be the way I'll be taught to fly cross country.
I do plan on getting my instrument rating so it will be very useful.

Gary
"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>I flew with somebody recently who just got their instrument rating a few
> months ago, in a GPS-equipped airplane. His GPS and BAI skills were fine,
> but when I suggested we fly one leg without the GPS, just using VORs and a
> chart for en-route navigation, he said he had never done that in training.
>
> He was taught that if the GPS should ever die, the fallback would be to
> use
> the #2 radio to request vectors. The only real use he had made of VORs
> was
> to fly a VOR approach (mostly partial-panel, because that's what the
> checkride required), never en-route. Is this really the way new
> instrument
> students are being taught these days? Is the VOR already dead in the
> classroom?

Roy,
I found the VOR weakness along with numerous others when an
SR-22 pilot came ro me after failing his instrument checkride.

Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.

Gene Whitt

Roy Smith wrote:

> I flew with somebody recently who just got their instrument rating a few
> months ago, in a GPS-equipped airplane. His GPS and BAI skills were fine,
> but when I suggested we fly one leg without the GPS, just using VORs and a
> chart for en-route navigation, he said he had never done that in training.
>
> He was taught that if the GPS should ever die, the fallback would be to use
> the #2 radio to request vectors. The only real use he had made of VORs was
> to fly a VOR approach (mostly partial-panel, because that's what the
> checkride required), never en-route. Is this really the way new instrument
> students are being taught these days? Is the VOR already dead in the
> classroom?

When I get back to my instrument training, I'm simply not going to have
a GPS in sight. GPS is easy to learn after full training on the
standard instruments.

William W. Plummer wrote:

> GPSÂ*isÂ*easyÂ*toÂ*learnÂ*afterÂ*fullÂ*trainingÂ*o nÂ*the
> standard instruments.

I don't see the logic behind this. You'll learn to fly an ILS; why not a
GPS?

Yes, you absolutely should learn to fly w/o the GPS. Similarly, you should
learn to fly w/o the ADF, the AI, etc.

But I'd not put off GPS training any more than I'd put off VOR training.
It's a part of instrument flying, so learn it.

[Of course, if you don't have a GPS or an ADF, that's a different matter.
There's little reason to learn to fly a 2005 GPS if you don't think you'll
be flying a GPS for several years. Sadly, there's enough difference in the
UIs to make that less than fully efficient.]

- Andrew

In article >, William W. Plummer wrote:
>
> When I get back to my instrument training, I'm simply not going to have
> a GPS in sight. GPS is easy to learn after full training on the
> standard instruments.

I appreciate the attitude. If you can mentally translate from keeping
the needle centered to your position along an airway, you can do it
whether the needle represents a VOR signal, localizer signal, or
GPS. That's the basic IFR nav skill to master.

Once you have the basics, though, don't underestimate the complexity
of current GPS interfaces. I swear, you need a degree in computer
science to operate those things (fortunately for me...). I've had
the plane for a year now, and I'm still learning things about the
GPS.

On today's trip, I used the flight plan for the first time since
my flight home when I bought the plane. That time, I had another
pilot flying, so I could have as much heads down time as I needed.
This time, I did the flight plan on the ground before starting the
engine.

Despite the complexity of the capabilities, it does make things
easier once you get comfortable with it. Anyone can use the moving
map and direct-to feature right away, particularly for VFR flight,
but the more advanced features take practice to master.


Morris (just a direct-to kinda guy)

In article t>, Gene Whitt wrote:
>
> Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.

I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few
who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's
a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow
is a non-complex with a few extra knobs).

I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was
asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope
at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do
that in a slipery bird.


Morris

There needs to be a balance between reliance on Gee-wiz boxes and knowing
how to use ALL of the installed & legal equipment. My DE (no longer active
as of May 31) wouldn't know what to do w/ the nav pages of a GNS 4/530. She
failed an instrument student for not being able to nav to an intersection
w/o the gps. (Agreed)

But the same student can have same gps and not know anything beyond direct .
Forget about flight plan or select approach, OBS, CDI. You get the picture.

--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

VOsborne2 at charter dot net
"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> William W. Plummer wrote:
>
>> GPS is easy to learn after full training on the
>> standard instruments.
>
> I don't see the logic behind this. You'll learn to fly an ILS; why not a
> GPS?
>
> Yes, you absolutely should learn to fly w/o the GPS. Similarly, you
> should
> learn to fly w/o the ADF, the AI, etc.
>
> But I'd not put off GPS training any more than I'd put off VOR training.
> It's a part of instrument flying, so learn it.
>
> [Of course, if you don't have a GPS or an ADF, that's a different matter.
> There's little reason to learn to fly a 2005 GPS if you don't think you'll
> be flying a GPS for several years. Sadly, there's enough difference in
> the
> UIs to make that less than fully efficient.]
>
> - Andrew
>

Journeyman > wrote:

> If you can mentally translate from keeping the needle centered to your
> position along an airway, you can do it whether the needle represents a
> VOR signal, localizer signal, or GPS. That's the basic IFR nav skill to
> master.

Well, but maybe that's the real question? Is visualizing location in space
by interpreting a CDI needle indeed a basic IFR skill? It certainly was
when I did my instrument training, but is it still? Will it always be?
The moving map GPS gives so much more information. Right now, we're in a
transition stage where a well-stocked GA panel consists of a moving map GPS
backed up by a conventional nav/com. Maybe 10 years from now, the standard
will be two moving map GPS units (or something more exotic), and the CDI as
we know it today will be as obsolete as the ADF is quickly becomming?

Is this really the way new instrument
>students are being taught these days? Is the VOR already dead in the
>classroom?

Let's see...
I passed my Private Pilot in Jan, and got my instrument rating a
couple weeks ago. GPS? not much. Got my PPL in a Tomahawk with
one navcom. I can switch freqs and dial quickly to approximate where
I am. IFR? Give me a plane with 2 VORs and "I'm golden". Gimme an
ADF and a (real, not GPS) DME, and I'm quite happy.

Now I just need to get confident enough to go fly in the soup
alone.... :)

--Don
Don Byrer
Electronics Technician / Friendly but Sarcastic Pilot
FAA Airways Facilites/Tech Ops, RADAR/Data/Comm @ CLE
Amateur Radio KJ5KB
Instrument Pilot Commercial Student
PP-ASEL 30 Jan 2005 "-IA" 25 Mar 2005

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> I flew with somebody recently who just got their instrument rating a
> few months ago, in a GPS-equipped airplane. His GPS and BAI skills
> were fine, but when I suggested we fly one leg without the GPS, just
> using VORs and a chart for en-route navigation, he said he had never
> done that in training.
>
> He was taught that if the GPS should ever die, the fallback would be
> to use the #2 radio to request vectors. The only real use he had made
> of VORs was to fly a VOR approach (mostly partial-panel, because
> that's what the checkride required), never en-route. Is this really
> the way new instrument students are being taught these days? Is the
> VOR already dead in the classroom?

The way the system works in the US, CFIs and CFIIs are new, low-time
pilots building enough time to get a real job, so it's not that
surprising that some of the training is substandard.

I know it's not a good model, but economics being what they are, I don't
have a suggestion for a viable alternative.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in
:

> When I get back to my instrument training, I'm simply not going to
> have a GPS in sight. GPS is easy to learn after full training on the
> standard instruments.

I've been doing this for a few years now, and IMO it's easier to fly
using a VOR than a GPS. With a VOR, you just tune the frequency, set the
OBS to the correct radial, and keep the needle centered. That's all
there is to it. A GPS, OTOH, can be very complicated to set up,
especially for an approach. Different brands have radically different
user interfaces, and different ways of setting things. It takes far more
effort and practice to use a GPS than a VOR, especially if you find
yourself in an aircraft with a different brand installed than the one
you're used to. It's very easy to get into a lot of trouble setting up
the GPS. Don't even think about trying to fly a GPS approach without
spending a great deal of time familiarizing yourself with the box.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Roy Smith > wrote in
:


> Well, but maybe that's the real question? Is visualizing location in
> space by interpreting a CDI needle indeed a basic IFR skill? It
> certainly was when I did my instrument training, but is it still?
> Will it always be? The moving map GPS gives so much more information.

I think it's a basic skill for now. I've never flown with a moving-map
GPS, so I still rely on the HSI needle. The interface of the Trimble
2101+ is very primitive, and gives little more than what you see on the
DME and CDI. A moving map, with more information, more clearly
presented, would be very welcome, though. Why make things harder than
necessary? If the FAA has its way, the VOR network will go away
entirely. It's too expensive to maintain, and it's certainly obsolete.
Especially for a pilot flying alone, who doesn't fly that often, anything
that helps reduce complexity and the need for interpretation is going to
be safer.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

> I flew with somebody recently who just got their instrument rating a few
> months ago, in a GPS-equipped airplane. His GPS and BAI skills were fine,
> but when I suggested we fly one leg without the GPS, just using VORs and a
> chart for en-route navigation, he said he had never done that in training.

I don't know why this should be so complicated for any IFR student
or IFR pilot. The GPS is easier to fly with but the computer
skills for it are a lot more demanding. A GPS is very accurate
but if you have it set up wrong it could very accurately
drive you into a mountain side. But enroute, jeez, to me I don't
see a difference between tune-identify-twist-set or setup the
GPS and then fly the needle. Ok, the GPS gives you very exact
course vs. desired course but you still have to fly the needle.

Gerald Sylvester

Journeyman wrote:
> In article >, William W. Plummer wrote:
>
>>When I get back to my instrument training, I'm simply not going to have
>>a GPS in sight. GPS is easy to learn after full training on the
>>standard instruments.
>
>
> I appreciate the attitude. If you can mentally translate from keeping
> the needle centered to your position along an airway, you can do it
> whether the needle represents a VOR signal, localizer signal, or
> GPS. That's the basic IFR nav skill to master.
>
> Once you have the basics, though, don't underestimate the complexity
> of current GPS interfaces. I swear, you need a degree in computer
> science to operate those things (fortunately for me...). I've had
> the plane for a year now, and I'm still learning things about the
> GPS.
>
> On today's trip, I used the flight plan for the first time since
> my flight home when I bought the plane. That time, I had another
> pilot flying, so I could have as much heads down time as I needed.
> This time, I did the flight plan on the ground before starting the
> engine.
>
> Despite the complexity of the capabilities, it does make things
> easier once you get comfortable with it. Anyone can use the moving
> map and direct-to feature right away, particularly for VFR flight,
> but the more advanced features take practice to master.
>
>
> Morris (just a direct-to kinda guy)

What has emerged is that there are two skills to be learned: Instrument
flying and GPS operation. My choice is to do the former in the plane
with an instructor and the latter on the ground with a manual.

In fact I do quite a bit of "Geocaching" using the GPS to find hidden
treasure. And after a year I'm still finding out stuff about the
simple little Garmin 12.

"William W. Plummer" > wrote:

> When I get back to my instrument training, I'm simply not going to have
> a GPS in sight.

Once you start flying single pilot in actual conditions, you will most
likely learn to really appreciate the rock solid stability of the GPS
needle versus the wobbly VOR needle. "Easy" is actually preferred in GA
single pilot, actual instrument conditions.

Weekly I commute to an airport that only offers VOR approaches and true GPS
instrument approaches (t-shaped approach as opposed to an overlay of a VOR
approach). Both the GPS and the VOR approaches have the same minimums.

When ceiling and visibility are right at minimums, I choose the GPS
approach every time.

> GPS is easy to learn after full training on the standard instruments.

Hmmm... as a pilot you are obligated to learn every piece of equipment in
your aircraft. The GPS is a piece of equipment that could really save
your skin and the aircraft if the single engine quits.

Instead of your current attitude, you really should consider incorporating
all of your equipment into your training. Mastering the GPS while in
actual conditions when work load is high is something you really want to do
with an instructor on board, not when you are flying the family in actual
conditions to Hershey Park for your yearly vacation.

Additionally, given the large section of the AIM devoted to GPS (and
assuming you are in the US), your DE will probably be testing you on your
use of the GPS during your instrument checkride.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

>>GPS is easy to learn after full training on the standard instruments.
>
> Hmmm... as a pilot you are obligated to learn every piece of equipment in
> your aircraft. The GPS is a piece of equipment that could really save
> your skin and the aircraft if the single engine quits.
>
> Instead of your current attitude, you really should consider incorporating
> all of your equipment into your training.

The reason not to, is that one needs to learn VOR/DME/ADF navigation and
attitude flying, and there may be a tendency to rely on the GPS, to the
detriment of the more basic =training=. One would therefore have less
than ideal basic skills.

You are right, GPS is a wonderful tool, and should =also= be learned and
integrated. However, the hard part of GPS isn't the GPS or the map or
the needle... it is the interface, and they are =far= from standard.
Teach someone VOR and they are good to go in most any plane. Teach
someone GPS and they will still need a type rating(*) for each and every
other GPS system on the planet.

Jose

(*) note to Steve - this is not to be taken literally - this is merely
a figure of speech. I know what a real type rating is. :)
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >, Roy Smith wrote:

> Well, but maybe that's the real question? Is visualizing location in space
> by interpreting a CDI needle indeed a basic IFR skill? It certainly was
> when I did my instrument training, but is it still? Will it always be?

Yes. Probably not.

We can expect the VOR to eventually go the way of the A-N radio range.

> The moving map GPS gives so much more information. Right now, we're in a
> transition stage where a well-stocked GA panel consists of a moving map GPS

"Transitional is exactly the right word."

> backed up by a conventional nav/com. Maybe 10 years from now, the standard
> will be two moving map GPS units (or something more exotic), and the CDI as
> we know it today will be as obsolete as the ADF is quickly becomming?

Possibly. I'm not expert on ergonomics, but everyone agres the CDI needle
is simple to handle and it's failure modes are well understood. The GPS
interface is complicated and nonstandard. Long term, I expect them to
figure out the ergonomics. It will probably take more than just another
decade to complete the transition.


Morris

Jose > wrote:

> The reason not to, is that one needs to learn VOR/DME/ADF navigation and
> attitude flying, and there may be a tendency to rely on the GPS, to the
> detriment of the more basic =training=. One would therefore have less
> than ideal basic skills.

IMO and E, the basic skills of attitude flying rely on scanning the primary
six-pack, whereas tracking a VOR, localizer, or GPS would be considered the
secondary skills. I do not see how utilizing the GPS for navigation
would negatively affect ones attitude flying skills.

But, then again I am not an instructor, nor a multi-decade experienced
pilot, so perhaps I am typing out of my derriere. :)

> You are right, GPS is a wonderful tool, and should =also= be learned and
> integrated. However, the hard part of GPS isn't the GPS or the map or
> the needle... it is the interface, and they are =far= from standard.
> Teach someone VOR and they are good to go in most any plane. Teach
> someone GPS and they will still need a type rating(*) for each and every
> other GPS system on the planet.

You do have a good point there. In thinking about my comments, I now see
that they stem from the fact that I own and fly the same aircraft. I had
overlooked the interface differences between the different IFR-certified
GPS's.

By the way, I do not advocate letting one's VOR skills atrophy in favor of
the GPS. I have had three GPS failures in my three years of active
instrument flying experience, two on approach (one GPS-software related and
one RAIM failure) and one en route (database expired at 00z while flying,
which required a reboot of the GPS and five minutes to re-acquire).

The latter failure caught me with my pants down as the VORs were not set as
a backup.


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article >, William W. Plummer wrote:
>
> What has emerged is that there are two skills to be learned: Instrument
> flying and GPS operation.

Exactly.

> My choice is to do the former in the plane
> with an instructor and the latter on the ground with a manual.

You pretty much have to play with the GPS on the ground. RTFM and
run the sim. But that's generally not enough. Unless you're really
using the GPS in flight, and even if you're particularly imaginative,
you won't come up with enough scenarios.

How many people here have had an approach controller tell them to do
a right 360 to *re*join the localizer? It only happened to me once.
How many buttons would you have to push on your GPS?

This is a very good idea for a workbook or training software: unusual
GPS scenarios. Most of the oddball things occur in the terminal
areas, but even enroute, reroutes happen.

BTW, if I could do one thing to improve the interface on the sims,
instead of clicking to turn the knobs, I'd have you drag the mouse
to turn the knob.

> In fact I do quite a bit of "Geocaching" using the GPS to find hidden
> treasure. And after a year I'm still finding out stuff about the
> simple little Garmin 12.

If the simple one has so many surprises, the more complex moving maps
are going to have that much more.


Morris

Journeyman > wrote:

> How many people here have had an approach controller tell them to do
> a right 360 to *re*join the localizer? It only happened to me once.
> How many buttons would you have to push on your GPS?

Trick question. Everyone knows that the GPS cannot be used for primary
navigation while flying an ILS approach. :)

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...

> Well, but maybe that's the real question? Is visualizing location in
> space
> by interpreting a CDI needle indeed a basic IFR skill? It certainly was
> when I did my instrument training, but is it still? Will it always be?

Let me offer a different perspective. In Europe we have to have an IFR GPS
to fly at 10,000 ft+. Because most IFR traffic in Europe is commercial and
pressurized, it becomes a practical requirement at any level to be able to
fly direct to ABCDE immediately on ATC's request, because they just expect
it. So we've almost all got IFR GPS (and even those who don't have a
handheld). It's becoming rarer to spend much time tracking towards
waypoints defined by VORs, let alone actually using the raw VOR data.

We have very few VOR approaches -- most are ILS or NDB. So I get very
little practice at using the CDI on a VOR -- it's either "make TRK = BRG" or
I'm tracking a localizer, which is similar to a CDI in principle but with
vastly different sensitivity. GPS approaches aren't widely authorized (none
in the UK for example), and when I fly an NDB approach, my use of the GPS to
"monitor" :-) is to put the GPS waypoint as a pointer on the RMI (EHSI, in
fact). I don't set up the CDI at all, because it's a pain to get a useful
sensitivity setting.

As a result, when I try practising VOR tracking using raw data and the CDI,
I'm very bad at it. I'm used to having a TRK readout. I've never really
been a great fan of CDIs anyway.

Is that a great loss of skill? Perhaps. It depends on your reliance on it
after a single failure, of the GPS, I guess. In an environment where a
vector is always available and usually more practical for ATC than going
back to tracking VORs, it's unlikely to be critical.

Julian Scarfe

> I do not see how utilizing the GPS for navigation
> would negatively affect ones attitude flying skills.

It probably wouldn't. But I didn't say it would - I said it would
negatively affect learning =basic= skills, such as VOR navigation, whose
user interface is drop-dead simple.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

William W. Plummer > wrote:
>In fact I do quite a bit of "Geocaching" using the GPS to find hidden
>treasure. And after a year I'm still finding out stuff about the
>simple little Garmin 12.

Aint it a great little gadget? It was the firt GPS I owned. I'd turn
it on, toss it in my bag in the backseat for every lesson. When I
got home, would dump the track to the computer and print it out.
Made it *so* nice to see how I did stuff right and wrong. Steep
360s were nice and round. Slow 360s -- not great. In fact, pretty
rotten.

We've got an exhibit on GPS at the museum right now (I'm a volunteer)
but no working GPSs. So I brought my G12 and the Pilot III. Turns
out that there's too much structural stuff -- can't locate any
satellites. So we took them both outside to the parking lot to
amuse the folks standing in line. I think we converted at least
3 people to geocaching!

I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
That is complex in my book.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Journeyman wrote:

> In article t>, Gene Whitt wrote:
>
>>Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.
>
>
> I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few
> who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's
> a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow
> is a non-complex with a few extra knobs).
>
> I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was
> asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope
> at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do
> that in a slipery bird.
>
>
> Morris

In article >, Jon Kraus wrote:
> I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
> That is complex in my book.

It has all that, and fits the FAA definition of complex.

But, since it's (relatively) slow and draggy, you don't have to fly it
the same way you'd fly a higher performance bird. The SR-22 should be
classed with the Mooneys and Bonanzas. The Arrow should be classed
with the Skylanes and Cherokees.

IOW, in the real world, what makes an airplane a handful to fly isn't
the presence or absence of a couple of extra knobs. It's the need
to be planning further out ahead of the plane.


Morris

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:13:06 GMT, Jon Kraus >
wrote:

>I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
>That is complex in my book.

The Arrow is complex, but it is not high performance. (*over* 200 HP)

It is also far, far slower than an SR-22. The 22 may have fixed gear,
but it's a good 20 knots faster than many Bonanzas. The major hurtle
is learning to think farther ahead.

>
>Jon Kraus
>PP-ASEL-IA
>'79 Mooney 201
>
>Journeyman wrote:
>
>> In article t>, Gene Whitt wrote:
>>
>>>Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.
>>
>>
>> I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few
>> who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's
>> a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow
>> is a non-complex with a few extra knobs).

Your Arrow is a complex.

>>
>> I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was
>> asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope
>> at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do
>> that in a slipery bird.

The Bo is slippery and a good short field bird and particularly the 33
series. Book figures have them landing shorter than a 172, or at
least many of them. Then again the wing loading of the Bo is
surprisingly light. My Deb is a tad lighter per sq ft than a
Cherokee. The newer ones are a tad heavier, but still relatively
light.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>
>> Morris

In article >, Roger wrote:
>
> Your Arrow is a complex.

Sure, but is it any more complicated/difficult/challenging to fly
than a fixed-gear Cherokee?

Does a high-performance fixed-gear Skylane give you any more
performance than a low-performance retract Arrow?


Morris

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:20:36 -0500, Journeyman
> wrote:

>In article >, Roger wrote:
>>
>> Your Arrow is a complex.
>
>Sure, but is it any more complicated/difficult/challenging to fly
>than a fixed-gear Cherokee?
>
>Does a high-performance fixed-gear Skylane give you any more
>performance than a low-performance retract Arrow?

Yes, it is a bit more challenging and complicated, but no more
difficult. You have a constant speed prop and retractable gear which
are more things to keep track of, but that is not the point. By
definition it is a complex aircraft.

OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big
difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less
forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead,
but learning the aircraft far better than say a 172 or Cherokee which
are far more forgiving of mistakes. The Cherokees and Arrows are
among the most forgiving aircraft out there.

The SR-22 being even faster than a Bo, should not be thought of in
terms normally reserved for "fixed gear" aircraft. It is a truly high
performance aircraft.

I would not call the SR22 any more complex than the Bo (if you neglect
trying to program the GPS/MFD while en route). Besides, you don't have
to worry about lowering the gear. I find the glass displays easy to
fly, simpler to read, and even prefer them, to the regular instrument
display, but it would take me hours to learn the GPS to the point
where programming it in flight was instinctive.
>
There are three things in transitioning to a much higher performance
aircraft. Learn its limitations and the edges of the flight envelope
well. Learn its systems, and develop a mind set that thinks in the
terms of the speed at which you will be flying. Even the extra 20
plus knots from a Bo to the SR-22 takes a bit of conditioning. Going
from 130 or 140 knots to 200 or better is a big step.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Morris

Roger wrote:

> OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big
> difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less
> forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead,

For another data point:

I fly both a 182 and a 182RG in our club. Both are HP. But the complex is
faster and more slippery, and therefore more demanding of forethought.

- Andrew

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:10:31 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>
>> OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big
>> difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less
>> forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead,
>
>For another data point:
>
>I fly both a 182 and a 182RG in our club. Both are HP. But the complex is
>faster and more slippery, and therefore more demanding of forethought.
>

It doesn't take a large difference in speed to require a different
mind set.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
> - Andrew

> OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big
> difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less
> forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead,

> but learning the aircraft far better than say a 172 or Cherokee which

> are far more forgiving of mistakes.

The first high performance plane I ever soloed (235 hp O-470 powered)
was none of these things. It wasn't even as fast as a 172 or Cherokee.
It was a taildragger, but it was the least demanding taildragger ever
- less demanding than a Piper Cub or Aeronca Champ. Had it been built
with tricycle gear, it would have been less demanding than a C-172. It
was so undemanding that pilots with less than 500 hours were routinely
turned loose in it without a checkout - as I was. Still, why reach so
far? Neither the C-182 nor the Cherokee 235 have the features you
ascribe to high perfromance aircraft.

On the other hand, the later IO-360 powered Mooneys are not high
performance, but they have all the properties you ascribe to high
perfromance aircraft. The IO-360 powered Arrows do not.

Why not just admit the truth? The FAA definitions of high performance
and complex are meaningless.

Some airplanes are relatively fast, slippery, and unforgiving as
compared to others. Additional training for someone not used to these
properties makes all kinds of sense. Those properties are not
predictable simply by knowing whether the gear happens to move and
whether the engine can make more than 200 ponies.

Michael