Type-like Instrument Ratings

[jsmith]

With the increasing popularity and availability of rental and training
aircraft equipped with "glass" panels, are we heading toward limited or
type like instrument ratings?

For example, will an pilot trained from the onset in an aircraft
equipped with a Garmin G-1000 panel from private through instrument
ratings be restricted to only those airplanes with Garmin panels?
Without the training in how to interpret the steam gauges, could they
safely fly in a traditional paneled airplane in heavy IFR?
How about the pilot trained in "traditional" panel airplanes with "steam gauges"?
Will they require an endorsement before being permitted to rent or fly
"glass panel" aircraft in instrument conditions?

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"jsmith" > wrote in message ...

> For example, will an pilot trained from the onset in an aircraft
> equipped with a Garmin G-1000 panel from private through instrument
> ratings be restricted to only those airplanes with Garmin panels?

Formally, as in "by the FAA?" Probably not for some time. There are no
"equipment ratings" required for GPS, WAAS, HSI, autopilots, or pretty much
anything else. FITS suggests this may get a little tighter but the reality
is that while the FAA gets to paint the bus, it will be driven by the
insurance companies. They *already* require more type-specific training than
the FAA ever did.

> Without the training in how to interpret the steam gauges, could they
> safely fly in a traditional paneled airplane in heavy IFR?

I suspect it will be a *long* time before pilots are trained ab-initio on
glass. From what I hear, places like Embry-Riddle et. al. are eager to get
glass-panel trainers primarily to "familiarize" students with them so the
first time they fly one *isn't* on an airline simulator interview. Likewise,
round gauges are hardly disappearing anytime soon. Most older jets (up to
big birds like DC-8s) and turboprop commuters still have them, and it's
quite likely that's where an E-R graduate will get his or her first flying
job.

> How about the pilot trained in "traditional" panel airplanes with "steam
gauges"?
> Will they require an endorsement before being permitted to rent or fly
> "glass panel" aircraft in instrument conditions?

Almost certainly. When I rented, you needed a checkout to operate the FBO's
'98 Skyhawk just because it had fuel injection, while all their other birds
were carbureted. In any case I doubt glass-panel planes will enter the
general rental fleet that fast, as not that many FBOs have the cash flow to
justify buying a $200,000 new 172 when $50k will buy a perfectly sufficient
older one. Likewise, I wonder how much IFR is flown in rental planes without
a CFII in the right seat. My guess is "not very much."

-cwk.

[Robert M. Gary]

jsmith wrote:
> With the increasing popularity and availability of rental and
training
> aircraft equipped with "glass" panels, are we heading toward limited
or
> type like instrument ratings?
>
> For example, will an pilot trained from the onset in an aircraft
> equipped with a Garmin G-1000 panel from private through instrument
> ratings be restricted to only those airplanes with Garmin panels?
> Without the training in how to interpret the steam gauges, could they
> safely fly in a traditional paneled airplane in heavy IFR?
> How about the pilot trained in "traditional" panel airplanes with
"steam gauges"?
> Will they require an endorsement before being permitted to rent or
fly
> "glass panel" aircraft in instrument conditions?

I think you're probably more likely to see vendors provide more similar
interfaces, as with radios. FBOs are not going to want to buy radios
that require type ratings for their instructors.

[steve.t]

I learned to fly instruments using steam gages. We put a KLN89B in our
piper and left the steam gauges in place. Transition to the KLN89B
didn't take long, it was done during an IPC (took all of 2 hours).

The point to this is, what little moving map the KLN89B had, it added
to situational awareness. It did not take away from the ability to fly
an ILS (which can't be done at this point w/ the KLN89B). However, I'm
more inclined to fly the map and GPS CDI (it has its own as opposed to
sharing one with a NAV) because of how accurate they are compared to
VOR.

This actually causes me to "forget" to keep up with where I am on the
IFR chart(s) should the GPS go south! (I tend to fly direct because of
it and would have to start tuning up the VORs etc. etc. and get a
vector or two).

And for an approach: I'd rather fly the GPS approaches any day compared
to a VOR/DME or NDB/DME (particularly because the ADF got taken out of
our plane). Think about it, how much wind correction and needle drift
do I have to deal with for NDB compared to GPS?

So my thinking is, it is easier for us old timers to move to glass than
it is for glass only guys to step back to the older technology. And it
is easier for me to transition back to all steam gauges w/ ADF because
I had to use them for my check ride and [self required] annual IPC
(self required because I stay current, but use the IPC in an attempt to
make me shed bad habbits).

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[Jedi Nein]

Greetings,
I attended the FITS meeting in Grand Forks, ND last year. It's much
more of a force than folks think, even AOPA was blind-sided. Three
universities have classes of students that started in all-glass
aircraft last semester (Fall 2004). Avemco now requires FITS-Accepted
training before they will cover an owner in a glass cockpit aircraft.
The rest of the insurance carriers are like-minded. So far they are
quiet on the transition from Glass to Steam.

I'm not waiting. My first course for FITS acceptance is in the FAA's
hands and I have several more in progress, including a glass-to-steam
transition course.

Our local Cessna Pilot Center has 4 G1000-equipped Cessnas on their
flight line and plan to add 3 G1000-equipped C172s starting in March.
The next airport over has a combination of G1000 and Avidyne Entegra
glass cockpit aircraft available for rent. The story is repeated
throughout California. From the Sierras west, most folks are within 2
hours driving time of a glass cockpit rental. The flight schools and
FBOs are like-minded. They require an additional checkout before
renting the glass and several are requiring a glass-to-steam checkout
before a glass renter takes out a steam rental, even though the
insurance companies are not yet requiring this. The glass cockpit is
increasing the numbers of flying pilots.

The FAA seems to be content with insurance regulating the glass cockpit
aircraft, although they were about to step in with the Cirrus Aircraft
and their dismal safety record for the first few years. The Cirrus
Owners Association stepped in and managed to prevent any heavy-handed
stuff.

We'll see how the ab-initio glass students did when FITS holds their
next meeting in Alaska this year.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

[Michael]

jsmith wrote:
> With the increasing popularity and availability of rental and
training
> aircraft equipped with "glass" panels, are we heading toward limited
or
> type like instrument ratings?

I suspect the answer is yes - but initially in the wrong direction.

The glass panels are fitted to airplanes that are expensive - thus
there is high dollar insurance and visibility. I suspect that the time
when a checkout on a glass panel will be required is already here -
either insurance or FBO imposed. I used to think this was absolutely
silly - these things make flying IFR easier, not harder. Then I got an
older student who transitioned from a Pacer into a Mooney. It took
very little time for him to get used to the speed difference, and
landing it was a non-event from day one. Fuel injection was a
no-brainer. He was safe for day-VFR after a couple of hours with me,
and as soon as he hit the insurance minimum he was flying solo.

He's still struggling with his GNS-430. In fact, the complexity of his
panel is what's holding him back from flying the plane IFR. Now I
understand what the problem is. For those of us who grew up on
computers, it's no big deal. For those who are older (not more
experienced - just older) it's a problem. So there might be some value
to this. Sort of like a friend of mine who remembers when anyone could
fly the taildraggers at the FBO (tailwheel checkout? who dat?) but you
needed 100 hours and a CFI checkout to rent the tri-gear planes? Why?
The taildraggers were old and cheap, the tri-gear planes expensive.

> For example, will an pilot trained from the onset in an aircraft
> equipped with a Garmin G-1000 panel from private through instrument
> ratings be restricted to only those airplanes with Garmin panels?

I expect the panels will become more standardized or the insurance
companies will step in and make something like that mandatory.

> Without the training in how to interpret the steam gauges, could they
> safely fly in a traditional paneled airplane in heavy IFR?

Some could (the ones that were trained properly) but most couldn't.
It's like transitioning to taildraggers. Someone who is properly
trained in a C-150 and has flown a couple of hundred hours in a random
tri-gear airplane without letting himself get sloppy can sight right
down in a Champ and fly it. Most pilots are not properly trained to
begin with and get sloppier with time, so those pilots can't. This is
the same. You CAN train a pilot properly on glass, but glass lets you
get by with stuff steam gauges won't, so given the caliber of the
instructors doing most of the IFR training I'm not counting on much.

But the steam gauge airplanes are cheap - thus low dollar insurance and
low visibility. I suspect it will take quite a few accidents for those
trained on glass and transitioning to steam gauges for the FAA to wise
up and require the equivalent of the tailwheel endorsement for steam
gauges and ADF's.

> How about the pilot trained in "traditional" panel airplanes with
"steam gauges"?
> Will they require an endorsement before being permitted to rent or
fly
> "glass panel" aircraft in instrument conditions?

See above. I bet the insurance companies are already mandating it.
Michael

[kage]

"jsmith" > wrote in message ...
> With the increasing popularity and availability of rental and training
> aircraft equipped with "glass" panels, are we heading toward limited or
> type like instrument ratings?


Yes. I am type rated in the Falcon 900EX, but not the Falcon 900EX with the
Honeywell EASy cockpit.

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/01_04/01_4_flightsafetyp62.html

Karl

[Doug]

Michael makes some good points. My philosophy is to log what is
necessary to be legal, and train what is necessary to be safe.

In light of that, the current state of affairs, for me, and many
careful pilots, is probably sufficient. But for some, particuarly those
who rent (but just how many renters are there that fly IMC?), there may
be an attempt to cut corners.

Right now, I think the issue is of most concern to instructors. How is
an instructor who is not trained in the instruments supposed to
instruct someone in a glass cockpit airplane? Now if the FBO has one on
the line, they can learn it, but who will pay for the time? Let us hope
that inexpensive flight simulators will have these as options on their
panels, as this is something that can be learned on a sim (and right
now, a non-certified sim would be just fine).

My airplane has an IFR GPS and an autopilot. None of my instructors
taught me anything about either (I taught them!). To learn it, I just
read the manual inside and out, and went out and flew long VFR
crosscountries and tried out every button, every option, every
combination. After about 10 hours, I was initially comptetent. After
100 hours I was approaching expert status, and after 200 hours I had
the thing cold inside and out. But it would have been a lot fewer hours
if I had a sim or an actual training program that hit the training
issues in an exhaustive way. (Demonstrate EACH funtion of the unit,
then have th student do it until comptetency is obtained). The IFR GPS
must have 10 factorial different combinations. And then there are the
failure modes to consider. Probably is an exaggeration, but there
really are a lot.

The manufacturers of these glass panels need to code up some realistic
sims like the Garmin sim for the 430 so these panels can be learned
without having to fly the plane. Then the instructors need to to learn
them. Then the students need to lean them. Right now the training is
inside out. The student owning the airplane knows more than the
instructor. Why? Because he has used it.

Modern training environment should include a sim with all the
instruments found in the actual airplane. Just like the airlines do it.
With inexpensive computers available and manufacturers providing the
software, it's not really a pipe dream. But it's going to be a painful
experience for a lot of instructors and DE's.

I think the glass panels are LESS complicated than the IFR GPS's. But
unlike the IFR GPS's, they can't be ignored.

[John E. Carty]

<Snip>> The glass panels are fitted to airplanes that are expensive </Snip>

They are in every single engine model currently produced by Cessna from the
Skyhawks and up. The Garmin G-1000 costs no more then conventional gauges
when installed in one of these new aircraft :-)

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> <Snip>> The glass panels are fitted to airplanes that are expensive
</Snip>
>
> They are in every single engine model currently produced by Cessna from
the
> Skyhawks and up. The Garmin G-1000 costs no more then conventional gauges
> when installed in one of these new aircraft :-)
>

Expensive compared to my $50,000 172N, which for the average FBO is all the
plane they need. What I will not deny is the visual appeal of glass-panel
planes, which will attract customers, though I'm not sure this is an
entirely good thing.

-cwk.

[Doug]

The cost will go down. It costs no more to make a glass panel than the
gyros they replace, maybe less.

For an idea of what it can cost, you can get an experimental AI
replacement that has an AI, TC, VSI and probably some other stuff I've
forgotten for under $2000. All electronic, with no mechanical gyros.
And they work!

I really don't think it's all that big an issue. Just train and become
competent with what you have, and fly it.

IFR IMC flight is mostly about what to do if something becomes
non-functional anyway. So have lots of backups and know how to cross
check to determine just what is going on.

[[email protected]]

> I expect the panels will become more standardized or the insurance
> companies will step in and make something like that mandatory.
>

That certainly hasn't been the case with air carrier and biz jet aircraft.

For instance, the Falcon 900 (the biz jet with three engines) requires a
new, separate type rating for the new 900EX.

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The cost will go down. It costs no more to make a glass panel than the
> gyros they replace, maybe less.

True, but the point is that you can only get a glass panel in a new plane,
and a new plane is (and will continue to be) far more expensive than an
"equivalent" new one. Most places are getting crunched badly enough on fuel
as it is.

> For an idea of what it can cost, you can get an experimental AI
> replacement that has an AI, TC, VSI and probably some other stuff I've
> forgotten for under $2000. All electronic, with no mechanical gyros.
> And they work!

Well if you cut the single biggest line-item expense out of anything you can
cut the cost substantially. Certification will never get cheaper, nor will
the delta in price between new and used airplanes. It's also unlikely that
installing glass panels in used planes will prove economical in anything but
big-ticket high-performance planes like Bonanzas. So the rest of us will
have to wait a decade or so until they start becoming common on the used
market, which they inevitably will.

> IFR IMC flight is mostly about what to do if something becomes
> non-functional anyway. So have lots of backups and know how to cross
> check to determine just what is going on.

I'd disagree- moving from my 172, with two NAV/COMs, ADF, and Loran, to a
G-1000-equipped 172, represents a dramatic step up in complexity. If someone
is already used to flying with a GNS-430 then the transition will probably
be straightforward, but for many of us there's a lot of new functionality to
learn about, especially if you want to truly use the full integrated
capabilities of the system, which is the point.

However, I agree that in the long run, it will represent an improvement in
safety and utility. There's no longer any question about where the future
is.

-cwk.

[Roy Smith]

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote:

> "Doug" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > The cost will go down. It costs no more to make a glass panel than the
> > gyros they replace, maybe less.
>
> True, but the point is that you can only get a glass panel in a new plane,
> and a new plane is (and will continue to be) far more expensive than an
> "equivalent" new one. Most places are getting crunched badly enough on fuel
> as it is.

The interesting transition is going to happen in a few (5-10?) years
when glass cockpits have been around long enough for all the flight
schools to have them. Then we're going to be putting out a new
generation of freshly-licensed pilots who grew up on glass and won't
accept less. Kind of like what's happening with GPS today.

[Gene Whitt]

Yes!!!!!!
Gene Whitt