Checkout in a G1000 C182

[Greg Esres]

Our flight school has received a C182 with a G1000. The checkout
requirements are going to be 5 hours VFR and an additional 5.6 hours
for IFR pilots. Oh, and about 6 hours of ground prior to that. Let's
see, 10.6 hours * $210/hour = $2,226 for the flying, plus $180 for the
ground, for a grand total of $2,406.

Does anyone find this excessive?

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:13:46 GMT, Greg Esres >
wrote:

>Our flight school has received a C182 with a G1000. The checkout
>requirements are going to be 5 hours VFR and an additional 5.6 hours
>for IFR pilots. Oh, and about 6 hours of ground prior to that. Let's
>see, 10.6 hours * $210/hour = $2,226 for the flying, plus $180 for the
>ground, for a grand total of $2,406.
>
>Does anyone find this excessive?

If you already know the 182, you can probably get that down to 1.5
hours VFR. It took me around 5 hours to get the system down for IFR
(partial panel, approaches, futzing around with flight plans, etc), so
IMO (and from what our instructors say) about 6-7 hours is the average
to get used to the system and flying approaches with it. Obviously,
YMMV.

[Greg Esres]

<<It took me around 5 hours to get the system down for IFR
(partial panel, approaches, futzing around with flight plans, etc), so
IMO (and from what our instructors say) about 6-7 hours is the average
to get used to the system and flying approaches with it. Obviously,
YMMV.>>

Would already being familiar with 430/530 operations reduce that any,
do you think?

[jsmith]

My experience playing with the G1000 at AOPA Expo in Philly last year is
that the G1000 is tremendously easier then either the 430 or the 530.

Greg Esres wrote:
> Would already being familiar with 430/530 operations reduce that any,
> do you think?

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:48:33 GMT, Greg Esres >
wrote:

><<It took me around 5 hours to get the system down for IFR
>(partial panel, approaches, futzing around with flight plans, etc), so
>IMO (and from what our instructors say) about 6-7 hours is the average
>to get used to the system and flying approaches with it. Obviously,
>YMMV.>>
>
>Would already being familiar with 430/530 operations reduce that any,
>do you think?

Sorry, only been behind Bendix/King stuff before my G1000 182 work. I
do hear that the systems are similar though, so you might be able to
cut some additional time off, but I couldn't start to quantify it.

[Steven Barnes]

I was signed off in a G1000 Diamond Star after 1.2 hours. I had just
recently been checked out in a 530/430 Diamond Star, so I was somewhat
familiar with working those GPS's. The FBO didn't say, "no IFR", but I'd be
hard pressed to take it into any serious stuff.

They're alot of fun to fly behind, though.

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<It took me around 5 hours to get the system down for IFR
> (partial panel, approaches, futzing around with flight plans, etc), so
> IMO (and from what our instructors say) about 6-7 hours is the average
> to get used to the system and flying approaches with it. Obviously,
> YMMV.>>
>
> Would already being familiar with 430/530 operations reduce that any,
> do you think?
>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> Our flight school has received a C182 with a G1000. The checkout
> requirements are going to be 5 hours VFR and an additional 5.6 hours
> for IFR pilots. Oh, and about 6 hours of ground prior to that. Let's
> see, 10.6 hours * $210/hour = $2,226 for the flying, plus $180 for the
> ground, for a grand total of $2,406.
>
> Does anyone find this excessive?

I think the ground is excessive. Why 5.6 hours for IFR pilots (as opposed to
some more even number)? Anyway, the whole thing tends to be insurance
driven, so reasonable has nothing to do with it.

[bdl]

Skyline Aero (http://www.skylineaero.com) has a G1000 Training course
(now FITS approved it looks like) which is a requirement to rent their
DA40's. They list its cost as $1,229.00. They are also going to
require this course for their C182 Garmin 1000's when they come on the
line supposedly.

I had inquired about rental rates, etc. when I was there taking my
instrument knowledge test. The ground course was like 10 hours as I
recall, and the checkout required 2 flights, one with a CFI on staff,
and the other with their chief flight instructor. (6 hours of flight
time total at $125/hour)

Seemed excessive to me at the time and now as an owner don't think I'll
be plunking down almost $2k for the priveledge of renting it. One of
their CFI's did do a quick run-down of the features while he was
showing me the plane (I was sitting in the cockpit) and it's a really
nice system. The cross-country aspects are really nice (fuel range
estimates on the moving map, etc). But as he was twiddling all the
buttons I got a quick overload feeling. A self-taught computer
simulator (similar to garmin's 430 simulator or etc, would go a long
way toward making someone proficient).

The DA40 is interesting in a cabin aspect as well in that the front
seats are fixed (the rudder pedals move) and seemed cramped to me
(although it had great visibility. You actually sit well foward of the
wing. The back seats seemed HUGE however.

YMMV,

Brian

[Matt Barrow]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> Our flight school has received a C182 with a G1000. The checkout
> requirements are going to be 5 hours VFR and an additional 5.6 hours
> for IFR pilots. Oh, and about 6 hours of ground prior to that. Let's
> see, 10.6 hours * $210/hour = $2,226 for the flying, plus $180 for the
> ground, for a grand total of $2,406.
>
> Does anyone find this excessive?

To fly a new generation $350,000 aircraft, no.

[Matt Barrow]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Does anyone find this excessive?
>
> I think the ground is excessive. Why 5.6 hours for IFR pilots (as opposed
to
> some more even number)?

Even an IFR pilot needs to learn the new avionics. The biggest factor being
they ain't "steam gauges" in there.

Imagine, too, the IFR pilot that is not "computer savvy".

While their hourly rate seems high, the number of hours doesn't.

Lastly, how many threads here have tried to contrast the difference in
flying "style" between highly TRAINED professional and their amature GA
counterparts.

>Anyway, the whole thing tends to be insurance
> driven, so reasonable has nothing to do with it.

The biggest part of Citation training is learning the avionics, particualrly
the FMS/EFIS systems.



--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:38:47 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>> Does anyone find this excessive?
>
>To fly a new generation $350,000 aircraft, no.

is there so much new generation in a C182? (well, except for the G1000)

#m
--
<http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg>

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-04-10, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Our flight school has received a C182 with a G1000. The checkout
>> requirements are going to be 5 hours VFR and an additional 5.6 hours
>> for IFR pilots.
>>
>> Does anyone find this excessive?
>
> To fly a new generation $350,000 aircraft, no.

Considering the difficulty in scheduling rental aircraft for real travel,
I think a 10+ hour checkout is going to keep people away in droves.

The new avionics should be mastered on the ground with a simulator (or
a real unit with an external power source). There's no point in turning
the hobbs meter until you know how to run all the gadgets. A competent
instrument pilot should be able to get into the plane after studying and
do enough approaches to be comfortable in an hour or two.

I got a 182 checkout (the first high perf airplane I flew) in about 1.3,
which included stalls, steep turns, and landings/go-arounds in every
configuration. We didn't take off until I had correctly rehearsed the
power and engine management on the ground.

So I would tend to think that anything more than (rounding way up) 5 hours
would just be milking the renter. If they can't do it in 5 hours then
they have other issues with currency/proficiency but that shouldn't be
reflected in the FBO minimums.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Matt Barrow]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-04-10, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> > "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Our flight school has received a C182 with a G1000. The checkout
> >> requirements are going to be 5 hours VFR and an additional 5.6 hours
> >> for IFR pilots.
> >>
> >> Does anyone find this excessive?
> >
> > To fly a new generation $350,000 aircraft, no.
>
> Considering the difficulty in scheduling rental aircraft for real travel,
> I think a 10+ hour checkout is going to keep people away in droves.

If not that, the $216 an hour will.


> The new avionics should be mastered on the ground with a simulator (or
> a real unit with an external power source). There's no point in turning
> the hobbs meter until you know how to run all the gadgets. A competent
> instrument pilot should be able to get into the plane after studying and
> do enough approaches to be comfortable in an hour or two.

Some, especially the computer savvy could probably do it in that time.

> I got a 182 checkout (the first high perf airplane I flew) in about 1.3,
> which included stalls, steep turns, and landings/go-arounds in every
> configuration. We didn't take off until I had correctly rehearsed the
> power and engine management on the ground.

That's pretty unusual. Usually 1.3 hours is hardly enough time to run but
about 4-5 touch and goes.

I transitioned from mainly a T182 (rental) to a T210 (ownership) and my
insurance company wanted 10 hours of dual. The FBO/School that trained me
wanted five hours dual to fly the T182 before solo after learning in a 172.

> So I would tend to think that anything more than (rounding way up) 5 hours
> would just be milking the renter.

Or their paranoid (justifiably?) insurance carrier.

> If they can't do it in 5 hours then
> they have other issues with currency/proficiency but that shouldn't be
> reflected in the FBO minimums.

Probably, but I suspect that, as someone else pointed out, it's probably a
matter of insurance.

It's the $216 an hour that I found bizarre.

[Michael]

> Does anyone find this excessive?

It's not just excessive, it's counterproductive.

Huge checkout requirements drive away the experienced pilot. He knows
they're excessive for him, meaning he's not really going to learn much
of anything in the process. It's just a cost and hoops to jump
through. He also knows that high end planes tend not to stay on the
line very long, so he will take a wait-and-see attitude.

The inexperienced pilot will pay for the checkout, since he knows he
needs it and in any case figures he will learn something. He will then
fly the plane. So we have high end rental planes being flown almost
exclusively by inexperienced pilots. Wonder if that might have
anything to do with the loss rate on those...

Michael

[Paul kgyy]

If both the airplane and the systems are new to you, no.

[Chip Hermes]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ben Jackson" > wrote in message

> > I got a 182 checkout (the first high perf airplane I flew) in about
1.3,
> > which included stalls, steep turns, and landings/go-arounds in
every
> > configuration. We didn't take off until I had correctly rehearsed
the
> > power and engine management on the ground.
>
> That's pretty unusual. Usually 1.3 hours is hardly enough time to run
but
> about 4-5 touch and goes.

Do you fly a 20 mile downwind or something? :)

[Matt Barrow]

"Chip Hermes" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
>
> > > I got a 182 checkout (the first high perf airplane I flew) in about
> 1.3,
> > > which included stalls, steep turns, and landings/go-arounds in
> every
> > > configuration. We didn't take off until I had correctly rehearsed
> the
> > > power and engine management on the ground.
> >
> > That's pretty unusual. Usually 1.3 hours is hardly enough time to run
> but
> > about 4-5 touch and goes.
>
> Do you fly a 20 mile downwind or something? :)

Are you shooting visual or instrument approaches to check out the new gear?
Also, on the Hobbs, just start, run-up and initial taxi can take 10-12
minutes.

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> > Does anyone find this excessive?
>
> It's not just excessive, it's counterproductive.
>
> Huge checkout requirements drive away the experienced pilot.

If the pilot has years of experience on "steam gauges"and none under EFIS,
there can be (likely is) a steep learning curve. If they're not
computer/game savvy, it can be even harder than for a rookie.

As mentioned, much of the initial training for jets (ie, CJ) is the EFIS and
FMS and those classes can run over two WEEKS.

[Michael]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> If the pilot has years of experience on "steam gauges"and none under
EFIS,
> there can be (likely is) a steep learning curve.

I'm sure anything CAN be, but what is likely is another matter
entirely.

My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in actual
IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel pilot
who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other way
around.

There is certainly a learning curve involved in getting maximum benefit
from the avionics, but the functionality a steam gauge pilot gets from
the steam gauges is easily obtained. It may take some time to get the
hang of the flight plan functions (and maybe even the GPS approach
functions) out of the moving map GPS, but getting the direct-to
function and the ILS/VOR functionality going is easy and intuitive -
and the steam gauge pilot doesn't NEED any more than that, because he's
used to working with less.

> As mentioned, much of the initial training for jets (ie, CJ) is the
EFIS and
> FMS and those classes can run over two WEEKS.

Different situation. The jets NEED that level of automation so that a
single pilot of average ability can fly them IFR. They're fast,
they're slippery, they're relatively demanding. Steam gauge
functionality won't cut it for the average pilot, so he will have to
learn the full functionality.

This discussion is about a Cessna-182. It's hard to find a more
stable, docile, and simple IFR platform. You would be VERY hard
pressed to find an experienced steam gauge pilot (in ANY airplane) who
would find it a challenge to fly a C-182 IFR, regardless of the
avionics.

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > If the pilot has years of experience on "steam gauges"and none under
> EFIS,
> > there can be (likely is) a steep learning curve.
>
> I'm sure anything CAN be, but what is likely is another matter
> entirely.
>
> My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in actual
> IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel pilot
> who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other way
> around.

Probably so, due to the very different scan requirements.

Thing is, here and now/today, how many expereinced pilots came up on steam
gauges vs. EFIS?

> There is certainly a learning curve involved in getting maximum benefit
> from the avionics, but the functionality a steam gauge pilot gets from
> the steam gauges is easily obtained. It may take some time to get the
> hang of the flight plan functions (and maybe even the GPS approach
> functions) out of the moving map GPS, but getting the direct-to
> function and the ILS/VOR functionality going is easy and intuitive -
> and the steam gauge pilot doesn't NEED any more than that, because he's
> used to working with less.

One thing I found harder to get used to was adapting/making changes _in
flight_ under the EFIS system (when I was new to it). Once I got several
flights in the logs, it became pretty easy. And that was after working with
CAD systems for many years.


> > As mentioned, much of the initial training for jets (ie, CJ) is the
> EFIS and
> > FMS and those classes can run over two WEEKS.
>
> Different situation. The jets NEED that level of automation so that a
> single pilot of average ability can fly them IFR. They're fast,
> they're slippery, they're relatively demanding. Steam gauge
> functionality won't cut it for the average pilot, so he will have to
> learn the full functionality.

Yes, but that doesn't addres WHY so much training is on the glass screens,
compared to actually flying the fast, slippeery aircraft.

>
> This discussion is about a Cessna-182. It's hard to find a more
> stable, docile, and simple IFR platform. You would be VERY hard
> pressed to find an experienced steam gauge pilot (in ANY airplane) who
> would find it a challenge to fly a C-182 IFR, regardless of the
> avionics.

And the discussion is not about flying a 182 under IFR, it's about flying a
totally different avionics system under IFR.

[Michael]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in
actual
> > IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel
pilot
> > who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other
way
> > around.
>
> Probably so, due to the very different scan requirements.
>
> Thing is, here and now/today, how many expereinced pilots came up on
steam
> gauges vs. EFIS?

You know, a friend of mine remembers an FBO (many years ago) where
anyone could rent a taildragger, but there were minimum hour
requirements to rent a tri-gear airplane. That was because all the
trikes were expensive and new, while the taildraggers were old and
cheap - and anyway, everyone learned on taildraggers so it was no big
deal. Didn't last, of course.

Sure, right now most people learn on steam gauges. But with the
trainers coming out with glass panels, this won't last. I'm just
waiting for someone to set up a glass-panel C-172 (or equivalnet) with
a pair of 430's for nav and no external CDI, and advertise his
minimum-hours instrument rating. No partial panel. No NDB. No DME.
No compass turns. No timed turns. If the PFD fails, just drive the
little airplane around on the GPS screen as you follow the purple line.
Just wait...

> One thing I found harder to get used to was adapting/making changes
_in
> flight_ under the EFIS system (when I was new to it).

What changes are there to make if all you are using is the direct-goto
and VOR-ILS functionality? This is my point - if you use the flight
plan feature and the other advanced features, then yes, making changes
in flight is tougher. But if you simply set up the system to give you
the minimum functionality that you get from steam gauges, you never
have to change a thing in flight except the destination waypoint or
VOR/LOC frequency - and the steam gauge pilot can do that.

> Yes, but that doesn't addres WHY so much training is on the glass
screens,
> compared to actually flying the fast, slippeery aircraft.

Because the training aims for full functionality, which is necessary
for safe flight in those fast and slippery aircraft. It wouldn't be an
issue if they were only teaching basic functionality.

> And the discussion is not about flying a 182 under IFR, it's about
flying a
> totally different avionics system under IFR.

Irrelevant - it's still a C-182. Therefore it doesn't matter what
avionics you have - they ALL give you minimum functionality easily, and
for the C-182 the minimum functionality is all you need.

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > > My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in
> actual
> > > IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel
> pilot
> > > who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other
> way
> > > around.
> >
> > Probably so, due to the very different scan requirements.
> >
> > Thing is, here and now/today, how many expereinced pilots came up on
> steam
> > gauges vs. EFIS?
>
> You know, a friend of mine remembers an FBO (many years ago) where
> anyone could rent a taildragger, but there were minimum hour
> requirements to rent a tri-gear airplane. That was because all the
> trikes were expensive and new, while the taildraggers were old and
> cheap - and anyway, everyone learned on taildraggers so it was no big
> deal. Didn't last, of course.
>
> Sure, right now most people learn on steam gauges. But with the
> trainers coming out with glass panels, this won't last.

Yup...but at this moment in time it's EXPENSIVE, whicle the development and
STC coss get amortized.

> I'm just
> waiting for someone to set up a glass-panel C-172 (or equivalnet) with
> a pair of 430's for nav and no external CDI, and advertise his
> minimum-hours instrument rating. No partial panel. No NDB. No DME.
> No compass turns. No timed turns. If the PFD fails, just drive the
> little airplane around on the GPS screen as you follow the purple line.
> Just wait...

Sooner than you think, me thinks! :~)

>
> > One thing I found harder to get used to was adapting/making changes
> _in
> > flight_ under the EFIS system (when I was new to it).
>
> What changes are there to make if all you are using is the direct-goto
> and VOR-ILS functionality?

Change in routing.

> This is my point - if you use the flight
> plan feature and the other advanced features, then yes, making changes
> in flight is tougher.

> But if you simply set up the system to give you
> the minimum functionality that you get from steam gauges, you never
> have to change a thing in flight except the destination waypoint or
> VOR/LOC frequency - and the steam gauge pilot can do that.

Doesn't work in certain hardware.

>
> > Yes, but that doesn't addres WHY so much training is on the glass
> screens,
> > compared to actually flying the fast, slippeery aircraft.
>
> Because the training aims for full functionality, which is necessary
> for safe flight in those fast and slippery aircraft. It wouldn't be an
> issue if they were only teaching basic functionality.

Quite, but the training I was speaking of is 13 days in class (no, CLASS
days, not calendar days), and that was with very professional training
staff.

>
> > And the discussion is not about flying a 182 under IFR, it's about
> flying a
> > totally different avionics system under IFR.
>
> Irrelevant - it's still a C-182.

Completely relevant -- the issue is the avionics; if they fly the same
aircraft with the standard "steam gauges", there is no tranistion
requirement. And as mentioned, getting familiar with it so as to be
proficient (and demonstrating such) in the air is a bit different than
merely in a classroom

> Therefore it doesn't matter what
> avionics you have - they ALL give you minimum functionality easily, and
> for the C-182 the minimum functionality is all you need.

And then when someone prangs it, guess who gets sued. And even if not, guess
who takes the class then bitches that the gear doesn't work as advertised
and "all they gave me was the basics, but I need full IFR (or some such)?

In summary, they are practicing CYA. Just like doctors that call for $600
worth of test when you go in for a hangnail.

Let me ask you, how much time do you have behind a glass panel?

[Michael]

> And then when someone prangs it, guess who gets sued.

Now we're at the heart of the matter. It's FUD.

> Let me ask you, how much time do you have behind a glass panel?

I have about 5 hours in all-glass (the late-model Cirrus) and about
another 20 hours in planes without a glass PFD but lots with advanced
avionics (430/430, 430/530, and 430/MX20 stacks with traffic and
weather integrated). Maybe a quarter of that is actual IMC. And
really it took about 20 minutes to figure it out. On my first flight
in the Cirrus, I had to bail out the pilot flying it when he blew the
approach, and I found it to be no big deal. But then I have 100+ hours
actual IMC on steam gauges.

Now let me ask you - how much actual IMC do you have on steam gauges?

Michael