Glass big learning curve?

[Robert M. Gary]

Our CAP unit is going to be receiving a new C-182 with a glass cockpit.
In order to give us a taste of it a Cirrus owner came to our CAP
meeting and showed us his wonderful aircraft (not the same PDF/MFD but
close). I've heard from many sources that it takes about 10 hours to
transition. In fact a local FBO has a brand new C-182 (rents for about
$200/hr) and requires 15 hours. Although I didn't fly the Cirrus, I sat
in the aircraft while the owner spoke with someone else. He said we
could push any buttons we wanted to. So, I tried to think of all the
things I could normally do on an IFR flight. Amazingly, I had no
problems with any of the operations. The display is easy for me because
my generation grew up flying flight simulators that use the exact same
display. The only hard part is figuring out the 430s (which I've done
before). So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.
Just thinking about the time it takes some people (not necessarily
based on age) to get familiar with their computer vs. others, I'm
wondering if its the same thing. Perhaps I'm being naive but I felt
that I could fly behind that panel today.


Has anyone on this list had experience with such a transition?
-Robert, CFI

[Michael]

> I've heard from many sources that it takes about 10 hours to
> transition.

It depends on two things - how complete a transition do you want, and
what is your experience going in.

For a novice IFR pilot who wants (or maybe needs) all the automation
and functionality the system has to offer, it can actually take longer.
For an experienced IFR steam gauge pilot who only wants as much
functionality as he is used to having, 15 minutes is closer to the
mark.

> Although I didn't fly the Cirrus, I sat
> in the aircraft while the owner spoke with someone else. He said we
> could push any buttons we wanted to. So, I tried to think of all the
> things I could normally do on an IFR flight. Amazingly, I had no
> problems with any of the operations.

That was my experience as well. The first flight I ever took in the
Cirrus, I needed about 15 minutes to come up to speed on how everything
worked. 30 minutes into the flight I was teaching the owner how to use
his engine analyzer to operate LOP. At the end of that flight, the
pilot botched an ILS approach enough to peg the GS needle (in IMC, but
with a fly-down indication). By then, I was so comfortable with the
plane, I was able to talk him through a recovery to the approach.
There is still functionality there that I can't effectively use, but
what I can use is way more than what I have available in my Twin
Comanche.

> So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
> time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.

Actually, I think the long transition is for those who are not already
experienced steam gauge pilots. Think about this - did you learn how
to program the flight plan capabilities of the map display, or were you
doing it all in direct-to mode? I do the latter - after all, that's
all we ever had flying fix-to-fix with VOR/DME. Can you program the
vertical guidance for enroute descent, or do you just figure that at
150 kts you need 5 nm per 1000 ft at 500 fpm, and at 180 kts you need 6
nm? Basically, what I'm saying is that there is probably a lot of
automation capability you're not using, but as an experienced IFR pilot
you probably don't need it.

The all-glass Cirrus has a set of emergency instruments - a card
compass, an ASI, altimeter, and AI. It also has dual 430's. If the
PFD fails, the factory recommends you couple up the A/P to the 430 and
not try to hand-fly it. I would almost certainly screw up trying to do
that. On the other hand, I have no doubt I could fly a good GPS
approach simply using the 430 map and the available panel. Partial
panel with an AI? Luxury!

Basically, I think most of the people getting into the Cirrus are NOT
experienced steam gauge IFR pilots. They mostly don't have the skills
to effectively fly such a fast and slippery airplane IFR in IMC without
the automation the system offers. Therefore, they need the long
transition to learn how to use the automation. For someone with 100+
hours of actual in Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche or similar airplanes with a
steam gauge panel, the complex automation is not at all necessary -
thus his transition is quick.

Michael

[john smith]

Don't compare the two systems. They do not operate the same.
Cirrus: 430's and Avidyne displays; independent/dependent systems
C182: G1000 integrated avionics system

Go to the Garmin website and download all the Cessna G1000 pdf files.

[Robert M. Gary]

>Don't compare the two systems

So you don't think the learning curve of one is representative of the
learning curve of the other?

-Robert

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> >Don't compare the two systems

> So you don't think the learning curve of one is representative of the
> learning curve of the other?

If you have flown with Garmin 430/530's, you already know how to work
them. You know what knobs to turn and what buttons to turn to get what
you want. The Avidyne displays are just that, displays.
The G-1000 is and integrated comm/nav/transponder/(and soon to be
autopilot)/display.

[BTIZ]

A local FBO uses 5 hours for a transition into the DA-40-180 with the G-1000
system.
If you do your homework and use the ground based computer training system,
that is more than enough.

A 15hr checkout for someone who already can fly a C-182 is highway robbery.

I will agree that you need to know the failure modes of the system and know
which pages to find which displays to avoid un-needed heads down in the
cockpit.

I nice new C-182 w/G1000 is nice.. but at $200/hr I can fly the Seneca II
and still buy that $10 hamburger for lunch.

BT

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Our CAP unit is going to be receiving a new C-182 with a glass cockpit.
> In order to give us a taste of it a Cirrus owner came to our CAP
> meeting and showed us his wonderful aircraft (not the same PDF/MFD but
> close). I've heard from many sources that it takes about 10 hours to
> transition. In fact a local FBO has a brand new C-182 (rents for about
> $200/hr) and requires 15 hours. Although I didn't fly the Cirrus, I sat
> in the aircraft while the owner spoke with someone else. He said we
> could push any buttons we wanted to. So, I tried to think of all the
> things I could normally do on an IFR flight. Amazingly, I had no
> problems with any of the operations. The display is easy for me because
> my generation grew up flying flight simulators that use the exact same
> display. The only hard part is figuring out the 430s (which I've done
> before). So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
> time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.
> Just thinking about the time it takes some people (not necessarily
> based on age) to get familiar with their computer vs. others, I'm
> wondering if its the same thing. Perhaps I'm being naive but I felt
> that I could fly behind that panel today.
>
>
> Has anyone on this list had experience with such a transition?
> -Robert, CFI
>

[Victor]

> > >Don't compare the two systems
>
> > So you don't think the learning curve of one is representative of the
> > learning curve of the other?
>
> If you have flown with Garmin 430/530's, you already know how to work
> them. You know what knobs to turn and what buttons to turn to get what
> you want. The Avidyne displays are just that, displays.

Yeah sure, except for those little unimportant parts called the air data
computer and attitude heading reference system.

> The G-1000 is and integrated comm/nav/transponder/(and soon to be
> autopilot)/display.

Given a pilot already knows how to work the GNS430, the Avidyne Entegra
system is still much easier to learn in less time than the G1000.

[Victor]

> The all-glass Cirrus has a set of emergency instruments - a card
> compass, an ASI, altimeter, and AI. It also has dual 430's. If the
> PFD fails, the factory recommends you couple up the A/P to the 430 and
> not try to hand-fly it. I would almost certainly screw up trying to do
> that.

I don't see how. Assuming your 430s have a flight plan and you're following
it, all you've got to do is engage GPSS and ALT. Or GPSS and VS and then
dial in the vertical speed you want on the autopilot.

> On the other hand, I have no doubt I could fly a good GPS
> approach simply using the 430 map and the available panel. Partial
> panel with an AI? Luxury!

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
> time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.
>

After reading the articles and spending 30 minutes flying the Entegra
system on a clear VFR day, I tend to agree with your view.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:36:22 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Robert,
>
>> So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
>> time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.
>>
>
>After reading the articles and spending 30 minutes flying the Entegra
>system on a clear VFR day, I tend to agree with your view.

Computers were my profession and I have my degree in the field. So,
starting from there.

I've never noted hardly any learning curve to "fly" an airplane VFR
with a glass panel. It seems natural to me.

OTOH it's not that simple over all.

You have to break the flying by the glass system down into the basic
flight instruments. The navigation instruments, and the MFD is it has
one. Of course there are other instruments as well, but this are the
main ones.

Unfortunately there is zip for standardization between most of the
instrument makers. Many of the GPS units are not intuitive for
inserting and removing way points. Some are awkward even when you are
used to them. By the same token, the integrated VORs may not be
nearly as simple as the old "dial it and go" receiver and head.

Prior to GPS many of the LORAN manufacturers had the same lack of
standardization. That lack of standardization makes moving from one
system to another more difficult than it needs to be.

When you are getting the snot beat out of you in turbulence while
trying to dial in an approach, or change way points and discover the
plane you are in uses a different sequence of keys than what you are
used to, it can get sticky in a hurry.

I learned in the old system, but I much prefer the new glass panels.
Unfortunately my budget says my first one is going to be in the G-III
if I ever get it done. I fitted the horizontal stab night before last
and spend the entire last evening block sanding the leading edge of
the stab straight. That sucker is built like a tank.

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

[Michael]

>> I would almost certainly screw up trying to do that.

> I don't see how. Assuming your 430s have a flight plan and you're following
> it, all you've got to do is engage GPSS and ALT. Or GPSS and VS and then
> dial in the vertical speed you want on the autopilot.

You know, the A/P in my Twin Comanche can do wing level, heading hold,
and it can sort of track the LORAN but I don't like how it does that -
too much hunting. I put it in because I got it cheap. Altitude hold
would be nice, but installingthe pitch servo is a pain so I don't have
it. For years, I flew the plane night and hard IFR with no autopilot
at all. I still don't use it in IMC - it's for long boring stretches
of VFR flight.

I have actually flown planes that had GPSS, VS, and similar funtions.
GPSS is great when you know exactly how to engage it. I once borrowed
a Mooney that had an STEC and GNS430 with GPSS. Took me about 15
minutes to figure out why it wasn't working - silly me, I thought
following a GPS meant the A/P should be in nav mode. Nope, heading.
Honestly, if the weather had gone foul then, I would have disconnedcted
the silly thing and hand flown it instead of figuring in out.

I used to instruct a student in an Ovation that had the KFC autopilot.
Had to learn how to work it to explain it to him. He kept busting
through altitudes with that VS function. Turned out the solution was
to press one more button - and then it would say ARM and that meant
that when it reached the altitude preset it would level off. I'm not
sure I remember how to do it now.

Anyway, my point is that without the manual, I would likely not be able
to figure out how to press all the buttons to correctly couple up the
autopilot to the 430 for an approach. I'd get something wrong, for
sure. And all the button-pushing would distract me from doing my job -
that is, landing the damn airplane. And I can assure you that with a
moving map GPS, an AI, an ASI and an altimeter I can fly an approach
and land the plane - it's nothing compared to doing a partial panel VOR
with just a TC and compass, never mind an NDB.

Michael

[Robert M. Gary]

> When you are getting the snot beat out of you in turbulence while
> trying to dial in an approach, or change way points and discover the
> plane you are in uses a different sequence of keys than what you are

> used to, it can get sticky in a hurry.

Roger, this sounds more like GPS issues to me. All the glass cockpit
planes I'm aware of (Cirrus, 182) use the same Garmin 430 most of us
know. The actual PFD and MFD only have a few buttons.

-Robert

[Roger]

On 20 Sep 2005 12:50:18 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>> When you are getting the snot beat out of you in turbulence while
>> trying to dial in an approach, or change way points and discover the
> > plane you are in uses a different sequence of keys than what you are
>
>> used to, it can get sticky in a hurry.
>
>Roger, this sounds more like GPS issues to me. All the glass cockpit

It's missing, but remember I'm one who says the glass cockpits are
relatively simple to learn at least when done properly in an organized
approach.

Its the difference between system configurations. There is no
standardization between manufacturers in today's glass cockpits, just
as there is none between the various GPS manufacturers. We are
fortunate that most use the same system even if it may not be the
best.

I found the editorial in this month's (Nov 2005)"Private Pilot" to be
a real disappointment. To me he sounds a lot like those who used to
be afraid of computers. We don't need a change to the PPL, but we do
need a change in people's mind set. Taken in order, computers and
glass cockpits are not difficult or complicated. They only become so
when we make them so by trying to utilize every thing right at the
start instead of taking the stuff in an incremental, logical order.

>planes I'm aware of (Cirrus, 182) use the same Garmin 430 most of us

Even with the 430 you only need the basics to start.

>know. The actual PFD and MFD only have a few buttons.

But Garmin isn't the only one out there.

True, if you learn one system moving between planes using the same
system should be *relatively* easy and no more difficult than moving
between the same planes with the old gauges in them.

There are really only three stages to learn and we don't have to make
it overly complicated.

The first is to have the default settings for the flight instruments.
It should take no more than 5 minutes to learn the *basic* set up.
No GPS, no VOR, just basic flight instruments and engine instruments.
(and how to get it back to that configuration in the least number of
steps.

The next step would be the radios and basic nav. No flight plans, just
basic radios, VORs or basic GPS moving map. Nearest would be nice,
but not necessary with a moving map.

The VFR student or pilot needs nothing more than this for basic
flight. They also have every thing they need to make a U-turn in case
of weather. to my way of thinking the basic pilot or student has no
business trying to learn the entire system until they have learned the
basics. Then they can learn a bit at a time.

After they are comfortable with the basic flight they can learn to put
in a flight plan and eventually add, change, or remove way points.
Lastly would be approaches.

Taken one step at a time instead of trying to learn the whole system
is far more efficient and faster. It's also less confusing and more
likely to be retained

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

[Roger]

On 16 Sep 2005 11:29:13 -0700, "Michael"
> wrote:

>> I've heard from many sources that it takes about 10 hours to
>> transition.
>
>It depends on two things - how complete a transition do you want, and
>what is your experience going in.
>
>For a novice IFR pilot who wants (or maybe needs) all the automation

I think it's highly unlikely the novice IFR pilot needs any where near
the full functionality, at least to begin with and definately does not
need it all at once.

>and functionality the system has to offer, it can actually take longer.

If they get the system in incremental doses as needed it should barely
be noticeable.

> For an experienced IFR steam gauge pilot who only wants as much
>functionality as he is used to having, 15 minutes is closer to the
>mark.

Which is what the novice pilot should be doing instead of a full
indoctrination. I speak computereese and in a number of languages. I
sure didn't get all that in one shot.

>
>> Although I didn't fly the Cirrus, I sat
>> in the aircraft while the owner spoke with someone else. He said we
>> could push any buttons we wanted to. So, I tried to think of all the
>> things I could normally do on an IFR flight. Amazingly, I had no
>> problems with any of the operations.
>
>That was my experience as well. The first flight I ever took in the
>Cirrus, I needed about 15 minutes to come up to speed on how everything
>worked. 30 minutes into the flight I was teaching the owner how to use
>his engine analyzer to operate LOP. At the end of that flight, the
>pilot botched an ILS approach enough to peg the GS needle (in IMC, but
>with a fly-down indication). By then, I was so comfortable with the
>plane, I was able to talk him through a recovery to the approach.
>There is still functionality there that I can't effectively use, but
>what I can use is way more than what I have available in my Twin
>Comanche.
>
>> So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
>> time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.

Probably, but another problem is people thinking they need to know how
to do everything when they first go out such as FBOs and insurrance
companies wanting the renter, or owner to be proficient with every
thing the units are capable of doing before letting them fly the
airplane which is rediculous. These are things that are far easier to
use step wise than as a seperate entitie. Having taught computer
science at the university level, I'd guess the average indivudual
would take on the order of 10 times longer to learn how to use the
complete glass panel display the way most teach them compared to
learning to use the functions incrementally as needed.

I didn't gro up with computers, they didn't have them back then, but
I've had my own computer since late 1979 and that first one cost one
whale of a lot more than this 3.4 gig, 64 bit monster with 2 Gig of
RAM and half a terabyte of HD space plus large LCD monitor, slide/film
scanner, flat bed scanner, and printer. Actually it cost more without
monitor and keyboard than this one and the 3.2 Gig unit to the right
of me with 1.3 terabytes of HD storage including a 400 Gig RAID and
large monitors combined.

Come to think, it's more like the computers grew up with me<:-)) They
feel like a natural extension and I find the glass panel flight
instruments more natural to use than the old "steam gauges".
>
>Actually, I think the long transition is for those who are not already
>experienced steam gauge pilots. Think about this - did you learn how
>to program the flight plan capabilities of the map display, or were you
>doing it all in direct-to mode? I do the latter - after all, that's

Do it the simple way first. <:-))

>all we ever had flying fix-to-fix with VOR/DME. Can you program the
>vertical guidance for enroute descent, or do you just figure that at
>150 kts you need 5 nm per 1000 ft at 500 fpm, and at 180 kts you need 6
>nm? Basically, what I'm saying is that there is probably a lot of
>automation capability you're not using, but as an experienced IFR pilot
>you probably don't need it.

Nor does the IFR student, at least no all in one dose.

>
>The all-glass Cirrus has a set of emergency instruments - a card
>compass, an ASI, altimeter, and AI. It also has dual 430's. If the
>PFD fails, the factory recommends you couple up the A/P to the 430 and
>not try to hand-fly it. I would almost certainly screw up trying to do
>that. On the other hand, I have no doubt I could fly a good GPS
>approach simply using the 430 map and the available panel. Partial
>panel with an AI? Luxury!

I think people make things too complicated.

>
>Basically, I think most of the people getting into the Cirrus are NOT
>experienced steam gauge IFR pilots. They mostly don't have the skills
>to effectively fly such a fast and slippery airplane IFR in IMC without
>the automation the system offers. Therefore, they need the long
>transition to learn how to use the automation. For someone with 100+
>hours of actual in Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche or similar airplanes with a
>steam gauge panel, the complex automation is not at all necessary -
>thus his transition is quick.

Although I agree I think this may be a bit of mixing apples and
oranges. Most learn to fly instruments in relatively simple and
forgiving airplanes. (fixed gear and docile). If they learn to fly
the glass panels in 172s or 182s instead of the Cirrus or other high
performance aircraft and learn to use the instrument functions as they
need them it would be far easier and take less time. (The Cirrus is
every bit as complicated to fly as a Bonanza).

I'd liken the way it's being done now to doing primary training in a
Bo in IMC. They are slipery and you really need a good autopilot to
be flying one much in IMC. (It sure reduces the work load)

Transitioning to, or learning on a glass panel does not need to be
difficult or take hours and hours of training. To do so means some
very important steps have been left out of the learning cycle, or the
cycle was not taken in logical order.

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

>
>Michael

[A. Smith]

> Transitioning to, or learning on a glass panel does not need to be
> difficult or take hours and hours of training. To do so means some
> very important steps have been left out of the learning cycle, or the
> cycle was not taken in logical order.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

I don't know that I can agree with you Roger. I recently had a chance to
fly a Cessna 421C with the Chelton Synthetic Vision TM installed. I had no
previous experience with EFIS and had only a short time to read the basics
out of the manual. My flight was about 1 1/2 hours in VFR and I had a
safety pilot with me to watch for traffic as I knew I would be head down and
locked for a good portion of the time. The system presents an overwhelming
amount of information and it is shown in an unfamiliar format. I know it
would take me another 5-10 hours of flight time with the system before I
would be launching into any IFR flight that required an approach. I have a
good amount of time in the Cessna 421C so flying the aircraft is not a
problem, interpreting and following the EFIS is.

With all that being said the system is wondeful with what it can do and I
believe it is the way of the future. The only problem I see is pilots like
me who grew up on the gauges switching over to the tubes. The company that
owns the aircraft plans on putting it on a FAR 135 certificate. I am going
to try to follow it's progress to see if the FAA requires any special
training.

Allen

[Michael]

>>Basically, what I'm saying is that there is probably a lot of
>>automation capability you're not using, but as an experienced IFR pilot
>>you probably don't need it.
>Nor does the IFR student, at least no all in one dose.

I agree, but it's not the IFR student who needs the long transition.
It's the pilot with an instrument rating but not much IFR experience in
a fast, slippery (relatively - I'm talking Bonanza, not BeechJet)
airplanes.

You're right that the IFR student doesn't need the automation - because
he's not trying to fly halfway across the country through busy airspace
and scuzzy weather.

> Most learn to fly instruments in relatively simple and
> forgiving airplanes. (fixed gear and docile). If they learn to fly
> the glass panels in 172s or 182s instead of the Cirrus or other high
> performance aircraft and learn to use the instrument functions as they
> need them it would be far easier and take less time. (The Cirrus is
> every bit as complicated to fly as a Bonanza).

I agree with all of that. In my opinion, the Cirrus is actually MORE
demanding in IMC than a Bonanza, because the Bonanza gives you a very
effective option for slowing down (gear speeds are typically around the
150 kt mark), but the Cirrus does not and thus requires more advance
planning if you want to avoid being high and hot. Removing two levers
doesn't really make up for that.

If you take someone who can already fly IMC competently in a steam
gauge Skyhawk and put him into a glass Skyhawk, the transition will be
15 minutes or so - he'll get the fucnitonality he needs and can get the
rest later. The problem happens when you put him into a Cirrus.

Now he doesn't have enough cycles to fly the Cirrus - not because of
the glass, but because it's faster, less stable, and requires way more
advance planning. The correct solution is to develop his skills -
scan, control, and headwork - to where he can keep up with the more
demanding airplane. Unfortunately, all too often the 'solution'
offered is to substitute automation for skill.

Nobody can hand-fly a Bonanza (or similar airplane) SMOOTHLY while
copying a clearance, flipping through charts, and generally messing
with stuff. There will be minor heading and altitude deviations even
with the best of pilots. Also, nobody can hand-fly such an airplane
for hours (especially in the soup) without becoming fatigued. That's
why an autopilot is nice to have.

But there's a difference between minor heading and altitude deviations
and loss of control. Someone making the jump from a Skyhawk-class
airplane to a 300 hp Bonanza (or Cirrus) will likely lose control when
he tries to do several things at once. The solution is discipline and
training. Learn to have the approach (including the first segment of
the missed) briefed so you never have to do anything but fly once
you're inside the marker. Learn to divide attention and perform tasks
in short segments. The skills required are no different in the Cirrus
than they are in the Skyhawk, it's just that the Skyhawk lets you get
by with a lot more sloppiness. That's not a bad thing - it's the
reason why it's a whole lot easier to teach someone to fly instruments
in a Skyhawk-class airplane and then transition him to a Bonanza or
Mooney than it is to start in the fast slippery airplane. I know, I've
done it both ways.

The problem occurs when the pilot is told that the solution is not
skill development but automation. Instead of being told "If you have
to fly this plane partial panel, it will be more difficult so you need
more training and practice" he is told "You can't fly this plane
partial panel, so just couple up the autopilot to the GPS and have it
fly the approach" - which is, no ****, what glass-panel Cirrus pilots
are told. Instead of being told "you need to learn to divide your
attention between flying your existing clearance and checking your new
one" he is told "you need to learn how to enter your route into the
navigation computer and have it autosequence for you, so you can turn
the autopilot on at any time and keep it on as long as necessary."
Instead of being told "Now that you're flying higher and faster you
need to plan your descent" he's told "you need to program your Vnav
profile so it can prompt you for a descent and provide guidance."

As long as all the automation works, the Skyhawk IFR pilot can be a
Cirrus IFR pilot with his existing skill set - but then he needs to
learn how to use all the automation to make up for what he can't do.
Personally, I think that's a ****-poor way to do things.

Michael

[Roger]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:37:26 GMT, "A. Smith" >
wrote:

>
>> Transitioning to, or learning on a glass panel does not need to be
>> difficult or take hours and hours of training. To do so means some
>> very important steps have been left out of the learning cycle, or the
>> cycle was not taken in logical order.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>I don't know that I can agree with you Roger. I recently had a chance to
>fly a Cessna 421C with the Chelton Synthetic Vision TM installed. I had no
>previous experience with EFIS and had only a short time to read the basics
>out of the manual. My flight was about 1 1/2 hours in VFR and I had a

You are pointing out just what I said. The problems come when the
transition is attempted to be made in total instead of incrementally.

The learning pilot, whether IFR or primary student doesn't have these
problems, or shouldn't if the training on the glass panel is done
incrementally.

I like Michael's use of the Cirrus. It's an oft misunderstood
aircraft that is treated like other fixed gear aircraft when it should
be treated like high performance retracts without the option of using
the gear to slow down.

>safety pilot with me to watch for traffic as I knew I would be head down and
>locked for a good portion of the time. The system presents an overwhelming
>amount of information and it is shown in an unfamiliar format. I know it
>would take me another 5-10 hours of flight time with the system before I
>would be launching into any IFR flight that required an approach. I have a
>good amount of time in the Cessna 421C so flying the aircraft is not a
>problem, interpreting and following the EFIS is.

This is where trying to take in a complex system all at once is a poor
way to go. We don't teach computers that way and the glass cockpit
should not be taken on in that manner either.

As I said earlier, taken in a logical order although the logic might
vary some between pilots. Pilots and CFIs are not normally computer
people. They have a tendency, or I should say they feel an absolute
need to know the entire system before starting out. FBOs and
insurance companies tend to be the same. It's the wrong way to go.

First, Basic flight and engine instruments with basic radio and nav.
(no flight plans) to begin. Then GPS and moving map and on up the
chain.

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



>
>With all that being said the system is wondeful with what it can do and I
>believe it is the way of the future. The only problem I see is pilots like
>me who grew up on the gauges switching over to the tubes. The company that
>owns the aircraft plans on putting it on a FAR 135 certificate. I am going
>to try to follow it's progress to see if the FAA requires any special
>training.
>
>Allen
>

[Roger]

On 24 Sep 2005 11:43:12 -0700, "Michael"
> wrote:

<snip>
>Nobody can hand-fly a Bonanza (or similar airplane) SMOOTHLY while
>copying a clearance, flipping through charts, and generally messing
>with stuff. There will be minor heading and altitude deviations even
>with the best of pilots. Also, nobody can hand-fly such an airplane
>for hours (especially in the soup) without becoming fatigued. That's
>why an autopilot is nice to have.
>
It's strange you should have brought up that particular item. My
first hour and eight minutes in the Deb were spent in a building storm
that was at least moderate turbulence, zero visibility and only my
second time in actual. I ended up flying the entire flight on manual.
Ask why I know to the minute the time we were solid IMC. GAWD, but I
was sick. Lunch bag tucked under my leg for quick access, turbulence
tot he point where it was almost impossible to hit the correct switch
without many tries, and torrential rain. At least we found no leaks in
the Deb.

Whipped at the end of the trip would be an understatement.

>But there's a difference between minor heading and altitude deviations
>and loss of control. Someone making the jump from a Skyhawk-class
>airplane to a 300 hp Bonanza (or Cirrus) will likely lose control when
>he tries to do several things at once. The solution is discipline and
>training. Learn to have the approach (including the first segment of
>the missed) briefed so you never have to do anything but fly once
>you're inside the marker. Learn to divide attention and perform tasks
>in short segments. The skills required are no different in the Cirrus
>than they are in the Skyhawk, it's just that the Skyhawk lets you get
>by with a lot more sloppiness. That's not a bad thing - it's the
>reason why it's a whole lot easier to teach someone to fly instruments
>in a Skyhawk-class airplane and then transition him to a Bonanza or
>Mooney than it is to start in the fast slippery airplane. I know, I've
>done it both ways.
>
>The problem occurs when the pilot is told that the solution is not
>skill development but automation. Instead of being told "If you have
>to fly this plane partial panel, it will be more difficult so you need
>more training and practice" he is told "You can't fly this plane
>partial panel, so just couple up the autopilot to the GPS and have it
>fly the approach" - which is, no ****, what glass-panel Cirrus pilots
>are told. Instead of being told "you need to learn to divide your

In that case it's no wonder the insurance rates are so high.

>attention between flying your existing clearance and checking your new
>one" he is told "you need to learn how to enter your route into the
>navigation computer and have it autosequence for you, so you can turn
>the autopilot on at any time and keep it on as long as necessary."
>Instead of being told "Now that you're flying higher and faster you
>need to plan your descent" he's told "you need to program your Vnav
>profile so it can prompt you for a descent and provide guidance."
>
>As long as all the automation works, the Skyhawk IFR pilot can be a
>Cirrus IFR pilot with his existing skill set - but then he needs to

This is no different than telling a VFR pilot to set the auto pilot
and let it fly if he/she runs into bad weather, or poor visibility.
You have not created a better pilot, you have given him/her a crutch
to make up for lack of skill which is a very poor teaching method and
dangerous practice.

>learn how to use all the automation to make up for what he can't do.
>Personally, I think that's a ****-poor way to do things.

It's a very dangerous way to do things.

It's great to do one the pilot is proficient in the particular
airplane and has become proficient with the systems, , but still the
learning of the glass panel needs to be incremental and not a
"all-at-once", or know it all before you type of thing.

Systems have a way of failing at the most inopportune time. That is
not the time to be using the system and autopilot as a crutch.

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

>
>Michael

[A. Smith]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:37:26 GMT, "A. Smith" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Transitioning to, or learning on a glass panel does not need to be
>>> difficult or take hours and hours of training. To do so means some
>>> very important steps have been left out of the learning cycle, or the
>>> cycle was not taken in logical order.
>>>
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>I don't know that I can agree with you Roger. I recently had a chance to
>>fly a Cessna 421C with the Chelton Synthetic Vision TM installed. I had
>>no
>>previous experience with EFIS and had only a short time to read the basics
>>out of the manual. My flight was about 1 1/2 hours in VFR and I had a
>
> You are pointing out just what I said. The problems come when the
> transition is attempted to be made in total instead of incrementally.
>
> The learning pilot, whether IFR or primary student doesn't have these
> problems, or shouldn't if the training on the glass panel is done
> incrementally.

I see your point. If the glass panel can be learned from the ab initio
state it will just be normal procedure. I am looking at it from the
viewpoint of someone who has been flying gauges for years. You can't just
read the book, file a flightplan and blast-off into 200 and 1/2. Wouldn't
be prudent! (:-)

Allen

[Roger]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:31:36 GMT, "A. Smith" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:37:26 GMT, "A. Smith" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Transitioning to, or learning on a glass panel does not need to be
>>>> difficult or take hours and hours of training. To do so means some
>>>> very important steps have been left out of the learning cycle, or the
>>>> cycle was not taken in logical order.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>
>>>I don't know that I can agree with you Roger. I recently had a chance to
>>>fly a Cessna 421C with the Chelton Synthetic Vision TM installed. I had
>>>no
>>>previous experience with EFIS and had only a short time to read the basics
>>>out of the manual. My flight was about 1 1/2 hours in VFR and I had a
>>
>> You are pointing out just what I said. The problems come when the
>> transition is attempted to be made in total instead of incrementally.
>>
>> The learning pilot, whether IFR or primary student doesn't have these
>> problems, or shouldn't if the training on the glass panel is done
>> incrementally.
>
>I see your point. If the glass panel can be learned from the ab initio
>state it will just be normal procedure. I am looking at it from the
>viewpoint of someone who has been flying gauges for years. You can't just
>read the book, file a flightplan and blast-off into 200 and 1/2. Wouldn't
>be prudent! (:-)

Talk about mental overload<LOL>
In addition to using the old "steam gages", I earned the instrument
rating in the Deb which of course did not make it easier. It's a plane
that really needs an autopilot when flying instruments to reduce the
work load and being nearly neutral in stability you can't let your
attention wander. Of course as a student I had to hand fly everything
with just enough autopilot use thrown in to prove I knew how to use
it. Once earning the rating and being able to use the autopilot
instrument flying became a whole lot easier.

In its day the Deb had a fancy panel with a complete King Silver Crown
stack topped off with a KNS-80 RNAV. It's not even a standard T
layout, but it sure is nice for partial panel.

I've also had various flight sims for years and a computer background.
I used LORAN in the Cherokee 180 and then for the Deb I picked up a
Garmin 195, followed by the 295 when it came out. So my introduction
to GPS and programming in flight plans came over several years. From
there I found flying by the glass panel to be natural. I should say I
find the flight instruments easier to fly by than the old steam gages
as every thing is in one place which simplifies the scan. Still,
going to a new (and different) system takes a while to learn to
program. Too bad there isn't a standard for controls and inputs.

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

>
>Allen
>

[Michael]

>>"You can't fly this plane
>>partial panel, so just couple up the autopilot to the GPS and have it
>>fly the approach" - which is, no ****, what glass-panel Cirrus pilots
>>are told.
>In that case it's no wonder the insurance rates are so high.

In one sense, no. I don't believe there is a single accident
attributed to lack of partial panel proficiency in a Cirrus, with the
possible exception of the guy who launched into 800 ft ceilings on the
first flight after major panel work and wound up pulling the chute.
The airplane is quite reliable. People are not crashing because they
are depending on systems that fail.

But in another sense you are right. People are crasing because their
skill level is not up to the airplane, and this basic problem is not
being addressed. Limited panel flying has intrinsic value over and
above coping with the particular failure being simulated - it forces
the pilot to become sharper, to get more out of the instruments, and to
become smoother. It improves all aspects of his flying.

>>As long as all the automation works, the Skyhawk IFR pilot can be a
>>Cirrus IFR pilot with his existing skill set
>This is no different than telling a VFR pilot to set the auto pilot
>and let it fly if he/she runs into bad weather, or poor visibility.

Let's say it's a difference in degree only, and not in kind. On my
first flight in the glass panel Cirrus I asked the owner why there was
no CDI other than in the PFD. He didn't see my point. I explained
that if the PFD went out, the only approach we could shoot would be a
GPS or GPS overlay (using the Garmin display) since there were 2
GNS-430's but no external CDI for either. I felt this was acceptable
(what are the odds of PFD failure in conditions where GPS approach
conditions are not in range?) but suboptimal. He then explained that
the factory recommends not shooting a manual approach with a failed PFD
at all - just couple up the autopilot and let it do the job. This
despite the fact that altimeter, ASI, compass, and AI are all
available.

But at least part of the problem must be laid squarely at the feet of
the people doing the teaching and testing. This pilot took his IFR
checkride in his Cirrus, and the DE insisted he do a manual LOC
approach with the PFD off. Of course the GPS is NOT as accurate as a
LOC close in, but the DE didn't want to hear it. Thus I am reluctant
to blame the peope who are not being properly trained - what chance do
they have if even the DE's have no clue?

> You have not created a better pilot, you have given him/her a crutch
> to make up for lack of skill which is a very poor teaching method and
> dangerous practice.

Like I said,
>Personally, I think that's a ****-poor way to do things.

The real hazard, though, is not that the system that the pilot is
depending on will fail. These are fairly new airplanes, and those
systems are reliable. They're not failing a lot. The real problem is
that the system only does what it's built to do. Training makes a
pilot better overall. Substitute systems for training, and you better
hope you have systems to do EVERYTHING the pilot does, because without
the training, you will have an inferior pilot.

Michael

[SR20GOER]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> The real hazard, though, is not that the system that the pilot is
> depending on will fail. These are fairly new airplanes, and those
> systems are reliable. They're not failing a lot. The real problem is
> that the system only does what it's built to do. Training makes a
> pilot better overall. Substitute systems for training, and you better
> hope you have systems to do EVERYTHING the pilot does, because without
> the training, you will have an inferior pilot.
>
> Michael

I have kept out of this debate but the above raises a significant
opportunity.
I don't know what exists yet in the US, but in Oz there is some classroom
training associated with flying the Cirrus however I am unaware of any
"glass cockpit" course per se.
Our regulator has kept the syllabus to the days of rag and string and pommie
motors, with a lot of emphasis on technical matters of no real use.
What is needed is a part of the syllabus / course / book on the management
and use of the glass cockpit, based around the current Avidyne/Garmin gear.
It's the way of the future and training should respond accordingly to assist
pilots to make the transition. Particularly us "matures" as the next
generation will be flying these cockpits as the norm.
Brian

[cjcampbell]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
> > time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.
> >
>
> After reading the articles and spending 30 minutes flying the Entegra
> system on a clear VFR day, I tend to agree with your view.

I tend to agree. Guys who are used to computers seem to pick it up
pretty fast. The user interface on these new systems is more intuitive
and people are less afraid of doing something wrong. It is the guys who
insist on trying to memorize every key and menu setting before they
will touch the thing that run into trouble.

[Robert M. Gary]

> Guys who are used to computers seem to pick it up pretty fast.

I'm a computer guy but I got lost on the Garmin 430 a couple times when
I first flew behind one (at the time it was just a stupid box to me, I
really didn't need to turn it on). When in map mode if you turn the
little knob and the big knob a couple times you can quickly get lost.
The GX GPS has a "map" button to get you back to the map when you get
lost, the 430 could really use a "main menu" type button to get you
unstuck. I've power cycled them before.

-Robert

[cjcampbell]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > Guys who are used to computers seem to pick it up pretty fast.
>
> I'm a computer guy but I got lost on the Garmin 430 a couple times when
> I first flew behind one (at the time it was just a stupid box to me, I
> really didn't need to turn it on). When in map mode if you turn the
> little knob and the big knob a couple times you can quickly get lost.
> The GX GPS has a "map" button to get you back to the map when you get
> lost, the 430 could really use a "main menu" type button to get you
> unstuck. I've power cycled them before.

Yes, it certainly could use a button like that. I like the 430, but I
think the buttons are too small and the menus are a mess. Simple things
like switching radios or navaids can be a real problem if you are not
familiar with it.

The nearest competitor, the KLN 89B, shares many of the same problems.
Both units also need a dedicated missed approach button, IMHO.

[Roger]

On 29 Sep 2005 10:57:55 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>> Guys who are used to computers seem to pick it up pretty fast.
>
>I'm a computer guy but I got lost on the Garmin 430 a couple times when
>I first flew behind one (at the time it was just a stupid box to me, I
>really didn't need to turn it on). When in map mode if you turn the
>little knob and the big knob a couple times you can quickly get lost.
>The GX GPS has a "map" button to get you back to the map when you get
>lost, the 430 could really use a "main menu" type button to get you
>unstuck. I've power cycled them before.
>

1. Learn how to turn on.

2. Learn hot to get to, or back to the default menu.

#2 may be more important than #1.

If the default menu doesn't contain the basic flight instruments,
boycott the manufacturer.

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

>-Robert