Questions for you glass-panel folks

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

So we've been flying our new "Penguin" -- our brand-new 2-place simulator --
during Movie Night at the Inn (see it here:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ), and last night we
started "flying" the G1000-equipped Mooney for the first time.

No one in the room (and there was probably 30,000 hours worth of GA
experience in that room) has flown a new glass cockpit. Most of the Movie
Night regulars are more into the antique/classic aircraft, and I've only
flown behind "steam gauges" -- so we quite frankly didn't know what the hell
we were doing, at first.

However, once we got the hang of the thing, it seemed incredibly, almost
laughably easy to fly an instrument approach. Set things up, follow the
flight director with occasional reference to the moving map, and bingo --
you're landing in virtually zero-zero visibility. With that huge glass
artificial horizon and crisp, graphic depiction, shooting instrument
approaches just couldn't be easier.

In 2002, before we bought the hotel, I was weeks away from taking the IR
check-ride -- so I've got some experience with doing instrument approaches
the old-fashioned way. The difference between the two is absolutely
stunning since, with almost zero training, anyone in the room could fly a
passably safe approach in almost zero visibility.

My questions are:

1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
easy?

2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

I'm fairly surprised that the FAA hasn't made changes to the rating that
address this exciting advance in capability. I haven't read or heard anyone
talking about any simplified instrument rating that this equipment seems to
allow, but it sure seems like it would be a great step forward in flight
safety for the FAA to do something along these lines.

I haven't looked at the instrument written test for six years, but if it
still concentrates as much on VOR and NDB approaches as it did in 2002, it
would seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of flying these new
birds. Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment?

After "flying" the sim last night, my eyes have really been opened to the
brave new world of glass, and I now more fully understand the enthusiasm
pilots have displayed toward them despite their incredibly high cost.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:


>
>My questions are:
>
>1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
>the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
>easy?

Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
(missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).

The flight director is not implemented in every G1000 out there.

>2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
>for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

I seriously doubt it. They'd have to have a restriction to G1000, or
restriction to Avydine (like the old centerline thrust thing) and i
doubt there's any interest in re-writing that part of part 61.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
reduce the requirements.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
>> curriculum
>> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
> Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
> ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
> reduce the requirements.

Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.

If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
new computer programmers to learn Cobol. The skill set that the FAA is
testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.

I suppose the same thing happened when the old A/N radio ranges were
supplanted by the VORs?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:05:31 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
>>> curriculum
>>> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>>
>> Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
>> ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
>> reduce the requirements.
>
>Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
>am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
>reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.
>
>If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
>VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
>student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
>new computer programmers to learn Cobol. The skill set that the FAA is
>testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.
>
>I suppose the same thing happened when the old A/N radio ranges were
>supplanted by the VORs?

Technically you still need to switch to the VOR to drive the HSI for
VOR approaches. You can't just leave it in GPS mode unless you're on
an RNAV approach. And shooting an ILS localizer is still the same
regardless of G1000 or not. Agree that ADF is quite useless nowadays
in domestic operations, but they're still prevelant (and required for
IFR flight) in JAR countries, and are factory installed in G1000
aircraft which are exported to those places, so having a basic
knoweldge of them isn't unreasonable.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
>> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
> Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
> ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
> reduce the requirements.
>

I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings.

Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus?
Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR
flight.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

>Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
>>> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>>
>> Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
>> ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
>> reduce the requirements.
>>
>
>I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings.
>
>Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus?
>Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR
>flight.

Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and
incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)?

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote:
>
>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>> On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
>>>> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>>> Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
>>> ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
>>> reduce the requirements.
>>>
>> I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings.
>>
>> Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus?
>> Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR
>> flight.
>
> Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and
> incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)?

There is Airspeed and Altimeter on the 1000. There is no requirement for
a steam back-up.

[Darkwing]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>My questions are:
>>
>>1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
>>the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
>>easy?
>
> Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
> missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
> easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
> do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
> (missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).
>

I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really learn
anything of huge value. I took the King course as well but the G1000 has way
to many menus, submenus, windows etc. compared to the MSFS version that I
felt fairly lost once I sat in front of the real thing. Still the G1000 is
awesome and a lot of fun to learn!

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 9:37 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> So we've been flying our new "Penguin" -- our brand-new 2-place simulator --
> during Movie Night at the Inn (see it here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm), and last night we
> started "flying" the G1000-equipped Mooney for the first time.
>
> No one in the room (and there was probably 30,000 hours worth of GA
> experience in that room) has flown a new glass cockpit. Most of the Movie
> Night regulars are more into the antique/classic aircraft, and I've only
> flown behind "steam gauges" -- so we quite frankly didn't know what the hell
> we were doing, at first.
>
> However, once we got the hang of the thing, it seemed incredibly, almost
> laughably easy to fly an instrument approach. Set things up, follow the
> flight director with occasional reference to the moving map, and bingo --
> you're landing in virtually zero-zero visibility. With that huge glass
> artificial horizon and crisp, graphic depiction, shooting instrument
> approaches just couldn't be easier.
>
> In 2002, before we bought the hotel, I was weeks away from taking the IR
> check-ride -- so I've got some experience with doing instrument approaches
> the old-fashioned way. The difference between the two is absolutely
> stunning since, with almost zero training, anyone in the room could fly a
> passably safe approach in almost zero visibility.
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
> the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
> easy?
>
> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
> I'm fairly surprised that the FAA hasn't made changes to the rating that
> address this exciting advance in capability. I haven't read or heard anyone
> talking about any simplified instrument rating that this equipment seems to
> allow, but it sure seems like it would be a great step forward in flight
> safety for the FAA to do something along these lines.
>
> I haven't looked at the instrument written test for six years, but if it
> still concentrates as much on VOR and NDB approaches as it did in 2002, it
> would seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of flying these new
> birds. Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment?
>
> After "flying" the sim last night, my eyes have really been opened to the
> brave new world of glass, and I now more fully understand the enthusiasm
> pilots have displayed toward them despite their incredibly high cost.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system
could support FSX.

Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS?

Richard

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:03 -0500, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>My questions are:
>>>
>>>1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
>>>the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
>>>easy?
>>
>> Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
>> missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
>> easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
>> do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
>> (missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).
>>
>
>I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
>might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
>eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really learn
>anything of huge value. I took the King course as well but the G1000 has way
>to many menus, submenus, windows etc. compared to the MSFS version that I
>felt fairly lost once I sat in front of the real thing. Still the G1000 is
>awesome and a lot of fun to learn!

A much better option for getting familiar with the G1000 system is to
buy the $5 CD from Garmin. The simulator is customized to the
aircraft series it's in (Cessna NAVIII for example) and has the
appropriate things enabled for that airframe, and contains all the
features of the G1000 system (just like the 430/530 simulators did for
those boxes).

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:37:43 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>>> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
>>>>> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>>>> Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
>>>> ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
>>>> reduce the requirements.
>>>>
>>> I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings.
>>>
>>> Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus?
>>> Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR
>>> flight.
>>
>> Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and
>> incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)?
>
>There is Airspeed and Altimeter on the 1000. There is no requirement for
>a steam back-up.

The KOEL for the Cessna NAV III aircraft requires all three be
operating for day/night IFR. I expect the Cirrus would have a similar
KOEL requirement for their steam backups but don't have a Cirrus POH
or IM handy.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:37:43 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote:
>
>> Peter Clark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>>>> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
>>>>>> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>>>>> Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
>>>>> ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
>>>>> reduce the requirements.
>>>>>
>>>> I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings.
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus?
>>>> Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR
>>>> flight.
>>> Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and
>>> incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)?
>> There is Airspeed and Altimeter on the 1000. There is no requirement for
>> a steam back-up.
>
> The KOEL for the Cessna NAV III aircraft requires all three be
> operating for day/night IFR. I expect the Cirrus would have a similar
> KOEL requirement for their steam backups but don't have a Cirrus POH
> or IM handy.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least BUT what I'm trying to get at is
there is nothing in the FARS that would require those steam guages be
put in there in the first place.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:14:37 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:37:43 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Clark wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>>>>> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
>>>>>>> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>>>>>> Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
>>>>>> ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
>>>>>> reduce the requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus?
>>>>> Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR
>>>>> flight.
>>>> Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and
>>>> incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)?
>>> There is Airspeed and Altimeter on the 1000. There is no requirement for
>>> a steam back-up.
>>
>> The KOEL for the Cessna NAV III aircraft requires all three be
>> operating for day/night IFR. I expect the Cirrus would have a similar
>> KOEL requirement for their steam backups but don't have a Cirrus POH
>> or IM handy.
>
>That wouldn't surprise me in the least BUT what I'm trying to get at is
>there is nothing in the FARS that would require those steam guages be
>put in there in the first place.

They do for certified aircraft. See 23.1311(5):

Part 23: Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and
commuter category airplanes

Sec. 23.1311 - Electronic display instrument systems.

(5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and
attitude instrument or individual electronic display indicators for
the altitude, airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the
airplane's primary electrical power system.

I'm sure there's a similar entry in part 25 for transport catagory
aircraft.

Did you really think that Cessna et al would spend the money for the
instruments, expend weight for the instruments, plumbing, and vaccum
pump install etc if they weren't required to be there by something in
the FAR?

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 6, 4:37*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> So we've been flying our new "Penguin" -- our brand-new 2-place simulator -- *
> during Movie Night at the Inn (see it here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm), and last night we
> started "flying" the G1000-equipped Mooney for the first time.
>
> However, once we got the hang of the thing, it seemed incredibly, almost
> laughably easy to fly an instrument approach. * Set things up, follow the
> flight director with occasional reference to the moving map, and bingo -- *
> you're landing in virtually zero-zero visibility. *With that huge glass
> artificial horizon and crisp, graphic depiction, shooting instrument
> approaches just couldn't be easier.
>

Let me get this straight, you were simulating flying a computer on
your computer? You need to get out more!

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 6, 7:31*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Peter Clark" > wrote in message

>
> I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
> might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
> eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really learn
> anything of huge value.

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

Cheers

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:35:02 -0800 (PST), WingFlaps
> wrote:

>On Mar 6, 7:31*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Clark" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
>> might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
>> eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really learn
>> anything of huge value.
>
>Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
>very good at that) in every repect.

Please make sure you get your quotes right, I wasn't the one who wrote
the above paragraph.

[Michael[_1_]]

On Mar 5, 10:37*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> 1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
> the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? * Is it REALLY that
> easy?

No. It's easier. I've never flown the glass Mooney, but I have flown
the glass Cirrus and Bonanza (not sure if it's G1000, but they're
really all about the same). Much easier than doing it in MSFS.

> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

No. That would make too much sense. However, some installations are
getting to a point where the curriculum has to be simplified anyway.
For example, the Cirrus installation has dual 430's to drive the PFD -
but no external CDI. The only steam gauges are AI, ASI, and Alt. So
with a PFD failure the only approach you can fly is a GPS - and you do
it by following the moving map. The manual recommends you not try it
- just couple up to the autopilot and let it do the job.

So CDI's are gone. ADF's are gone. Turn and bank? Who dat? It's
PFD and map - and nothing else. Understanding the difference between
heading, bearing, radial, course, and track is not going to happen -
and truly, most of the time it's no longer necessary. Of course
someone who gets all his training in that environment is going to
crash if he tries flying steam gauges without additional training -
especially partial panel - but the same is true of someone who learns
to fly in a Cherokee and then tries to fly a Stearman - and those were
primary trainers once.

> I haven't looked at the instrument written test for six years, but if it
> still concentrates as much on VOR and NDB approaches as it did in 2002, it
> would seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of flying these new
> birds.

It was out of touch even then. It hasn't really gotten any better.

> Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment?

No, but it will - about the time this stuff becomes obsolete.

> After "flying" the sim last night, my eyes have really been opened to the
> brave new world of glass, and I now more fully understand the enthusiasm
> pilots have displayed toward them despite their incredibly high cost.

I understand the enthusiasm too - it's a way of getting the capability
with reasonable safety without having to get good. And that's OK.
Tricycle gear opened up VFR flying to the masses, and the glass
cockpit with weather downlink (with TKS thrown in for the North) has
the potential for doing the same with IFR flying. Those of us who got
good with the steam gauges are mostly unwilling to spring for the
expensive systems, because we don't need them - but they are the
future.

I find it moronic that many FBO's/clubs are requiring special training
for these systems. It's the steam gauges that should require special
training. Glass is trivially easy.

Michael

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Peter Clark wrote:

> They do for certified aircraft. See 23.1311(5):
>
> Part 23: Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and
> commuter category airplanes
>
> Sec. 23.1311 - Electronic display instrument systems.
>
> (5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
> independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and
> attitude instrument or individual electronic display indicators for
> the altitude, airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the
> airplane's primary electrical power system.
>
> I'm sure there's a similar entry in part 25 for transport catagory
> aircraft.
>
> Did you really think that Cessna et al would spend the money for the
> instruments, expend weight for the instruments, plumbing, and vaccum
> pump install etc if they weren't required to be there by something in
> the FAR?

I stand corrected. I was going by the IFR requirements and didn't take
into count the Part 23 FARs.

That mistake aside, sure they would. What do you think the markup is on
those items when they put them in the plane and sell them to you? :)

[Darkwing]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 7:31 am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Peter Clark" > wrote in message

>
> I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
> might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
> eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
> learn
> anything of huge value.

>Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
>very good at that) in every repect.
>
>Cheers

I didn't expect much and I wasn't disappointed.

[Darkwing]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:03 -0500, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>My questions are:
>>>>
>>>>1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction
>>>>of
>>>>the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
>>>>easy?
>>>
>>> Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
>>> missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
>>> easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
>>> do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
>>> (missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).
>>>
>>
>>I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
>>might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
>>eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
>>learn
>>anything of huge value. I took the King course as well but the G1000 has
>>way
>>to many menus, submenus, windows etc. compared to the MSFS version that I
>>felt fairly lost once I sat in front of the real thing. Still the G1000 is
>>awesome and a lot of fun to learn!
>
> A much better option for getting familiar with the G1000 system is to
> buy the $5 CD from Garmin. The simulator is customized to the
> aircraft series it's in (Cessna NAVIII for example) and has the
> appropriate things enabled for that airframe, and contains all the
> features of the G1000 system (just like the 430/530 simulators did for
> those boxes).

Yeah I have seen those available just haven't got around to getting it. I
was hoping the King's course had something with it like that, but alas, no.

[xyzzy]

On Mar 5, 1:05 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
> >> curriculum
> >> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
> > Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
> > ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
> > reduce the requirements.
>
> Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
> am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
> reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.
>
> If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
> VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
> student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
> new computer programmers to learn Cobol.

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

xyzzy wrote:

>
> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
> to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.
>

A pilot coming on now could very easily fly all his life and never see a
working ADF in an aircraft.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:10:43 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>
>> They do for certified aircraft. See 23.1311(5):
>>
>> Part 23: Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and
>> commuter category airplanes
>>
>> Sec. 23.1311 - Electronic display instrument systems.
>>
>> (5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
>> independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and
>> attitude instrument or individual electronic display indicators for
>> the altitude, airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the
>> airplane's primary electrical power system.
>>
>> I'm sure there's a similar entry in part 25 for transport catagory
>> aircraft.
>>
>> Did you really think that Cessna et al would spend the money for the
>> instruments, expend weight for the instruments, plumbing, and vaccum
>> pump install etc if they weren't required to be there by something in
>> the FAR?
>
>I stand corrected. I was going by the IFR requirements and didn't take
>into count the Part 23 FARs.

No worries.

>That mistake aside, sure they would. What do you think the markup is on
>those items when they put them in the plane and sell them to you? :)

Actually, I think it costs them more to put it in since they would
likely save money by not having to buy, store, inventory, install, and
warranty replace them for two years in the first place, but I don't
know the wholesale prices of the instruments and pumps, or how long it
takes at the plant to drill-press and assemble the panel and hoses. At
807 piston aircraft delivered last year (does the Caravan use the
mechanical stuff - another 80 there) it probably adds up pretty quick
all costs considered. But that's completely opinion I've got no
information one way or the other.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system
> could support FSX.

Yep, we're running FSX. The Mooney that comes with FSX has the G1000
system built-in.

> Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS?

Yes. We are running multiple screens with very good performance.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>Let me get this straight, you were simulating flying a computer on
>your computer? You need to get out more!

Ha! Never thought about it that way...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
> might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
> eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
> learn
> anything of huge value.

Is this in the latest version of MSFS?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Darkwing]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:xbFzj.63032$yE1.18737@attbi_s21...
>> I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought
>> it
>> might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
>> eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
>> learn
>> anything of huge value.
>
> Is this in the latest version of MSFS?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Yep I have whatever the latest is, "X" I think?

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Yep I have whatever the latest is, "X" I think?

Dang, that's disappointing. Can you give me a run-down of what's missing?
Is the G1000 functional, with some subtle things missing, or are there big
chunks of functionality that they simply forgot to include?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 4:36 pm, xyzzy > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:05 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
> > >> curriculum
> > >> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
> > > Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
> > > ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
> > > reduce the requirements.
>
> > Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
> > am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
> > reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.
>
> > If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
> > VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
> > student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
> > new computer programmers to learn Cobol.
>
> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
> to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

Nope.

There may be one that I know in a company of +500.

C++ and Java are it for the majority of desktop and SMP code written

Dan

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> xyzzy wrote:
>
> > A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
> > learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
> > to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.
>
> A pilot coming on now could very easily fly all his life and never see a
> working ADF in an aircraft.


Is that really so bad?

I mean..for old times sake and all...

Of 5 airplanes flown in the past 3 months only one had an ADF. And I
don't know anyone who has used it because there's only one ADF
approach within 120 miles (KLBE).

A local airport has ADF REQUIRED on the LOC 5, but GPS provides that
fix.

Dan

[Carl Orton]

My son is flying at one of the major aviation schools, and they've gone just
about 100% glass (OK, they have one C-150, a 182, and a Citabria), but all
the C-172s and Diamond Twins are glass. No change in the curriculum, the
written, or the checkride.

On a side note for us over-40's, I've flown a G1000 C-172. Loved the
"instrument" depictions and all. But, bugged the hell out of me because
while I have progressive lenses in my glasses, my flying sunglasses are the
old style lined bifocals. The comm freqs on the G1000 are at the top of the
screen, and the "eyebrow" of the glareshield sticks out enough that if you
have the seat adjusted high and if you have short legs, the eyebrow cuts off
the top line of the G1000. So I have to duck my head down to see the freqs,
and, of course, that puts that part of the display into the distance part of
the lens. Drove me crazy. Maybe you can reposition things around on the
display; I wasn't in there for a formal checkout so I dunno....

Carl

>
> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
> curriculum for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 5 Mar, 15:37, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> So we've been flying our new "Penguin" -- our brand-new 2-place simulator -- *
> during Movie Night at the Inn (see it here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm), and last night we
> started "flying" the G1000-equipped Mooney for the first time.
>
> No one in the room (and there was probably 30,000 hours worth of GA
> experience in that room) has flown a new glass cockpit. *Most of the Movie
> Night regulars are more into the antique/classic aircraft, and I've only
> flown behind "steam gauges" -- so we quite frankly didn't know what the hell
> we were doing, at first.
>
> However, once we got the hang of the thing, it seemed incredibly, almost
> laughably easy to fly an instrument approach. * Set things up, follow the
> flight director with occasional reference to the moving map, and bingo -- *
> you're landing in virtually zero-zero visibility. *With that huge glass
> artificial horizon and crisp, graphic depiction, shooting instrument
> approaches just couldn't be easier.
>
> In 2002, before we bought the hotel, I was weeks away from taking the IR
> check-ride -- so I've got some experience with doing instrument approaches
> the old-fashioned way. *The difference between the two is absolutely
> stunning since, with almost zero training, anyone in the room could fly a
> passably safe approach in almost zero visibility.
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
> the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? * Is it REALLY that
> easy?
>
> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
> I'm fairly surprised that the FAA hasn't made changes to the rating that
> address this exciting advance in capability. *I haven't read or heard anyone
> talking about any simplified instrument rating that this equipment seems to
> allow, but it sure seems like it would be a great step forward in flight
> safety for the FAA to do something along these lines.
>
> I haven't looked at the instrument written test for six years, but if it
> still concentrates as much on VOR and NDB approaches as it did in 2002, it
> would seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of flying these new
> birds. * Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment?
>
> After "flying" the sim last night, my eyes have really been opened to the
> brave new world of glass, and I now more fully understand the enthusiasm
> pilots have displayed toward them despite their incredibly high cost.

Good grief, he's channeling Antyhony now.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 5 Mar, 22:23, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >Let me get this straight, you were simulating flying a computer on
> >your computer? You need to get out more!
>
> Ha! *Never thought

Surprise.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 5 Mar, 17:05, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
> >> curriculum
> >> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
> > Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
> > ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
> > reduce the requirements.
>
> Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. *Rather, I
> am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
> reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.
>
> If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
> VOR and NDB interpretation. *After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
> student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
> new computer programmers to learn Cobol. * The skill set that the FAA is
> testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.
>
> I suppose the same thing happened when the old A/N radio ranges were
> supplanted by the VORs?

This is depressing beyond words. Another advocate for dumming
down....




Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> On a side note for us over-40's, I've flown a G1000 C-172. Loved the
> "instrument" depictions and all. But, bugged the hell out of me because
> while I have progressive lenses in my glasses, my flying sunglasses are
> the old style lined bifocals. The comm freqs on the G1000 are at the top
> of the screen, and the "eyebrow" of the glareshield sticks out enough that
> if you have the seat adjusted high and if you have short legs, the eyebrow
> cuts off the top line of the G1000. So I have to duck my head down to see
> the freqs,

I've found this to be true with our Garmin 496 as well. Worse, my polarized
clip-on sunglasses make most of the already muddy 496 display unreadable, so
I end up having to take my sunglasses off to read the danged thing.

This is the main reason we have relegated the 496 to the co-pilot's side of
the plane. The Lowrance 2000c, with its high-contrast yellow background,
simply has a much more readable display, so we use it as our primary
navigational tool mounted on the pilot's yoke.

The 496, with its dinky, muddy green/brown, low-contrast screen (which is
oriented in less-than-ideal landscape mode) is panel-docked for the co-pilot
to dick around with. Quite frankly it's a really nice entertainment center
(with XM radio), and it has the weather depicted nicely for the co-pilot to
interpret -- but (when compared to the competition) it's a truly
sub-standard GPS in nearly all other respects.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-06, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> The 496, with its dinky, muddy green/brown, low-contrast screen (which is
> oriented in less-than-ideal landscape mode) is panel-docked for the co-pilot
> to dick around with. Quite frankly it's a really nice entertainment center
> (with XM radio), and it has the weather depicted nicely for the co-pilot to
> interpret -- but (when compared to the competition) it's a truly
> sub-standard GPS in nearly all other respects.

Yeah, but will the Lowrance and AvMap units integrate into a Garmin panel?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Ron Natalie]

The FAA doesn't have a "curriculum" period.

If you're talking about the written, it's been woefully out of date
since before the beginning of the GPS era.

Even notwithstanding the G1000, the advent of the moving map GPS
has greatly changed situational awareness for IFR.

Much as I like my autopilot, you could have my moving map GPS
for IFR when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 4:19 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system
> > could support FSX.
>
> Yep, we're running FSX. The Mooney that comes with FSX has the G1000
> system built-in.
>
> > Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS?
>
> Yes. We are running multiple screens with very good performance.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I showed my 11 year old, who took a Young Eagle flight last year, your
setup and there was much drooling.

Richard

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:53:55 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>The FAA doesn't have a "curriculum" period.

Although they do vet and approve curriculums for use in part 141
schools.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> xyzzy wrote:
>>
>>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
>>> to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.
>> A pilot coming on now could very easily fly all his life and never see a
>> working ADF in an aircraft.
>
>
> Is that really so bad?
>
> I mean..for old times sake and all...
>
> Of 5 airplanes flown in the past 3 months only one had an ADF. And I
> don't know anyone who has used it because there's only one ADF
> approach within 120 miles (KLBE).
>
> A local airport has ADF REQUIRED on the LOC 5, but GPS provides that
> fix.
>
> Dan

Not that it is bad other than time spent learning how to do approaches
with a piece of equipment you not only might never use but probably
won't ever even see is a waste of time and money.

When I was getting my private in the late 70's there wasn't an NDB
approach anywhere near us. The CFI would regularly placard the ADF that
was in one of their planes IN-OP when ever they sent a pilot for a check
ride.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Yeah, but will the Lowrance and AvMap units integrate into a Garmin panel?

By "integrate" do you mean "talk to" the other units?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
> VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
> student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
> new computer programmers to learn Cobol. The skill set that the FAA is
> testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.

But flying with the new technology only happens with a very small
minority of pilots. Probably at least 80% of pilots flying small singles
do not have IFR-approved GPS. Until the majority of light singles have
IFR-approved GPS, the FAA simply aren't in a position to drop those
kinds of requirements.

Unless they do a 'lite' instrument rating, restricted to IFR GPS
equipped planes only, a bit like the centreline twin rating.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-05, Dan > wrote:
>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
>> to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.
>
> Nope.
>
> There may be one that I know in a company of +500.

And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
and C++ code?

There's nothing like stepping through assembler and seeing your code
munch the return address on the stack to understand why it's so
important to do basic things like check buffers.

You can always tell programmers who don't understand what the raw iron
is basically doing, too - huge convoluted nested 'if' statements where
some simple bit twiddling would suffice.

Any programmers, certainly any writing C or C++, need to have had
exposure to assembly language. The architecture doesn't matter, a simple
8 bit one would do, the principles are the same. Most good university
courses will still include assembly language when teaching students.

Knowledge at the raw iron level is also very useful when debugging C
code. You won't have debug symbols for everything (or indeed source code
for everything).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-05, WingFlaps > wrote:
> Let me get this straight, you were simulating flying a computer on
> your computer? You need to get out more!

I note from Airbus A380 cockpit photos is that there appears to be a
standard Windows PC built into both the captain's and first officer's
side of the plane, with a swing out keyboard/trackball. Presumably this
is for the typical non-flying 'information systems'.

I wonder if anyone's loaded Flight Sim onto one of these :-)

Or better still, if anyone's loaded Flight Sim onto the cockpit PCs of
the full motion A380 simulator!

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-05, Michael > wrote:
> I find it moronic that many FBO's/clubs are requiring special training
> for these systems. It's the steam gauges that should require special
> training. Glass is trivially easy.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to go "dummy mode on" when they are
confronted with anything that looks like a computer with lots of knobs
and switches on.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Darkwing]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:TNFzj.9962$TT4.1117@attbi_s22...
>> Yep I have whatever the latest is, "X" I think?
>
> Dang, that's disappointing. Can you give me a run-down of what's
> missing? Is the G1000 functional, with some subtle things missing, or are
> there big chunks of functionality that they simply forgot to include?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Not all the sub menus are there like engine leaning (which is something I
wanted to understand better), some of the cool stuff like the XM weather
overlay, I don't *think* it has terrain. Not all the buttons work, not as
many softkey options but I haven't flown the G1000 for a couple months due
to work and weather so my memory is a little hazy. I haven't played with
MSFS since late last year so I just can't remember it all either. Still at
least it is there in some shape, there could even be an updated panel done
by someone with all the features intact I just don't get into the flight sim
stuff like I used to so I haven't looked online.

[Darkwing]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
On 5 Mar, 17:05, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
> >> curriculum
> >> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
> > Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
> > ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
> > reduce the requirements.
>
> Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather,
> I
> am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
> reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.
>
> If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
> VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing
> a
> student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring
> all
> new computer programmers to learn Cobol. The skill set that the FAA is
> testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.
>
> I suppose the same thing happened when the old A/N radio ranges were
> supplanted by the VORs?

>This is depressing beyond words. Another advocate for dumming
>down....

>Bertie

The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
me interested.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:42:56 -0500, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>My questions are:
>>
>>1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
>>the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
>>easy?
>
>Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
>missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
>easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
>do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
>(missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).
>
>The flight director is not implemented in every G1000 out there.
>
>>2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
>>for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>
>I seriously doubt it. They'd have to have a restriction to G1000, or
>restriction to Avydine (like the old centerline thrust thing) and i
>doubt there's any interest in re-writing that part of part 61.

Actually it's the other way around. There is serious consideration to
require additional training for glass panel use. The reason being, too
many pilots jump in with little or no training and attempt to use
everything right off the bat.

Not all controls are intuitive and trying to learn to insert, change
and delete waypoints while in the clouds is not considered to be a
good thing..
The training I've seen is cumbersome and can be confusing as again
they try to teach everything in a short course.

Flying behind a glass panel is very easy. The scan is simpler than
steam gages as everything is "right there" and well laid out. Some
pilots do have a major problem changing their thinking to the new
layout. I have no problems with it or timing an approach with a
digital watch just reading the numbers (not a countdown timer) while
others find it impossible.

Just spend time flying VFR behind one, then add functions one at a
time after studying the manual or Garmin simulator. Taken stepwise
it's an easy undertaking. Taken all at once it can be overwhelming.

It's when you try to use all of the major functions that the need for
training, spending time working with the Garmin simulator, or better
yet, study then go out with a safety pilot so you can spend time with
your "head in the cockpit" learning hands on.

Renting may be a royal pain as some require you know how to do
"everything" before they'll even let you take it out VFR.

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:13:50 -0500, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:03 -0500, "Darkwing"
>> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My questions are:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction
>>>>>of
>>>>>the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
>>>>>easy?
>>>>
>>>> Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
>>>> missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
>>>> easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
>>>> do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
>>>> (missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).
>>>>
>>>
>>>I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
>>>might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
>>>eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
>>>learn
>>>anything of huge value. I took the King course as well but the G1000 has
>>>way
>>>to many menus, submenus, windows etc. compared to the MSFS version that I
>>>felt fairly lost once I sat in front of the real thing. Still the G1000 is
>>>awesome and a lot of fun to learn!
>>
>> A much better option for getting familiar with the G1000 system is to
>> buy the $5 CD from Garmin. The simulator is customized to the

The original Garmin sims were downloadable for free.(IIRC)

>> aircraft series it's in (Cessna NAVIII for example) and has the
>> appropriate things enabled for that airframe, and contains all the
>> features of the G1000 system (just like the 430/530 simulators did for
>> those boxes).
>
>Yeah I have seen those available just haven't got around to getting it. I
>was hoping the King's course had something with it like that, but alas, no.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Darkwing]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:42:56 -0500, Peter Clark
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>My questions are:
>>>
>>>1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction
>>>of
>>>the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
>>>easy?
>>
>>Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
>>missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
>>easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
>>do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
>>(missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).
>>
>>The flight director is not implemented in every G1000 out there.
>>
>>>2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
>>>curriculum
>>>for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>>
>>I seriously doubt it. They'd have to have a restriction to G1000, or
>>restriction to Avydine (like the old centerline thrust thing) and i
>>doubt there's any interest in re-writing that part of part 61.
>
> Actually it's the other way around. There is serious consideration to
> require additional training for glass panel use. The reason being, too
> many pilots jump in with little or no training and attempt to use
> everything right off the bat.
>
> Not all controls are intuitive and trying to learn to insert, change
> and delete waypoints while in the clouds is not considered to be a
> good thing..
> The training I've seen is cumbersome and can be confusing as again
> they try to teach everything in a short course.
>
> Flying behind a glass panel is very easy. The scan is simpler than
> steam gages as everything is "right there" and well laid out. Some
> pilots do have a major problem changing their thinking to the new
> layout. I have no problems with it or timing an approach with a
> digital watch just reading the numbers (not a countdown timer) while
> others find it impossible.
>
> Just spend time flying VFR behind one, then add functions one at a
> time after studying the manual or Garmin simulator. Taken stepwise
> it's an easy undertaking. Taken all at once it can be overwhelming.
>
> It's when you try to use all of the major functions that the need for
> training, spending time working with the Garmin simulator, or better
> yet, study then go out with a safety pilot so you can spend time with
> your "head in the cockpit" learning hands on.
>
> Renting may be a royal pain as some require you know how to do
> "everything" before they'll even let you take it out VFR.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com


Where I rent I think it is 5 hours dual and a sign off to fly the G1000 all
you want after that.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
> very good at that) in every repect.

It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by Reality XP
avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to the
real thing.

[Mxsmanic]

xyzzy writes:

> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.

This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the exception
of those who were actually training to write programs in assembly language.

> You still have to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

It's a good idea, but it's hardly necessary. In the future, the basic stuff
will be skipped, especially for commercial pilots.

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
> and C++ code?

It isn't because they don't know assembler. They just aren't very good
programmers.

> Any programmers, certainly any writing C or C++, need to have had
> exposure to assembly language.

Too time-consuming and completely unnecessary.

> Knowledge at the raw iron level is also very useful when debugging C
> code. You won't have debug symbols for everything (or indeed source code
> for everything).

Modern debuggers make this largely unnecessary, and writing code carefully to
begin with greatly diminishes the need for debugging and the complexity of
doing so.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> xyzzy writes:
>
>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.
>
> This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the exception
> of those who were actually training to write programs in assembly language.

Bull****. It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
degree. And numerous other universities required it as well. That was in
the past, obviously. But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students
to some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-03-05, Dan > wrote:
>>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
>>> to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.
>> Nope.
>>
>> There may be one that I know in a company of +500.
>
> And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
> and C++ code?
>
> There's nothing like stepping through assembler and seeing your code
> munch the return address on the stack to understand why it's so
> important to do basic things like check buffers.

I agree, but let's take it further - make them learn to microprogram the
raw silicon to implement the instruction set!

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Darkwing wrote:
> The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
> load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
> the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
> with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
> it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
> me interested.

You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
switches...

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:19 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>> Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system
>>> could support FSX.
>> Yep, we're running FSX. The Mooney that comes with FSX has the G1000
>> system built-in.
>>
>>> Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS?
>> Yes. We are running multiple screens with very good performance.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> I showed my 11 year old, who took a Young Eagle flight last year, your
> setup and there was much drooling.

Perfect - he'd fit right in with Jay then...

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:04:54 -0500, Roger >
wrote:


>>>
>>> A much better option for getting familiar with the G1000 system is to
>>> buy the $5 CD from Garmin. The simulator is customized to the
>
>The original Garmin sims were downloadable for free.(IIRC)

The 430/530 sims still are. The software is still free, the $5 is for
the disc and S&H. It's also a much larger file than the 430/530 sims.

Find someone who owns one, they were given the disc when they bought
the aircraft and get a copy of theirs. It's probably not current
though, I don't get simulator updates when I get software packages for
the airframe.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
>> very good at that) in every repect.
>
> It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by
> Reality XP
> avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to
> the
> real thing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!

How would you know what the real thing was like sim-boi???

[Darkwing]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> xyzzy writes:
>>
>>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.
>>
>> This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the
>> exception
>> of those who were actually training to write programs in assembly
>> language.
>
> Bull****. It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
> degree. And numerous other universities required it as well. That was in
> the past, obviously. But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
> the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students to
> some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
> hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.

MX read an article about it one time, he didn't need to go to any classes,
he already knows more than you!

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:37:43 -0500, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> WingFlaps writes:
>>
>>> Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
>>> very good at that) in every repect.
>>
>> It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by
>> Reality XP
>> avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to
>> the
>> real thing.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!
>
>How would you know what the real thing was like sim-boi???

Is it still posting around here? I killfiled him months ago. Why do
people persist in answering?

Besides, RealityXP only provides an interface between the official
Garmin software trainer and MSFS, it doesn't simulate anything.

[Darkwing]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> Darkwing wrote:
>> The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had
>> to load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up,
>> most of the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new
>> computer with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do
>> just because it worked well at the time but I have always liked new
>> technology, it keeps me interested.
>
> You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
> having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
> switches...

I'm just not that old! This was early 80's and it was state of the art at
the time, got it as a Christmas present as a kid. I remember the first time
I seen full motion video off a CD, it was Encarta or something, I thought it
was the most amazing thing I had ever seen!

[Darkwing]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:37:43 -0500, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>> WingFlaps writes:
>>>
>>>> Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
>>>> very good at that) in every repect.
>>>
>>> It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by
>>> Reality XP
>>> avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to
>>> the
>>> real thing.
>>
>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>How would you know what the real thing was like sim-boi???
>
> Is it still posting around here? I killfiled him months ago. Why do
> people persist in answering?

Sport.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Darkwing wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> ouse.com...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> xyzzy writes:
>>>
>>>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>>>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.
>>> This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the
>>> exception
>>> of those who were actually training to write programs in assembly
>>> language.
>> Bull****. It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
>> degree. And numerous other universities required it as well. That was in
>> the past, obviously. But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
>> the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students to
>> some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
>> hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.
>
> MX read an article about it one time, he didn't need to go to any classes,
> he already knows more than you!

Silly me...

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
>> and C++ code?
>
> It isn't because they don't know assembler. They just aren't very
> good programmers.
>
>> Any programmers, certainly any writing C or C++, need to have had
>> exposure to assembly language.
>
> Too time-consuming and completely unnecessary.
>
>> Knowledge at the raw iron level is also very useful when debugging C
>> code. You won't have debug symbols for everything (or indeed source
>> code for everything).
>
> Modern debuggers make this largely unnecessary, and writing code
> carefully to begin with greatly diminishes the need for debugging and
> the complexity of doing so.

No wonder you couldn't make a living as a programmer.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
>> very good at that) in every repect.
>
> It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by
> Reality XP avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the
> simulation to the real thing.

Idiot. You don't know **** from shinola.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> xyzzy writes:
>
>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.
>
> This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the
> exception of those who were actually training to write programs in
> assembly language.
>
>> You still have to learn the basics before you can learn the modern
>> stuff.
>
> It's a good idea, but it's hardly necessary. In the future, the basic
> stuff will be skipped, especially for commercial pilots.
>

Never? More bull **** from an asshole who doesn't know **** from
shinola.

Of course, no one will have to learn to walk. We'll all just start
running.

I'd call you a moron, but that would be boosting your IQ by several
million orders of magnitude.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 11:25 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-03-05, Dan > wrote:
>
> >> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
> >> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
> >> to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.
>
> > Nope.
>
> > There may be one that I know in a company of +500.
>
> And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
> and C++ code?
>
> There's nothing like stepping through assembler and seeing your code
> munch the return address on the stack to understand why it's so
> important to do basic things like check buffers.
>
> You can always tell programmers who don't understand what the raw iron
> is basically doing, too - huge convoluted nested 'if' statements where
> some simple bit twiddling would suffice.
>
> Any programmers, certainly any writing C or C++, need to have had
> exposure to assembly language. The architecture doesn't matter, a simple
> 8 bit one would do, the principles are the same. Most good university
> courses will still include assembly language when teaching students.
>
> Knowledge at the raw iron level is also very useful when debugging C
> code. You won't have debug symbols for everything (or indeed source code
> for everything).
>
> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

To clarify -- 90% of those programmers either know or have been
exposed to assembly language, but none *use* it -- that was my point.

Dan

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 3:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Modern debuggers make this largely unnecessary, and writing code carefully to
> begin with greatly diminishes the need for debugging and the complexity of
> doing so.

I am totally flabbergasted...

And here we were, writing code and actually charging our customers for
Unit testing, as well as component Integration and testing, when all
we need is one of them there modern debuggers!!!

Amazing!!!!


Dan

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 3:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> It's a good idea, but it's hardly necessary. In the future, the basic stuff
> will be skipped, especially for commercial pilots.

The Commercial ticket is about as basic as you get, Mr. Know-it-all.

It's a purely VFR practical with the emphasis on high proficiency on
all the basic maneuvers.

How in the world does what you say said square with what a "commercial
pilot" really is?

As an aside.. when I first saw the level of vitriol directed your way,
I thought, "No one is deserving of this treatment."

I was wrong.


Dan

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-06, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Yeah, but will the Lowrance and AvMap units integrate into a Garmin panel?
> By "integrate" do you mean "talk to" the other units?

Yup.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 8:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> WingFlaps writes:
> > Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
> > very good at that) in every repect.
>
> It's a simulation, not a game. *The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by Reality XP
> avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to the
> real thing.

All details including the bugs?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 9:31*am, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> Darkwing wrote:
> > The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
> > load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
> > the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
> > with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
> > it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
> > me interested.
>
> You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
> having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
> switches...

PDP11 or IBM360 perhaps?

Cheers!

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 9:43*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
>
> ouse.com...
>
> > Darkwing wrote:
> >> The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had
> >> to load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up,
> >> most of the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new
> >> computer with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do
> >> just because it worked well at the time but I have always liked new
> >> technology, it keeps me interested.
>
> > You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
> > having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
> > switches...
>
> I'm just not that old! This was early 80's and it was state of the art at
> the time, got it as a Christmas present as a kid.

Spoilt brat! I was only just about able to afford to build a simple
calculator from components (early 70's)!

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 1:38*pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Modern debuggers make this largely unnecessary, and writing code carefully to
> > begin with greatly diminishes the need for debugging and the complexity of
> > doing so.
>
> I am totally flabbergasted...
>
> And here we were, writing code and actually charging our customers for
> Unit testing, as well as component Integration and testing, when all
> we need is one of them there modern debuggers!!!
>
> Amazing!!!!
>
Aha I smell an embedded controller! Keep up the good work!

Cheers

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-07, WingFlaps > wrote:
>> You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
>> having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
>> switches...
> PDP11 or IBM360 perhaps?

PDP-11, maybe. A 360 doesn't need a machine code boot loader; it's capable
of loading itself from any mass sotrage device it can read from without
having to resort to that. It does so by issuing a specially formatted I/O
command to the device that causes it to read the first bit of code needed to
load everything else. It's actually pretty elegant: all the operator needs
to do is enter the device address and push the IPL button.

(The Hercules to which my .signature refers is an open-source emulator for
IBM mainframes, including the 360. I'm the project manager.)
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Rich Ahrens > writes:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> xyzzy writes:
>>
>>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.
>> This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the
>> exception
>> of those who were actually training to write programs in assembly language.
>
> Bull****. It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a
> B.S. degree. And numerous other universities required it as well. That
> was in the past, obviously. But any decent comp sci program still
> requires, at the very least, a machine architecture course which
> introduces students to some machine's instruction set, the assembler
> language for it, and hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level
> language like C.

When I TAed at Carnegie Mellon a few years ago, we were still
requiring students to write short assembly language programs, and be
able to debug and understand larger programs without any source code
being available... (In 15-213, if you want to look up the class.) I'm
pretty sure the same material is covered today.

Chris

[Robert Barker]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-03-07, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>> You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
>>> having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
>>> switches...
>> PDP11 or IBM360 perhaps?
>
> PDP-11, maybe. A 360 doesn't need a machine code boot loader; it's capable
> of loading itself from any mass sotrage device it can read from without
> having to resort to that. It does so by issuing a specially formatted I/O
> command to the device that causes it to read the first bit of code needed
> to
> load everything else. It's actually pretty elegant: all the operator needs
> to do is enter the device address and push the IPL button.
>
> (The Hercules to which my .signature refers is an open-source emulator for
> IBM mainframes, including the 360. I'm the project manager.)
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Hey! Another assembler geek! I was a TPF/Assembler programmer up until a
few years ago!

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:36:53 -0800 (PST), xyzzy >
wrote:

>On Mar 5, 1:05 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> >> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
>> >> curriculum
>> >> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>>
>> > Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
>> > ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
>> > reduce the requirements.
>>
>> Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
>> am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
>> reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.
>>
>> If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
>> VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
>> student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
>> new computer programmers to learn Cobol.
>
>A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
>to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

Not that I know of. I earned my BS degree in CS (graduated in 90 and
*started* on my Masters) At that time Assembler was not required. OTOH
I took a course in microprocessor design and programming that was in
machine language. We had to use the Assembly Language "bingo Card" to
look up the code and then convert to Hex. We entered everything in
Hex (into volatile memory) and were expected to run the program, get
the proper results and exit gracefully. Then the instructor would run
it again.<:-)) We even had to do addition by rotating left and right
in the registers and physically manipulate (write to and read from)
the stacks when doing procedure calls and returns. "GoTos" were not
allowed.

The final exam was a two parter. The first was 50 questions. 10 were
T&F, the rest either took calculations or an essay answer. The second
half was to write a fairly sizeable program in Assembler. I think it
took about 7 pages of instructions. Couple guys handed theirs in
while I was only about half done. I was almost ready to panic except I
found they had given up. Made it through the whole course only to
give up half way through the final exam.

That was one of the courses I aced.<:-)) Let's not talk about
networks and calculating bandwidth for a given string at a given speed
though.<:-)) Lots of Calculus there. In Grad school I took two
courses and taught 5 as a GA. The first was the Design and Analysis
of Algorithms while the second was Digital Image Processing. The
first was easy. We only went to 5 level simultaneous equations. By
the second week in the image processing we were already using Fourier
Analysis (Not FF) and from there is was all down hill.<:-))
Fortunately A very good job offer came along about that time.

However with CS as in GPS you do have to crawl before you can walk.
they still start out with Pascal to teach "top down" and structure,
but move to C++ early on.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:42:20 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

>xyzzy wrote:
>
>>
>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
>> to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.
>>
>
>A pilot coming on now could very easily fly all his life and never see a
>working ADF in an aircraft.

But don't throw out the old Loran just yet. They are talking about
mandating LORAN as the ground based backup for GPS and getting rid of
the VORs along with the NDBs. I liked NDBs as there is always
something around on which you can get a fix..
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:15:37 GMT, Benjamin Dover
> wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> Dylan Smith writes:
>>
>>> And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
>>> and C++ code?
>>
>> It isn't because they don't know assembler. They just aren't very
>> good programmers.
>>
>>> Any programmers, certainly any writing C or C++, need to have had
>>> exposure to assembly language.
>>
>> Too time-consuming and completely unnecessary.
>>
>>> Knowledge at the raw iron level is also very useful when debugging C
>>> code. You won't have debug symbols for everything (or indeed source
>>> code for everything).
>>
>> Modern debuggers make this largely unnecessary, and writing code
>> carefully to begin with greatly diminishes the need for debugging and
>> the complexity of doing so.
>
> No wonder you couldn't make a living as a programmer.

Lordy, Some of those beginning students could write code I couldn't
figure out and I was a GA working on my Masters. Nothing like working
with pointers and not understanding what's going on.<:-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:28:17 -0600, Rich Ahrens >
wrote:

>Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2008-03-05, Dan > wrote:
>>>> A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
>>>> learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
>>>> to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> There may be one that I know in a company of +500.
>>
>> And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
>> and C++ code?
>>
>> There's nothing like stepping through assembler and seeing your code
>> munch the return address on the stack to understand why it's so
>> important to do basic things like check buffers.
>
>I agree, but let's take it further - make them learn to microprogram the
>raw silicon to implement the instruction set!

Introduction to Logic Design by Shiva plus a 4 credit course in
Boolean Algebra.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roy G Biv]

Real Computers are cooled by freon.

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
ouse.com...
> Darkwing wrote:
>> The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had
>> to load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up,
>> most of the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new
>> computer with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do
>> just because it worked well at the time but I have always liked new
>> technology, it keeps me interested.
>
> You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
> having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
> switches...

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:40:03 -0500, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>On 5 Mar, 17:05, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> >> 2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified
>> >> curriculum
>> >> for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
>>
>> > Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
>> > ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
>> > reduce the requirements.
>>
>> Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather,
>> I
>> am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
>> reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.
>>
>> If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
>> VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing
>> a
>> student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring
>> all
>> new computer programmers to learn Cobol. The skill set that the FAA is
>> testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.
>>
>> I suppose the same thing happened when the old A/N radio ranges were
>> supplanted by the VORs?
>
>>This is depressing beyond words. Another advocate for dumming
>>down....
>
>>Bertie
>
>The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
>load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
>the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
>with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
>it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
>me interested.
>
Ah, my old Ohio Scientific C2-8P. A one MHz 6502, 48K of dynamic ram
(16K X1 at 30 some bucks a chip) and dual 8" floppy drives. Cost me 4
Grand WITHOUT a monitor or keyboard. Those I had to find on my own.
You booted it by entering Go 800 (I think) and then typing in the
address for the disk drive as well as the track and sector to start
(IIRC) That was 1979 or 80.

Today I can build up two multi core, state of the art machines with
big time graphics cards, 4 Gig of at least DDR2-800 RAM, and a
Terabyte of HD space and my OS on a 10,000 RPM Raptor. I think I could
even include the 22" wide screen monitors and do it for less than that
C2-8P.

My first HD cost a $100 a megabyte. Tonight I installed a heavy duty
750 Gig HD that cost 26 cents a Gigabyte. IOW a 10 Meg drive cost me
a thousand bucks in the early 80's and I just picked up a WD RE
version of the 750 Gig for $200. Were I to settle for the SE version
and shop around I could get it for around $140. Actually there were
one Terabyte drives available for about $240 or 24 cents a Gig.
A little over a year ago I paid near $300 for 2 Gigs of DDR-2 800 (PC
6400) RAM. Now I can get the same stuff (make and model) for less
than $100. Actually 4 Gigs is around $140. Check NewEgg. <sigh>

One thing to remember about the new technology. When it comes to
small planes that tech is still a small fraction of what's out there.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:31:16 -0600, Rich Ahrens >
wrote:

>Darkwing wrote:
>> The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
>> load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
>> the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
>> with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
>> it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
>> me interested.
>
>You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
>having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
>switches...

Ohhhhh...Lordy... We had those on the old Westinghouse P2000s at work.
Most had 8K, but a couple had 16K of core memory. It took nearly two
hours to boot the system. We had Teflon coated paper tape for
durability. Besides, in that atmosphere paper didn't last very long
at all. It's a wonder we did.

IIRC we paid nearly a quarter million each. Just a few years later we
purchased a "truckload" of them for parts at $450. I bought one to
play with for $30.


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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:19:02 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system
>> could support FSX.
>
>Yep, we're running FSX. The Mooney that comes with FSX has the G1000
>system built-in.
>
>> Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS?
>
>Yes. We are running multiple screens with very good performance.

One of my machines has the 8800GTS 640OC and the other a Saphire
X1950XT 256. The Saphire is noticably faster in either machine than
the 8800GTS 640OC when running FSX

I'm waiting for the 8800GT to be released with all its features
enabled. It's smaller, faster, and uses about half the power of the
GTS. (and costs far less than the GTS, let alone the 640OC.)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:31 am, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> Darkwing wrote:
>>> The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had to
>>> load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up, most of
>>> the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new computer
>>> with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do just because
>>> it worked well at the time but I have always liked new technology, it keeps
>>> me interested.
>> You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
>> having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
>> switches...
>
> PDP11 or IBM360 perhaps?

I originally learned to program on a 360, yes, using punch cards. Used
paper tape on both PDP-8s and PDP-11s.

The front panel play was a PDP-8. Someone actually posted a video on the
net of booting one by loading the boot loader on the front panel:

http://www.pdp8.net/pdp8em/pdp8e.rm

That's only two instructions, the sequence for loading from an RK05 disk:

http://www.pdp8.net/rk05/rk05.jpg

That drive would astound folks today. The capacity of each removable
disk pack was 1.6 million 12-bit words on a 14-inch platter. The drive
weighed more than 100 lbs. The boot loader required entering more
instructions if you were booting from paper or mag tape.

Actually, come to think of it, I had to use front panel switches for
booting in some cases on a Microdata Reality, too:

http://www.microdata-alumni.org/images/Reality_fullsystem.jpg

[Ron Garret]

In article <O6zzj.62598$yE1.27408@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> My questions are:
>
> 1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
> the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
> easy?

When everything is working, yeah, pretty much. Trick is, that
simplicity is a two-edged sword because when things break you may have
to be able to fall back and do things the old fashioned way, and that
can get to be much harder if you've gotten used to the easy way.

rg

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Rich Ahrens > wrote:

> http://www.pdp8.net/rk05/rk05.jpg
>
> That drive would astound folks today. The capacity of each removable
> disk pack was 1.6 million 12-bit words on a 14-inch platter. The drive
> weighed more than 100 lbs.

And it required head realignment and new air filters as part of routine
periodic maintenance. Oh, those were the days!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:10133044-098b-4d97-8534-a5fbeb3a1a89
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 5, 4:19 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> > Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system
>> > could support FSX.
>>
>> Yep, we're running FSX. The Mooney that comes with FSX has the G1000
>> system built-in.
>>
>> > Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS?
>>
>> Yes. We are running multiple screens with very good performance.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> I showed my 11 year old, who took a Young Eagle flight last year, your
> setup and there was much drooling.
>

He sounds like he'd get along with Jay famously.



Bertie

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-06, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> I agree, but let's take it further - make them learn to microprogram the
> raw silicon to implement the instruction set!

Yes - at least give them a heap of 74HC* series logic and ask them to
make something with just MSI logic ICs and breadboard.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-03-06, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> I agree, but let's take it further - make them learn to microprogram the
>> raw silicon to implement the instruction set!
>
> Yes - at least give them a heap of 74HC* series logic and ask them to
> make something with just MSI logic ICs and breadboard.

Uphill. In a snowstorm. With one hand tied behind their backs.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>
>> http://www.pdp8.net/rk05/rk05.jpg
>>
>> That drive would astound folks today. The capacity of each removable
>> disk pack was 1.6 million 12-bit words on a 14-inch platter. The drive
>> weighed more than 100 lbs.
>
> And it required head realignment and new air filters as part of routine
> periodic maintenance. Oh, those were the days!

Same guy has a video of the head seeking on an RK05 drive:

http://www.pdp8.net/rk05/rk05_seek.rm

Ah, those were the days - it really mattered where you physically placed
data on a drive...

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> How would you know what the real thing was like sim-boi???

It's just like the simulated version. After all, Garmin wrote both.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> All details including the bugs?

Possibly. Garmin wrote it.

[Mxsmanic]

Rich Ahrens writes:

> It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
> degree.

Your comp sci department is not representative of the planet as a whole.
Universities in general live in an alternate universe when it comes to
practical technologies. Often the B.S. degree is aptly named.

> But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
> the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students
> to some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
> hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.

I guess if all you want to do is gather university credits, that might be
significant. If you want to write software, it's irrelevant.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> How would you know what the real thing was like sim-boi???
>
> It's just like the simulated version. After all, Garmin wrote both.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rich Ahrens writes:
>
>> It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
>> degree.
>
> Your comp sci department is not representative of the planet as a whole.

You aren't even representitive of th efjuktards you're most closely relatd
to.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 7, 1:48 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> It's just like the simulated version. After all, Garmin wrote both.

His SimCity girlfriend is just like his simulated one.

After all, he created both.


Dan

[John[_13_]]

If you want to write good efficient code it is most certainly needed. If
all you want to be is a script kiddie then I supposed understanding what
your doing is not really needed.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Rich Ahrens writes:
>
>> It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
>> degree.
>
> Your comp sci department is not representative of the planet as a whole.
> Universities in general live in an alternate universe when it comes to
> practical technologies. Often the B.S. degree is aptly named.
>
>> But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
>> the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students
>> to some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
>> hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.
>
> I guess if all you want to do is gather university credits, that might be
> significant. If you want to write software, it's irrelevant.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Rich Ahrens writes:
>
>> It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
>> degree.
>
> Your comp sci department is not representative of the planet as a whole.
> Universities in general live in an alternate universe when it comes to
> practical technologies. Often the B.S. degree is aptly named.

Says the bankrupt idiot sitting in a bare apartment except for items
given him by friends, unable to make enough money to buy the books and
videos on his wish-list, living off peanut butter and canned ravioli,
jerking off to flight sims. It's pretty clear who's living in an
alternate universe and full of BS.

>> But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
>> the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students
>> to some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
>> hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.
>
> I guess if all you want to do is gather university credits, that might be
> significant. If you want to write software, it's irrelevant.

Your tap-dancing is irrelevant. You said, "This has never been a
requirement for computer programmers." Many programmers (obviously not
all) come out of Comp Sci programs. In order to get accredited (at least
in the U.S., but I'd bet it's a pretty broadly implemented standard), a
Comp Sci program has to include a course like the one I described.
Therefore, it *has* been a requirement for at least some programmers and
you're full of **** as usual. QED.

For instance, the ABET curriculum standard requires:

"IV-6. The core materials must provide basic coverage of algorithms,
data structures, software design, concepts of programming languages, and
computer organization and architecture."

That last one, "computer organization and architecture" is precisely the
coursework I described. The IEEE and ACM also call for similar
coursework in undergraduate Comp Sci programs.

[Mxsmanic]

John writes:

> If you want to write good efficient code it is most certainly needed.

Arguably true, but good, efficient code isn't important today. All anyone
cares about is time to market and feature bloat. I haven't seen good,
efficient code in an extremely long time. Perhaps if it were more common, it
wouldn't be necessary to have desktop computers ten million times more
powerful than an early IBM 360 just to write a letter.

> If all you want to be is a script kiddie then I supposed understanding what
> your doing is not really needed.

"Fourth generation" is often a euphemism for that.

[Mxsmanic]

Rich Ahrens writes:

> You said, "This has never been a requirement for computer programmers."

Right. It's an accurate generalization.

> Many programmers (obviously not all) come out of Comp Sci programs.

Obviously not all, as you say. And not all computer science programs require
assembly language.

> In order to get accredited (at least
> in the U.S., but I'd bet it's a pretty broadly implemented standard), a
> Comp Sci program has to include a course like the one I described.

Accredited by whom? There is no single source for accreditation, and heaping
one form of credentialism upon another doesn't accomplish much.

> That last one, "computer organization and architecture" is precisely the
> coursework I described. The IEEE and ACM also call for similar
> coursework in undergraduate Comp Sci programs.

If all these programmers are following such wonderful, "accredited" programs,
why is modern software usually garbage? Why does a PC running at 5000 MIPS
get things done no faster today than a PC at 4 MIPS twenty-five years ago?

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 8, 1:25 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If all these programmers are following such wonderful, "accredited" programs,
> why is modern software usually garbage? Why does a PC running at 5000 MIPS
> get things done no faster today than a PC at 4 MIPS twenty-five years ago?

On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
is usually garbage"?

You really, really, really must avoid commenting upon things you know
absolutely nothing about.

The increase in processing speed has provided visible, direct benefits
to software of all types.

Your stupidity continues to amaze and entertain.

Keep it up.

Dan

[Darkwing]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 8, 1:25 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> If all these programmers are following such wonderful, "accredited"
>> programs,
>> why is modern software usually garbage? Why does a PC running at 5000
>> MIPS
>> get things done no faster today than a PC at 4 MIPS twenty-five years
>> ago?
>
> On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
> is usually garbage"?
>
> You really, really, really must avoid commenting upon things you know
> absolutely nothing about.


But that is his forte.

[Mxsmanic]

Dan writes:

> On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
> is usually garbage"?

On the basis of my experience using it, maintaining it, installing it,
debugging it, and supporting it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan writes:
>
>> On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
>> is usually garbage"?
>
> On the basis of my experience using it, maintaining it, installing it,
> debugging it, and supporting it.
>

Says unemployed boi


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 8, 6:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dan writes:
> > On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
> > is usually garbage"?
>
> On the basis of my experience using it, maintaining it, installing it,
> debugging it, and supporting it.

Riiiiiiiight....

Then the stuff YOU work on must be some real crap.

Dan

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan writes:
>
>> On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
>> is usually garbage"?
>
> On the basis of my experience using it, maintaining it, installing it,
> debugging it, and supporting it.
>

Which of course, based on your stellar success at doing so, explains
why you can't even afford to take an introductory flight lesson and why
you need to beg on Amazon.com for books you can't afford to buy for
yourself.

[Benjamin Dover]

Dan > wrote in news:ff038774-762d-49b3-831d-
:

> On Mar 8, 6:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Dan writes:
>> > On what basis do you make the preposterous claim that "modern software
>> > is usually garbage"?
>>
>> On the basis of my experience using it, maintaining it, installing it,
>> debugging it, and supporting it.
>
> Riiiiiiiight....
>
> Then the stuff YOU work on must be some real crap.
>
> Dan

All Anthony can program is simulated software to run on simulated
Kohler or American Standard hardware.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Rich Ahrens writes:
>
>> You said, "This has never been a requirement for computer programmers."
>
> Right. It's an accurate generalization.
>
>> Many programmers (obviously not all) come out of Comp Sci programs.
>
> Obviously not all, as you say. And not all computer science programs require
> assembly language.
>
>> In order to get accredited (at least
>> in the U.S., but I'd bet it's a pretty broadly implemented standard), a
>> Comp Sci program has to include a course like the one I described.
>
> Accredited by whom? There is no single source for accreditation, and heaping
> one form of credentialism upon another doesn't accomplish much.
>
>> That last one, "computer organization and architecture" is precisely the
>> coursework I described. The IEEE and ACM also call for similar
>> coursework in undergraduate Comp Sci programs.
>
> If all these programmers are following such wonderful, "accredited" programs,
> why is modern software usually garbage? Why does a PC running at 5000 MIPS
> get things done no faster today than a PC at 4 MIPS twenty-five years ago?

You're clueless, hopeless, witless, and incapable of staying on point. A
waste of my time to continue this...

[Mxsmanic]

Dan writes:

> Then the stuff YOU work on must be some real crap.

Yes, a lot of it is. But it's the same stuff that other people work on, so
the problem is very widespread.

[Mxsmanic]

Rich Ahrens writes:

> You're clueless, hopeless, witless, and incapable of staying on point. A
> waste of my time to continue this...

When people run out of rational arguments, they resort to personal attacks.

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 8, 7:25*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rich Ahrens writes:
> > You said, "This has never been a requirement for computer programmers."
>
> Right. *It's an accurate generalization.
>
> > Many programmers (obviously not all) come out of Comp Sci programs.
>
> Obviously not all, as you say. *And not all computer science programs require
> assembly language.
>
> > In order to get accredited (at least
> > in the U.S., but I'd bet it's a pretty broadly implemented standard), a
> > Comp Sci program has to include a course like the one I described.
>
> Accredited by whom? *There is no single source for accreditation, and heaping
> one form of credentialism upon another doesn't accomplish much.
>
> > That last one, "computer organization and architecture" is precisely the
> > coursework I described. The IEEE and ACM also call for similar
> > coursework in undergraduate Comp Sci programs.
>
> If all these programmers are following such wonderful, "accredited" programs,
> why is modern software usually garbage? *Why does a PC running at 5000 MIPS
> get things done no faster today than a PC at 4 MIPS twenty-five years ago?

An 8086 didn't even do 4MIPs.

Cheers

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rich Ahrens writes:
>
>> You're clueless, hopeless, witless, and incapable of staying on
>> point. A waste of my time to continue this...
>
> When people run out of rational arguments, they resort to personal
> attacks.
>

You can't have a rational discussion with an insane moron like you.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan writes:
>
>> Then the stuff YOU work on must be some real crap.
>
> Yes, a lot of it is. But it's the same stuff that other people work
> on, so the problem is very widespread.
>

So that's why your reduced to begging for goodies on Amazon. Your
software was a piece of crap. Just like you.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 9, 3:54 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rich Ahrens writes:
> > You're clueless, hopeless, witless, and incapable of staying on point. A
> > waste of my time to continue this...
>
> When people run out of rational arguments, they resort to personal attacks.


I'm trying to see from your point of view, but I can't stick my head
that far up my ass.

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> Your software was a piece of crap.

I didn't say anything about "my" software. I was talking about software in
general, although I was thinking particularly of mass-market consumer and
business software. Embedded systems are often slightly better, although the
gap is closing (in favor of junk).

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> You can't have a rational discussion with an insane moron like you.

When people run out of rational arguments, they resort to personal attacks.
Some people have no such arguments to begin with, and so they begin with
personal attacks. Others are overcome with emotion, and engage in personal
attacks to relieve stress, even though this works against them in discussions
and debate.

[Mxsmanic]

Dan writes:

> I'm trying to see from your point of view, but I can't stick my head
> that far up my ass.

Perhaps the point of view you believe to be mine actually isn't.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> An 8086 didn't even do 4MIPs.

Twenty-five years ago (1983) was closer to the 80386 (1985), at 16 MHz,
although it still couldn't quite manage 4 MIPS, depending on the instruction
mix. The 8086 dates from 1978.

[Just go look it up!]

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:04:02 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>WingFlaps writes:
>
>> An 8086 didn't even do 4MIPs.
>
>Twenty-five years ago (1983) was closer to the 80386 (1985), at 16 MHz,
>although it still couldn't quite manage 4 MIPS, depending on the instruction
>mix. The 8086 dates from 1978.

The 80386 wasn't released until 1986. 1983 was the 80286, the fastest
of which (12MHz version) released near the end of production in late
1985 was rated at 2.66 MIPS. The two production 1983 versions were .9
and 1.5MIPS.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> You can't have a rational discussion with an insane moron like you.
>
> When people run out of rational arguments, they resort to personal
> attacks.


Except you. When you run out of rational argumens you stick your head up
your ass and pretend the question was never put to you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan writes:
>
>> I'm trying to see from your point of view, but I can't stick my head
>> that far up my ass.
>
> Perhaps the point of view you believe to be mine actually isn't.
>

QED


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > took his dick out of his mouth and wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> You can't have a rational discussion with an insane moron like you.
>
> When people run out of rational arguments, they resort to personal
> attacks. Some people have no such arguments to begin with, and so they
> begin with personal attacks. Others are overcome with emotion, and
> engage in personal attacks to relieve stress, even though this works
> against them in discussions and debate.
>

QED moron.

[Benjamin Dover]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Benjamin Dover writes:
>>
>>> You can't have a rational discussion with an insane moron like you.
>>
>> When people run out of rational arguments, they resort to personal
>> attacks.
>
>
> Except you. When you run out of rational argumens you stick your head up
> your ass and pretend the question was never put to you.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Anthony sticks his head up his ass BEFORE he posts anything.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Benjamin Dover writes:
>>>
>>>> You can't have a rational discussion with an insane moron like you.
>>>
>>> When people run out of rational arguments, they resort to personal
>>> attacks.
>>
>>
>> Except you. When you run out of rational argumens you stick your head
>> up your ass and pretend the question was never put to you.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Anthony sticks his head up his ass BEFORE he posts anything.


I kinda think it's always been there.


Part of his condition.


Bertie
>
>

[Darkwing]

"Just go look it up!" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:04:02 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>>WingFlaps writes:
>>
>>> An 8086 didn't even do 4MIPs.
>>
>>Twenty-five years ago (1983) was closer to the 80386 (1985), at 16 MHz,
>>although it still couldn't quite manage 4 MIPS, depending on the
>>instruction
>>mix. The 8086 dates from 1978.
>
> The 80386 wasn't released until 1986. 1983 was the 80286, the fastest
> of which (12MHz version) released near the end of production in late
> 1985 was rated at 2.66 MIPS. The two production 1983 versions were .9
> and 1.5MIPS.


Anthony ignores facts, so this will fall on deaf ears.

[dgs[_3_]]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>When people run out of rational arguments, they resort to personal attacks.
>
>
> In a way, you're correct.
> Once someone has presented all the rational arguments, and you still
> don't get it, the only rational conclusion is that you're just a dip****.

A rational conclusion is not a personal attack. In fact, Anthony has
never experienced a personal attack here. Doesn't stop him from making
fatuous claims that he is "immune" to them, while ceaselessly and
pointlessly whining about them, though.
--
dgs

[dgs[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Twenty-five years ago (1983) was closer to the 80386 (1985), at 16 MHz,
> although it still couldn't quite manage 4 MIPS, depending on the instruction
> mix. The 8086 dates from 1978.

Who cares? What does this have to do with aviation and flying?

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Just go look it up! wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:04:02 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>> WingFlaps writes:
>>
>>> An 8086 didn't even do 4MIPs.
>> Twenty-five years ago (1983) was closer to the 80386 (1985), at 16 MHz,
>> although it still couldn't quite manage 4 MIPS, depending on the instruction
>> mix. The 8086 dates from 1978.
>
> The 80386 wasn't released until 1986. 1983 was the 80286, the fastest
> of which (12MHz version) released near the end of production in late
> 1985 was rated at 2.66 MIPS. The two production 1983 versions were .9
> and 1.5MIPS.

Don't confuse him with facts. They only stand in the way of his fantasies.