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

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

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

For a novice IFR pilot who wants (or maybe needs) all the automation

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Come to think, it's more like the computers grew up with me:-)) They
feel like a natural extension and I find the glass panel flight
instruments more natural to use than the old "steam gauges".

Actually, I think the long transition is for those who are not already
experienced steam gauge pilots. Think about this - did you learn how
to program the flight plan capabilities of the map display, or were you
doing it all in direct-to mode? I do the latter - after all, that's

Do it the simple way first. :-))

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

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


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

I think people make things too complicated.


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

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

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

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

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


Michael