Thomas Borchert wrote:

Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters and
V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and restricted
to type.

That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
standardization and no type requirements.


While you have a point, IMHO one has to be very careful not to fall into the "it#s
bad because it's different" trap. Otherwise, we would never have (had) any
progress at all.

No, "it's" not bad at all. How "it's" used will be either good or bad, or somewhere
between. For the airline pilot, the fancy stuff is good because he or she is isolated
to that equipment with adequate training and exposure for proficiency to occur.

And, keep in mind the airline crews have two sets of eyes, two pairs of hands, and FMS
alphanumeric keyboards with which to enter data, as opposed to twisting knobs.



At other times, we complain about too much regulation in flying. In this case,
you're calling for it. I don't think you can have it both ways - and I DO think
most pilots are still able to learn, and many might even enjoy it.

I don't believe I called for regulation, although you apparently inferred that from my
comparison to type ratings.

The record for light aircraft IFR operations is not good. Making the equipment more
complex, albeit more capable, could make things worse without really good training
(i.e., not the blind leading the blind) and a commitment to currency and proficiency.