Going IFR from the start

In today's AvFlash:

"1) We can see through clouds, and 2) we can see where we are. With these
two problems solved, what is the difference between VFR and IFR?"

Discuss.

Personally, I find that instrument flying (i.e. flying on the gauges
themselves) didn't take too long to learn to do well. What took the time
was doing this AND the procedures. I still wager there will be quite a
difference between IFR and VFR given this equipment (although it'll be
vastly easier to fly IFR given that you'll have much more spare mental
capacity to put to departure, en-route and approach procedures) - but I
think the difference between VFR and IFR will still be very noticable
(and will still require an instrument rating) due to the procedural
differences.

Given the choice, I'd FAR rather have a glass cockpit for an IFR plane
than the traditional steam gauges. Other than cost (which is always the
rub!) would anyone disagree with that? (I'd also far rather have
automatic mixture control and FADEC on my engine, but I'm hard to
please :-))

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

For me, the hard part of the Instrument Rating wasn't the flying, or
the communications. The hard part was (and still is) the
multi-tasking, i.e. flying accurately while reading the approach chart,
adjusting the nav/comm gear, and absorbing final approach instructions
from ATC " 27D, you are 5 mi from the outer marker, fly heading of
285, maintain 2800 until established, cleared for the Localizer
approach, contact tower at 118.3..."

I also meant to add that since the multi-tasking is the hard part, I'm
not convinced that the style of cockpit, whether glass or steam, really
matters that much. The critical issue is how much time the pilot has
to devote to setting up the approach.

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I also meant to add that since the multi-tasking is the hard part, I'm
not convinced that the style of cockpit, whether glass or steam, really
matters that much. The critical issue is how much time the pilot has
to devote to setting up the approach.


You have not flown with a glass cockpit are advanced steam guages have you?
Both make the flying part easier and require less of a scan which allow more
time/bandwidth for futzing with avionics or charts. In my airplane the ADI
has a flight director and also displays localizer and glideslope
information, you only need to glance at it and you see the whole
flying/navigation picture. Glass panels are even easier.

Mike
MU-2

Paul,

After flying and instructing in both types of cockpits, my experience
is that the "glass' version is far easier to use, cuts workload
dramatically and, in my opinion, makes instrument flying much easier.
It allows information to be obtained and processed faster and helps
one's situational awareness significantly, allowing the pilot to stay
well ahead of the airplane, even as the workload goes up in a terminal
area. All of that recognizes that there is a learning curve to the
glass cockpit, but the presentation is so intuitive, that one catches
on quickly.

All the best,
Rick

There is so much to cover in the private PTS, it will be interesting to
see how a student can prepare for both at the same time. I wonder if
'integrated training" teaches students to keep their eyes inside.

-Robert, CFI

I wonder if
'integrated training" teaches students to keep their eyes inside.

I expect that it will, and that it will lead to overdependence on glass,
with concurrent underedpenence on plexiglass. I already see too many
pilots who can't fly without GPS and an autopilot. We shouldn't be
encouraging this from the start.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I tend to agree with you on this Jose. BUT.... It is a study and the
outcome of the study will show if we are right or not.

I tend to agree with you on this Jose. BUT.... It is a study and the
outcome of the study will show if we are right or not.

Well, it appears that NASA (rather than, say, Garmin) is doing the
study, so there's a chance it will be unbiased. (I wonder who supplies
the Diamonds and glass) But I wonder what they will use as a measure of
"outcome". The accident record? Number of minutes the eyes are out of
the cockpit?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2005-05-23, Paul kgyy wrote:
For me, the hard part of the Instrument Rating wasn't the flying, or
the communications. The hard part was (and still is) the
multi-tasking,

But the hard part *is* the flying and the communications. It's just that
you had already mentally automated those tasks by the time you took on the
new IR tasks. By the end of the IR you've already gone a long way towards
mentally automating instrument tasks and you can use your conscious brain
to cope with unexpected stuff.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/