club question about new panel equipment

My flying club just replaced the DG and AI in a C172 in which I have
many hours with an Aspen PFD1000 Pro. They are requiring everyone to
take a ground school in the unit before flying the aircraft again
because this aircraft is now a "TAA." I dispute that. There's still no
GPS+moving map -- IFR certified or otherwise. The Aspen will only
provide a primitive map with flight plan and nearby waypoints provided
by another GPS; the built-in GPS only provides emergency reversion.
(There is no other GPS in the aircraft.) The AC has no autopilot,
either, but that's not technically required to be a TAA -- though it's
certainly in keeping with the spirit of the concept.

Neither of the replaced instruments are even required for VFR flight,
and what does it matter if I'm an expert at using the PFD? Besides, to
a first approximation (no button pushing) the PFD provides the same
info the old instruments did without me having to know or do much of
anything. (Well, the HSI *is* different than a DG+CDI.)

They're only asking for $50 for a few hours of ground school but the
principle of the thing just bugs me.

Am I being a crazy stick-in-the-mud?

-- dave

Dave J wrote:

Am I being a crazy stick-in-the-mud?


I think so.

You're bound to learn SOMETHING in ground school.

On Dec 12, 4:29*pm, B A R R Y wrote:
Dave J wrote:

Am I being a crazy stick-in-the-mud?

I think so.

You're bound to learn SOMETHING in ground school.

No doubt. I'm just turning into an old aviation curmudgeon. I learned
to fly in beater aircraft with ridiculously antiquated avionics, and
dagnammit, that was good enough then, why isn't it good enough now?

Also, because I've had to scale back my flying a lot in the past
couple of years, it's more of a sunday-vfr-drive kind of thing for me
now, where shiny new tech is less interesting to me than it used to be
when I was IFR current and using the rating -- but I know that for
most the glass panels are really making flying more fun.

-- dave j

On Dec 12, 4:16*pm, Dave J wrote:
My flying club just replaced the DG and AI in a C172 in which I have
many hours with an Aspen PFD1000 Pro. They are requiring everyone to
take a ground school in the unit before flying the aircraft again
because this aircraft is now a "TAA." I dispute that. There's still no
GPS+moving map -- IFR certified or otherwise. The Aspen will only
provide a primitive map with flight plan and nearby waypoints provided
by another GPS; the built-in GPS only provides emergency reversion.
(There is no other GPS in the aircraft.) The AC has no autopilot,
either, but that's not technically required to be a TAA -- though it's
certainly in keeping with the spirit of the concept.

Neither of the replaced instruments are even required for VFR flight,
and what does it matter if I'm an expert at using the PFD? Besides, to
a first approximation (no button pushing) the PFD provides the same
info the old instruments did without me having to know or do much of
anything. (Well, the HSI *is* different than a DG+CDI.)

They're only asking for $50 for a few hours of ground school but the
principle of the thing just bugs me.

Am I being a crazy stick-in-the-mud?

-- dave

I have the Aspen and agree with you for VFR flight, as it's
essentially just an all-electric AI and HSI. Having said that, the
procedure for setting the Course for the VOR isn't obvious.

However, it does have some nice IFR bells and whistles that are worth
learning how to use, such as presetting minimum altitude and approach
speed.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:41:55 -0800, Paul kgyy wrote:

However, it does have some nice IFR bells and whistles that are worth
learning how to use, such as presetting minimum altitude and approach
speed.

Although I can merely daydream about this gear for now, another
consideration I'd expect to warrant training (or at least some study) is
the set of possible failure modes and proper pilot responses.

Enjoy.

Out of curiosity: What club?

- Andrew

On Dec 13, 1:58*pm, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:41:55 -0800, Paul kgyy wrote:
However, it does have some nice IFR bells and whistles that are worth
learning how to use, such as presetting minimum altitude and approach
speed.

Although I can merely daydream about this gear for now, another
consideration I'd expect to warrant training (or at least some study) is
the set of possible failure modes and proper pilot responses.

Yes, though in reality the electronic gizmos are superior in just
about every way. For example, if something goes wrong with the sensor,
the affected instruments disappear and are replaced with big X's --
not too hard to decode that. Also, you don't need to update the DG for
procession, etc.

The club is Sundance, in Palo Alto, CA. They upgraded several
aircraft. They put the PFD1000 in one of the 172s, the PFD and a
Garmin 430 in the Archer, and the Bo has the PFD, 430, and a working
autopilot.

-- dave j

I suspect the real reason for requiring the training is that they
don't want you trying to figure out how to do something with it while
you are flying. This can be a problem with even just a hardware store
GPS. By requiring some training before flying it you are more likely
to keep you head outside (I know that is old school ) where it
should be for VFR Flying.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL