Type-like Instrument Ratings

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
The cost will go down. It costs no more to make a glass panel than the
gyros they replace, maybe less.

True, but the point is that you can only get a glass panel in a new plane,
and a new plane is (and will continue to be) far more expensive than an
"equivalent" new one. Most places are getting crunched badly enough on fuel
as it is.

For an idea of what it can cost, you can get an experimental AI
replacement that has an AI, TC, VSI and probably some other stuff I've
forgotten for under $2000. All electronic, with no mechanical gyros.
And they work!

Well if you cut the single biggest line-item expense out of anything you can
cut the cost substantially. Certification will never get cheaper, nor will
the delta in price between new and used airplanes. It's also unlikely that
installing glass panels in used planes will prove economical in anything but
big-ticket high-performance planes like Bonanzas. So the rest of us will
have to wait a decade or so until they start becoming common on the used
market, which they inevitably will.

IFR IMC flight is mostly about what to do if something becomes
non-functional anyway. So have lots of backups and know how to cross
check to determine just what is going on.

I'd disagree- moving from my 172, with two NAV/COMs, ADF, and Loran, to a
G-1000-equipped 172, represents a dramatic step up in complexity. If someone
is already used to flying with a GNS-430 then the transition will probably
be straightforward, but for many of us there's a lot of new functionality to
learn about, especially if you want to truly use the full integrated
capabilities of the system, which is the point.

However, I agree that in the long run, it will represent an improvement in
safety and utility. There's no longer any question about where the future
is.

-cwk.