Type-like Instrument Ratings

jsmith wrote:
With the increasing popularity and availability of rental and
training
aircraft equipped with "glass" panels, are we heading toward limited
or
type like instrument ratings?

I suspect the answer is yes - but initially in the wrong direction.

The glass panels are fitted to airplanes that are expensive - thus
there is high dollar insurance and visibility. I suspect that the time
when a checkout on a glass panel will be required is already here -
either insurance or FBO imposed. I used to think this was absolutely
silly - these things make flying IFR easier, not harder. Then I got an
older student who transitioned from a Pacer into a Mooney. It took
very little time for him to get used to the speed difference, and
landing it was a non-event from day one. Fuel injection was a
no-brainer. He was safe for day-VFR after a couple of hours with me,
and as soon as he hit the insurance minimum he was flying solo.

He's still struggling with his GNS-430. In fact, the complexity of his
panel is what's holding him back from flying the plane IFR. Now I
understand what the problem is. For those of us who grew up on
computers, it's no big deal. For those who are older (not more
experienced - just older) it's a problem. So there might be some value
to this. Sort of like a friend of mine who remembers when anyone could
fly the taildraggers at the FBO (tailwheel checkout? who dat?) but you
needed 100 hours and a CFI checkout to rent the tri-gear planes? Why?
The taildraggers were old and cheap, the tri-gear planes expensive.

For example, will an pilot trained from the onset in an aircraft
equipped with a Garmin G-1000 panel from private through instrument
ratings be restricted to only those airplanes with Garmin panels?

I expect the panels will become more standardized or the insurance
companies will step in and make something like that mandatory.

Without the training in how to interpret the steam gauges, could they
safely fly in a traditional paneled airplane in heavy IFR?

Some could (the ones that were trained properly) but most couldn't.
It's like transitioning to taildraggers. Someone who is properly
trained in a C-150 and has flown a couple of hundred hours in a random
tri-gear airplane without letting himself get sloppy can sight right
down in a Champ and fly it. Most pilots are not properly trained to
begin with and get sloppier with time, so those pilots can't. This is
the same. You CAN train a pilot properly on glass, but glass lets you
get by with stuff steam gauges won't, so given the caliber of the
instructors doing most of the IFR training I'm not counting on much.

But the steam gauge airplanes are cheap - thus low dollar insurance and
low visibility. I suspect it will take quite a few accidents for those
trained on glass and transitioning to steam gauges for the FAA to wise
up and require the equivalent of the tailwheel endorsement for steam
gauges and ADF's.

How about the pilot trained in "traditional" panel airplanes with
"steam gauges"?
Will they require an endorsement before being permitted to rent or
fly
"glass panel" aircraft in instrument conditions?

See above. I bet the insurance companies are already mandating it.
Michael

Michael makes some good points. My philosophy is to log what is
necessary to be legal, and train what is necessary to be safe.

In light of that, the current state of affairs, for me, and many
careful pilots, is probably sufficient. But for some, particuarly those
who rent (but just how many renters are there that fly IMC?), there may
be an attempt to cut corners.

Right now, I think the issue is of most concern to instructors. How is
an instructor who is not trained in the instruments supposed to
instruct someone in a glass cockpit airplane? Now if the FBO has one on
the line, they can learn it, but who will pay for the time? Let us hope
that inexpensive flight simulators will have these as options on their
panels, as this is something that can be learned on a sim (and right
now, a non-certified sim would be just fine).

My airplane has an IFR GPS and an autopilot. None of my instructors
taught me anything about either (I taught them!). To learn it, I just
read the manual inside and out, and went out and flew long VFR
crosscountries and tried out every button, every option, every
combination. After about 10 hours, I was initially comptetent. After
100 hours I was approaching expert status, and after 200 hours I had
the thing cold inside and out. But it would have been a lot fewer hours
if I had a sim or an actual training program that hit the training
issues in an exhaustive way. (Demonstrate EACH funtion of the unit,
then have th student do it until comptetency is obtained). The IFR GPS
must have 10 factorial different combinations. And then there are the
failure modes to consider. Probably is an exaggeration, but there
really are a lot.

The manufacturers of these glass panels need to code up some realistic
sims like the Garmin sim for the 430 so these panels can be learned
without having to fly the plane. Then the instructors need to to learn
them. Then the students need to lean them. Right now the training is
inside out. The student owning the airplane knows more than the
instructor. Why? Because he has used it.

Modern training environment should include a sim with all the
instruments found in the actual airplane. Just like the airlines do it.
With inexpensive computers available and manufacturers providing the
software, it's not really a pipe dream. But it's going to be a painful
experience for a lot of instructors and DE's.

I think the glass panels are LESS complicated than the IFR GPS's. But
unlike the IFR GPS's, they can't be ignored.

Snip The glass panels are fitted to airplanes that are expensive /Snip

They are in every single engine model currently produced by Cessna from the
Skyhawks and up. The Garmin G-1000 costs no more then conventional gauges
when installed in one of these new aircraft :-)

"John E. Carty" wrote in message
. com...

Snip The glass panels are fitted to airplanes that are expensive
/Snip

They are in every single engine model currently produced by Cessna from
the
Skyhawks and up. The Garmin G-1000 costs no more then conventional gauges
when installed in one of these new aircraft :-)


Expensive compared to my $50,000 172N, which for the average FBO is all the
plane they need. What I will not deny is the visual appeal of glass-panel
planes, which will attract customers, though I'm not sure this is an
entirely good thing.

-cwk.

The cost will go down. It costs no more to make a glass panel than the
gyros they replace, maybe less.

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!

I really don't think it's all that big an issue. Just train and become
competent with what you have, and fly it.

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.

"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.

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote:

"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.

The interesting transition is going to happen in a few (5-10?) years
when glass cockpits have been around long enough for all the flight
schools to have them. Then we're going to be putting out a new
generation of freshly-licensed pilots who grew up on glass and won't
accept less. Kind of like what's happening with GPS today.

I expect the panels will become more standardized or the insurance
companies will step in and make something like that mandatory.


That certainly hasn't been the case with air carrier and biz jet aircraft.

For instance, the Falcon 900 (the biz jet with three engines) requires a
new, separate type rating for the new 900EX.