Glass big learning curve?

"You can't fly this plane
partial panel, so just couple up the autopilot to the GPS and have it
fly the approach" - which is, no ****, what glass-panel Cirrus pilots
are told.
In that case it's no wonder the insurance rates are so high.

In one sense, no. I don't believe there is a single accident
attributed to lack of partial panel proficiency in a Cirrus, with the
possible exception of the guy who launched into 800 ft ceilings on the
first flight after major panel work and wound up pulling the chute.
The airplane is quite reliable. People are not crashing because they
are depending on systems that fail.

But in another sense you are right. People are crasing because their
skill level is not up to the airplane, and this basic problem is not
being addressed. Limited panel flying has intrinsic value over and
above coping with the particular failure being simulated - it forces
the pilot to become sharper, to get more out of the instruments, and to
become smoother. It improves all aspects of his flying.

As long as all the automation works, the Skyhawk IFR pilot can be a
Cirrus IFR pilot with his existing skill set
This is no different than telling a VFR pilot to set the auto pilot
and let it fly if he/she runs into bad weather, or poor visibility.

Let's say it's a difference in degree only, and not in kind. On my
first flight in the glass panel Cirrus I asked the owner why there was
no CDI other than in the PFD. He didn't see my point. I explained
that if the PFD went out, the only approach we could shoot would be a
GPS or GPS overlay (using the Garmin display) since there were 2
GNS-430's but no external CDI for either. I felt this was acceptable
(what are the odds of PFD failure in conditions where GPS approach
conditions are not in range?) but suboptimal. He then explained that
the factory recommends not shooting a manual approach with a failed PFD
at all - just couple up the autopilot and let it do the job. This
despite the fact that altimeter, ASI, compass, and AI are all
available.

But at least part of the problem must be laid squarely at the feet of
the people doing the teaching and testing. This pilot took his IFR
checkride in his Cirrus, and the DE insisted he do a manual LOC
approach with the PFD off. Of course the GPS is NOT as accurate as a
LOC close in, but the DE didn't want to hear it. Thus I am reluctant
to blame the peope who are not being properly trained - what chance do
they have if even the DE's have no clue?

You have not created a better pilot, you have given him/her a crutch
to make up for lack of skill which is a very poor teaching method and
dangerous practice.

Like I said,
Personally, I think that's a ****-poor way to do things.

The real hazard, though, is not that the system that the pilot is
depending on will fail. These are fairly new airplanes, and those
systems are reliable. They're not failing a lot. The real problem is
that the system only does what it's built to do. Training makes a
pilot better overall. Substitute systems for training, and you better
hope you have systems to do EVERYTHING the pilot does, because without
the training, you will have an inferior pilot.

Michael

Don't compare the two systems. They do not operate the same.
Cirrus: 430's and Avidyne displays; independent/dependent systems
C182: G1000 integrated avionics system

Go to the Garmin website and download all the Cessna G1000 pdf files.

Don't compare the two systems

So you don't think the learning curve of one is representative of the
learning curve of the other?

-Robert

In article .com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Don't compare the two systems

So you don't think the learning curve of one is representative of the
learning curve of the other?

If you have flown with Garmin 430/530's, you already know how to work
them. You know what knobs to turn and what buttons to turn to get what
you want. The Avidyne displays are just that, displays.
The G-1000 is and integrated comm/nav/transponder/(and soon to be
autopilot)/display.

Don't compare the two systems

So you don't think the learning curve of one is representative of the
learning curve of the other?

If you have flown with Garmin 430/530's, you already know how to work
them. You know what knobs to turn and what buttons to turn to get what
you want. The Avidyne displays are just that, displays.

Yeah sure, except for those little unimportant parts called the air data
computer and attitude heading reference system.

The G-1000 is and integrated comm/nav/transponder/(and soon to be
autopilot)/display.

Given a pilot already knows how to work the GNS430, the Avidyne Entegra
system is still much easier to learn in less time than the G1000.

A local FBO uses 5 hours for a transition into the DA-40-180 with the G-1000
system.
If you do your homework and use the ground based computer training system,
that is more than enough.

A 15hr checkout for someone who already can fly a C-182 is highway robbery.

I will agree that you need to know the failure modes of the system and know
which pages to find which displays to avoid un-needed heads down in the
cockpit.

I nice new C-182 w/G1000 is nice.. but at $200/hr I can fly the Seneca II
and still buy that $10 hamburger for lunch.

BT

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ps.com...
Our CAP unit is going to be receiving a new C-182 with a glass cockpit.
In order to give us a taste of it a Cirrus owner came to our CAP
meeting and showed us his wonderful aircraft (not the same PDF/MFD but
close). I've heard from many sources that it takes about 10 hours to
transition. In fact a local FBO has a brand new C-182 (rents for about
$200/hr) and requires 15 hours. Although I didn't fly the Cirrus, I sat
in the aircraft while the owner spoke with someone else. He said we
could push any buttons we wanted to. So, I tried to think of all the
things I could normally do on an IFR flight. Amazingly, I had no
problems with any of the operations. The display is easy for me because
my generation grew up flying flight simulators that use the exact same
display. The only hard part is figuring out the 430s (which I've done
before). So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.
Just thinking about the time it takes some people (not necessarily
based on age) to get familiar with their computer vs. others, I'm
wondering if its the same thing. Perhaps I'm being naive but I felt
that I could fly behind that panel today.


Has anyone on this list had experience with such a transition?
-Robert, CFI

Robert,

So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.


After reading the articles and spending 30 minutes flying the Entegra
system on a clear VFR day, I tend to agree with your view.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:36:22 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Robert,

So, I'm wondering if all this talk about a long transition
time is mostly for the generation that didn't grow up with computers.


After reading the articles and spending 30 minutes flying the Entegra
system on a clear VFR day, I tend to agree with your view.

Computers were my profession and I have my degree in the field. So,
starting from there.

I've never noted hardly any learning curve to "fly" an airplane VFR
with a glass panel. It seems natural to me.

OTOH it's not that simple over all.

You have to break the flying by the glass system down into the basic
flight instruments. The navigation instruments, and the MFD is it has
one. Of course there are other instruments as well, but this are the
main ones.

Unfortunately there is zip for standardization between most of the
instrument makers. Many of the GPS units are not intuitive for
inserting and removing way points. Some are awkward even when you are
used to them. By the same token, the integrated VORs may not be
nearly as simple as the old "dial it and go" receiver and head.

Prior to GPS many of the LORAN manufacturers had the same lack of
standardization. That lack of standardization makes moving from one
system to another more difficult than it needs to be.

When you are getting the snot beat out of you in turbulence while
trying to dial in an approach, or change way points and discover the
plane you are in uses a different sequence of keys than what you are
used to, it can get sticky in a hurry.

I learned in the old system, but I much prefer the new glass panels.
Unfortunately my budget says my first one is going to be in the G-III
if I ever get it done. I fitted the horizontal stab night before last
and spend the entire last evening block sanding the leading edge of
the stab straight. That sucker is built like a tank.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

When you are getting the snot beat out of you in turbulence while
trying to dial in an approach, or change way points and discover the
plane you are in uses a different sequence of keys than what you are

used to, it can get sticky in a hurry.

Roger, this sounds more like GPS issues to me. All the glass cockpit
planes I'm aware of (Cirrus, 182) use the same Garmin 430 most of us
know. The actual PFD and MFD only have a few buttons.

-Robert

On 20 Sep 2005 12:50:18 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

When you are getting the snot beat out of you in turbulence while
trying to dial in an approach, or change way points and discover the
plane you are in uses a different sequence of keys than what you are

used to, it can get sticky in a hurry.

Roger, this sounds more like GPS issues to me. All the glass cockpit

It's missing, but remember I'm one who says the glass cockpits are
relatively simple to learn at least when done properly in an organized
approach.

Its the difference between system configurations. There is no
standardization between manufacturers in today's glass cockpits, just
as there is none between the various GPS manufacturers. We are
fortunate that most use the same system even if it may not be the
best.

I found the editorial in this month's (Nov 2005)"Private Pilot" to be
a real disappointment. To me he sounds a lot like those who used to
be afraid of computers. We don't need a change to the PPL, but we do
need a change in people's mind set. Taken in order, computers and
glass cockpits are not difficult or complicated. They only become so
when we make them so by trying to utilize every thing right at the
start instead of taking the stuff in an incremental, logical order.

planes I'm aware of (Cirrus, 182) use the same Garmin 430 most of us

Even with the 430 you only need the basics to start.

know. The actual PFD and MFD only have a few buttons.

But Garmin isn't the only one out there.

True, if you learn one system moving between planes using the same
system should be *relatively* easy and no more difficult than moving
between the same planes with the old gauges in them.

There are really only three stages to learn and we don't have to make
it overly complicated.

The first is to have the default settings for the flight instruments.
It should take no more than 5 minutes to learn the *basic* set up.
No GPS, no VOR, just basic flight instruments and engine instruments.
(and how to get it back to that configuration in the least number of
steps.

The next step would be the radios and basic nav. No flight plans, just
basic radios, VORs or basic GPS moving map. Nearest would be nice,
but not necessary with a moving map.

The VFR student or pilot needs nothing more than this for basic
flight. They also have every thing they need to make a U-turn in case
of weather. to my way of thinking the basic pilot or student has no
business trying to learn the entire system until they have learned the
basics. Then they can learn a bit at a time.

After they are comfortable with the basic flight they can learn to put
in a flight plan and eventually add, change, or remove way points.
Lastly would be approaches.

Taken one step at a time instead of trying to learn the whole system
is far more efficient and faster. It's also less confusing and more
likely to be retained

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

-Robert
Roger