Checkout in a G1000 C182

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:38:47 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Does anyone find this excessive?

To fly a new generation $350,000 aircraft, no.

is there so much new generation in a C182? (well, except for the G1000)

#m
--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

On 2005-04-10, Matt Barrow wrote:
"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
Our flight school has received a C182 with a G1000. The checkout
requirements are going to be 5 hours VFR and an additional 5.6 hours
for IFR pilots.

Does anyone find this excessive?

To fly a new generation $350,000 aircraft, no.

Considering the difficulty in scheduling rental aircraft for real travel,
I think a 10+ hour checkout is going to keep people away in droves.

The new avionics should be mastered on the ground with a simulator (or
a real unit with an external power source). There's no point in turning
the hobbs meter until you know how to run all the gadgets. A competent
instrument pilot should be able to get into the plane after studying and
do enough approaches to be comfortable in an hour or two.

I got a 182 checkout (the first high perf airplane I flew) in about 1.3,
which included stalls, steep turns, and landings/go-arounds in every
configuration. We didn't take off until I had correctly rehearsed the
power and engine management on the ground.

So I would tend to think that anything more than (rounding way up) 5 hours
would just be milking the renter. If they can't do it in 5 hours then
they have other issues with currency/proficiency but that shouldn't be
reflected in the FBO minimums.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
...
On 2005-04-10, Matt Barrow wrote:
"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
Our flight school has received a C182 with a G1000. The checkout
requirements are going to be 5 hours VFR and an additional 5.6 hours
for IFR pilots.

Does anyone find this excessive?

To fly a new generation $350,000 aircraft, no.

Considering the difficulty in scheduling rental aircraft for real travel,
I think a 10+ hour checkout is going to keep people away in droves.

If not that, the $216 an hour will.


The new avionics should be mastered on the ground with a simulator (or
a real unit with an external power source). There's no point in turning
the hobbs meter until you know how to run all the gadgets. A competent
instrument pilot should be able to get into the plane after studying and
do enough approaches to be comfortable in an hour or two.

Some, especially the computer savvy could probably do it in that time.

I got a 182 checkout (the first high perf airplane I flew) in about 1.3,
which included stalls, steep turns, and landings/go-arounds in every
configuration. We didn't take off until I had correctly rehearsed the
power and engine management on the ground.

That's pretty unusual. Usually 1.3 hours is hardly enough time to run but
about 4-5 touch and goes.

I transitioned from mainly a T182 (rental) to a T210 (ownership) and my
insurance company wanted 10 hours of dual. The FBO/School that trained me
wanted five hours dual to fly the T182 before solo after learning in a 172.

So I would tend to think that anything more than (rounding way up) 5 hours
would just be milking the renter.

Or their paranoid (justifiably?) insurance carrier.

If they can't do it in 5 hours then
they have other issues with currency/proficiency but that shouldn't be
reflected in the FBO minimums.

Probably, but I suspect that, as someone else pointed out, it's probably a
matter of insurance.

It's the $216 an hour that I found bizarre.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Ben Jackson" wrote in message

I got a 182 checkout (the first high perf airplane I flew) in about
1.3,
which included stalls, steep turns, and landings/go-arounds in
every
configuration. We didn't take off until I had correctly rehearsed
the
power and engine management on the ground.

That's pretty unusual. Usually 1.3 hours is hardly enough time to run
but
about 4-5 touch and goes.

Do you fly a 20 mile downwind or something?

"Chip Hermes" wrote in message
oups.com...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Ben Jackson" wrote in message

I got a 182 checkout (the first high perf airplane I flew) in about
1.3,
which included stalls, steep turns, and landings/go-arounds in
every
configuration. We didn't take off until I had correctly rehearsed
the
power and engine management on the ground.

That's pretty unusual. Usually 1.3 hours is hardly enough time to run
but
about 4-5 touch and goes.

Do you fly a 20 mile downwind or something?

Are you shooting visual or instrument approaches to check out the new gear?
Also, on the Hobbs, just start, run-up and initial taxi can take 10-12
minutes.

Does anyone find this excessive?

It's not just excessive, it's counterproductive.

Huge checkout requirements drive away the experienced pilot. He knows
they're excessive for him, meaning he's not really going to learn much
of anything in the process. It's just a cost and hoops to jump
through. He also knows that high end planes tend not to stay on the
line very long, so he will take a wait-and-see attitude.

The inexperienced pilot will pay for the checkout, since he knows he
needs it and in any case figures he will learn something. He will then
fly the plane. So we have high end rental planes being flown almost
exclusively by inexperienced pilots. Wonder if that might have
anything to do with the loss rate on those...

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
ps.com...
Does anyone find this excessive?

It's not just excessive, it's counterproductive.

Huge checkout requirements drive away the experienced pilot.

If the pilot has years of experience on "steam gauges"and none under EFIS,
there can be (likely is) a steep learning curve. If they're not
computer/game savvy, it can be even harder than for a rookie.

As mentioned, much of the initial training for jets (ie, CJ) is the EFIS and
FMS and those classes can run over two WEEKS.

Matt Barrow wrote:
If the pilot has years of experience on "steam gauges"and none under
EFIS,
there can be (likely is) a steep learning curve.

I'm sure anything CAN be, but what is likely is another matter
entirely.

My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in actual
IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel pilot
who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other way
around.

There is certainly a learning curve involved in getting maximum benefit
from the avionics, but the functionality a steam gauge pilot gets from
the steam gauges is easily obtained. It may take some time to get the
hang of the flight plan functions (and maybe even the GPS approach
functions) out of the moving map GPS, but getting the direct-to
function and the ILS/VOR functionality going is easy and intuitive -
and the steam gauge pilot doesn't NEED any more than that, because he's
used to working with less.

As mentioned, much of the initial training for jets (ie, CJ) is the
EFIS and
FMS and those classes can run over two WEEKS.

Different situation. The jets NEED that level of automation so that a
single pilot of average ability can fly them IFR. They're fast,
they're slippery, they're relatively demanding. Steam gauge
functionality won't cut it for the average pilot, so he will have to
learn the full functionality.

This discussion is about a Cessna-182. It's hard to find a more
stable, docile, and simple IFR platform. You would be VERY hard
pressed to find an experienced steam gauge pilot (in ANY airplane) who
would find it a challenge to fly a C-182 IFR, regardless of the
avionics.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Matt Barrow wrote:
If the pilot has years of experience on "steam gauges"and none under
EFIS,
there can be (likely is) a steep learning curve.

I'm sure anything CAN be, but what is likely is another matter
entirely.

My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in actual
IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel pilot
who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other way
around.

Probably so, due to the very different scan requirements.

Thing is, here and now/today, how many expereinced pilots came up on steam
gauges vs. EFIS?

There is certainly a learning curve involved in getting maximum benefit
from the avionics, but the functionality a steam gauge pilot gets from
the steam gauges is easily obtained. It may take some time to get the
hang of the flight plan functions (and maybe even the GPS approach
functions) out of the moving map GPS, but getting the direct-to
function and the ILS/VOR functionality going is easy and intuitive -
and the steam gauge pilot doesn't NEED any more than that, because he's
used to working with less.

One thing I found harder to get used to was adapting/making changes _in
flight_ under the EFIS system (when I was new to it). Once I got several
flights in the logs, it became pretty easy. And that was after working with
CAD systems for many years.


As mentioned, much of the initial training for jets (ie, CJ) is the
EFIS and
FMS and those classes can run over two WEEKS.

Different situation. The jets NEED that level of automation so that a
single pilot of average ability can fly them IFR. They're fast,
they're slippery, they're relatively demanding. Steam gauge
functionality won't cut it for the average pilot, so he will have to
learn the full functionality.

Yes, but that doesn't addres WHY so much training is on the glass screens,
compared to actually flying the fast, slippeery aircraft.


This discussion is about a Cessna-182. It's hard to find a more
stable, docile, and simple IFR platform. You would be VERY hard
pressed to find an experienced steam gauge pilot (in ANY airplane) who
would find it a challenge to fly a C-182 IFR, regardless of the
avionics.

And the discussion is not about flying a 182 under IFR, it's about flying a
totally different avionics system under IFR.

Matt Barrow wrote:
My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in
actual
IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel
pilot
who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other
way
around.

Probably so, due to the very different scan requirements.

Thing is, here and now/today, how many expereinced pilots came up on
steam
gauges vs. EFIS?

You know, a friend of mine remembers an FBO (many years ago) where
anyone could rent a taildragger, but there were minimum hour
requirements to rent a tri-gear airplane. That was because all the
trikes were expensive and new, while the taildraggers were old and
cheap - and anyway, everyone learned on taildraggers so it was no big
deal. Didn't last, of course.

Sure, right now most people learn on steam gauges. But with the
trainers coming out with glass panels, this won't last. I'm just
waiting for someone to set up a glass-panel C-172 (or equivalnet) with
a pair of 430's for nav and no external CDI, and advertise his
minimum-hours instrument rating. No partial panel. No NDB. No DME.
No compass turns. No timed turns. If the PFD fails, just drive the
little airplane around on the GPS screen as you follow the purple line.
Just wait...

One thing I found harder to get used to was adapting/making changes
_in
flight_ under the EFIS system (when I was new to it).

What changes are there to make if all you are using is the direct-goto
and VOR-ILS functionality? This is my point - if you use the flight
plan feature and the other advanced features, then yes, making changes
in flight is tougher. But if you simply set up the system to give you
the minimum functionality that you get from steam gauges, you never
have to change a thing in flight except the destination waypoint or
VOR/LOC frequency - and the steam gauge pilot can do that.

Yes, but that doesn't addres WHY so much training is on the glass
screens,
compared to actually flying the fast, slippeery aircraft.

Because the training aims for full functionality, which is necessary
for safe flight in those fast and slippery aircraft. It wouldn't be an
issue if they were only teaching basic functionality.

And the discussion is not about flying a 182 under IFR, it's about
flying a
totally different avionics system under IFR.

Irrelevant - it's still a C-182. Therefore it doesn't matter what
avionics you have - they ALL give you minimum functionality easily, and
for the C-182 the minimum functionality is all you need.

Michael