Questions for you glass-panel folks

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:31:03 -0500, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:37:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:



My questions a

1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? Is it REALLY that
easy?

Yes and no. There are a number of functions in the G1000 which are
missing from MSFS. The depictions and moving maps do make life much
easier, especially when coupled with an autopilot which can couple and
do procedure turns and holds which are part of an instrument approach
(missed approach hold, hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn).


I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really learn
anything of huge value. I took the King course as well but the G1000 has way
to many menus, submenus, windows etc. compared to the MSFS version that I
felt fairly lost once I sat in front of the real thing. Still the G1000 is
awesome and a lot of fun to learn!

A much better option for getting familiar with the G1000 system is to
buy the $5 CD from Garmin. The simulator is customized to the
aircraft series it's in (Cessna NAVIII for example) and has the
appropriate things enabled for that airframe, and contains all the
features of the G1000 system (just like the 430/530 simulators did for
those boxes).

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:37:43 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck wrote:
2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
reduce the requirements.

I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings.

Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus?
Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR
flight.

Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and
incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)?

There is Airspeed and Altimeter on the 1000. There is no requirement for
a steam back-up.

The KOEL for the Cessna NAV III aircraft requires all three be
operating for day/night IFR. I expect the Cirrus would have a similar
KOEL requirement for their steam backups but don't have a Cirrus POH
or IM handy.

Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:37:43 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck wrote:
2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
reduce the requirements.

I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings.

Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus?
Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR
flight.
Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and
incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)?
There is Airspeed and Altimeter on the 1000. There is no requirement for
a steam back-up.

The KOEL for the Cessna NAV III aircraft requires all three be
operating for day/night IFR. I expect the Cirrus would have a similar
KOEL requirement for their steam backups but don't have a Cirrus POH
or IM handy.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least BUT what I'm trying to get at is
there is nothing in the FARS that would require those steam guages be
put in there in the first place.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:14:37 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:37:43 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:11:19 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-03-05, Jay Honeck wrote:
2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?
Until there is zero possibility of things going tango-uniform, and you
ending up using the backup steam gauges, I seriously doubt the FAA will
reduce the requirements.

I doubt even then. I don't think we need IFR-Glass and IFR ratings.

Have you seen that what the back up guages are in say a Cirrus?
Artificial Horz., Alt and ASI. And even those aren't required for IFR
flight.
Are airspeed and altimeter not required by 91.205(b) (day VFR) and
incorporated in IFR under 91.205(d)(1) (IFR)?
There is Airspeed and Altimeter on the 1000. There is no requirement for
a steam back-up.

The KOEL for the Cessna NAV III aircraft requires all three be
operating for day/night IFR. I expect the Cirrus would have a similar
KOEL requirement for their steam backups but don't have a Cirrus POH
or IM handy.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least BUT what I'm trying to get at is
there is nothing in the FARS that would require those steam guages be
put in there in the first place.

They do for certified aircraft. See 23.1311(5):

Part 23: Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and
commuter category airplanes

Sec. 23.1311 - Electronic display instrument systems.

(5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and
attitude instrument or individual electronic display indicators for
the altitude, airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the
airplane's primary electrical power system.

I'm sure there's a similar entry in part 25 for transport catagory
aircraft.

Did you really think that Cessna et al would spend the money for the
instruments, expend weight for the instruments, plumbing, and vaccum
pump install etc if they weren't required to be there by something in
the FAR?

On Mar 6, 4:37*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
So we've been flying our new "Penguin" -- our brand-new 2-place simulator -- *
during Movie Night at the Inn (see it hehttp://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm), and last night we
started "flying" the G1000-equipped Mooney for the first time.

However, once we got the hang of the thing, it seemed incredibly, almost
laughably easy to fly an instrument approach. * Set things up, follow the
flight director with occasional reference to the moving map, and bingo -- *
you're landing in virtually zero-zero visibility. *With that huge glass
artificial horizon and crisp, graphic depiction, shooting instrument
approaches just couldn't be easier.


Let me get this straight, you were simulating flying a computer on
your computer? You need to get out more!

Cheers

On Mar 6, 7:31*am, "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:
"Peter Clark" wrote in message


I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really learn
anything of huge value.

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

Cheers

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:35:02 -0800 (PST), WingFlaps
wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:31*am, "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:
"Peter Clark" wrote in message


I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really learn
anything of huge value.

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

Please make sure you get your quotes right, I wasn't the one who wrote
the above paragraph.

On Mar 5, 10:37*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
1. For those who fly instruments behind a glass panel, is the depiction of
the G1000 in MS Flight Simulator close to accurate? * Is it REALLY that
easy?

No. It's easier. I've never flown the glass Mooney, but I have flown
the glass Cirrus and Bonanza (not sure if it's G1000, but they're
really all about the same). Much easier than doing it in MSFS.

2. Assuming that it is, has the FAA considering a new, simplified curriculum
for obtaining an IR in a glass cockpit?

No. That would make too much sense. However, some installations are
getting to a point where the curriculum has to be simplified anyway.
For example, the Cirrus installation has dual 430's to drive the PFD -
but no external CDI. The only steam gauges are AI, ASI, and Alt. So
with a PFD failure the only approach you can fly is a GPS - and you do
it by following the moving map. The manual recommends you not try it
- just couple up to the autopilot and let it do the job.

So CDI's are gone. ADF's are gone. Turn and bank? Who dat? It's
PFD and map - and nothing else. Understanding the difference between
heading, bearing, radial, course, and track is not going to happen -
and truly, most of the time it's no longer necessary. Of course
someone who gets all his training in that environment is going to
crash if he tries flying steam gauges without additional training -
especially partial panel - but the same is true of someone who learns
to fly in a Cherokee and then tries to fly a Stearman - and those were
primary trainers once.

I haven't looked at the instrument written test for six years, but if it
still concentrates as much on VOR and NDB approaches as it did in 2002, it
would seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of flying these new
birds.

It was out of touch even then. It hasn't really gotten any better.

Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment?

No, but it will - about the time this stuff becomes obsolete.

After "flying" the sim last night, my eyes have really been opened to the
brave new world of glass, and I now more fully understand the enthusiasm
pilots have displayed toward them despite their incredibly high cost.

I understand the enthusiasm too - it's a way of getting the capability
with reasonable safety without having to get good. And that's OK.
Tricycle gear opened up VFR flying to the masses, and the glass
cockpit with weather downlink (with TKS thrown in for the North) has
the potential for doing the same with IFR flying. Those of us who got
good with the steam gauges are mostly unwilling to spring for the
expensive systems, because we don't need them - but they are the
future.

I find it moronic that many FBO's/clubs are requiring special training
for these systems. It's the steam gauges that should require special
training. Glass is trivially easy.

Michael

Peter Clark wrote:

They do for certified aircraft. See 23.1311(5):

Part 23: Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and
commuter category airplanes

Sec. 23.1311 - Electronic display instrument systems.

(5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and
attitude instrument or individual electronic display indicators for
the altitude, airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the
airplane's primary electrical power system.

I'm sure there's a similar entry in part 25 for transport catagory
aircraft.

Did you really think that Cessna et al would spend the money for the
instruments, expend weight for the instruments, plumbing, and vaccum
pump install etc if they weren't required to be there by something in
the FAR?

I stand corrected. I was going by the IFR requirements and didn't take
into count the Part 23 FARs.

That mistake aside, sure they would. What do you think the markup is on
those items when they put them in the plane and sell them to you?

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 7:31 am, "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:
"Peter Clark" wrote in message


I was surprised by how little of the G1000 made it into MSFS, I thought it
might be a good way to at least familiarize myself with the G1000 before
eating up Hobbs time but it was so basic on MSFS that I didn't really
learn
anything of huge value.

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

Cheers

I didn't expect much and I wasn't disappointed.