Questions for you glass-panel folks

So we've been flying our new "Penguin" -- our brand-new 2-place simulator --
during Movie Night at the Inn (see it he
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ), and last night we
started "flying" the G1000-equipped Mooney for the first time.

No one in the room (and there was probably 30,000 hours worth of GA
experience in that room) has flown a new glass cockpit. Most of the Movie
Night regulars are more into the antique/classic aircraft, and I've only
flown behind "steam gauges" -- so we quite frankly didn't know what the hell
we were doing, at first.

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.

In 2002, before we bought the hotel, I was weeks away from taking the IR
check-ride -- so I've got some experience with doing instrument approaches
the old-fashioned way. The difference between the two is absolutely
stunning since, with almost zero training, anyone in the room could fly a
passably safe approach in almost zero visibility.

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?

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

I'm fairly surprised that the FAA hasn't made changes to the rating that
address this exciting advance in capability. I haven't read or heard anyone
talking about any simplified instrument rating that this equipment seems to
allow, but it sure seems like it would be a great step forward in flight
safety for the FAA to do something along these lines.

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. Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment?

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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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).

The flight director is not implemented in every G1000 out there.

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

I seriously doubt it. They'd have to have a restriction to G1000, or
restriction to Avydine (like the old centerline thrust thing) and i
doubt there's any interest in re-writing that part of part 61.

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.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

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.

Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.

If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
new computer programmers to learn Cobol. The skill set that the FAA is
testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.

I suppose the same thing happened when the old A/N radio ranges were
supplanted by the VORs?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:05:31 GMT, "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.

Simplifying doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in requirements. Rather, I
am wondering if they will change the required tests to more accurately
reflect the reality of flying a glass cockpit plane.

If I'm remembering correctly, the lion's share of the written test covered
VOR and NDB interpretation. After flying the G1000, it seems that testing a
student on his ability to chase needles on a VOR would be like requiring all
new computer programmers to learn Cobol. The skill set that the FAA is
testing doesn't seem to fit the reality of flying the new technology.

I suppose the same thing happened when the old A/N radio ranges were
supplanted by the VORs?

Technically you still need to switch to the VOR to drive the HSI for
VOR approaches. You can't just leave it in GPS mode unless you're on
an RNAV approach. And shooting an ILS localizer is still the same
regardless of G1000 or not. Agree that ADF is quite useless nowadays
in domestic operations, but they're still prevelant (and required for
IFR flight) in JAR countries, and are factory installed in G1000
aircraft which are exported to those places, so having a basic
knoweldge of them isn't unreasonable.

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.

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)?

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.

"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!

On Mar 5, 9:37 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.

No one in the room (and there was probably 30,000 hours worth of GA
experience in that room) has flown a new glass cockpit. Most of the Movie
Night regulars are more into the antique/classic aircraft, and I've only
flown behind "steam gauges" -- so we quite frankly didn't know what the hell
we were doing, at first.

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.

In 2002, before we bought the hotel, I was weeks away from taking the IR
check-ride -- so I've got some experience with doing instrument approaches
the old-fashioned way. The difference between the two is absolutely
stunning since, with almost zero training, anyone in the room could fly a
passably safe approach in almost zero visibility.

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?

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

I'm fairly surprised that the FAA hasn't made changes to the rating that
address this exciting advance in capability. I haven't read or heard anyone
talking about any simplified instrument rating that this equipment seems to
allow, but it sure seems like it would be a great step forward in flight
safety for the FAA to do something along these lines.

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. Has the written exam changed to address this new equipment?

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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay which version of MSFS are you running? By your specs the system
could support FSX.

Did you notice much change with the new 8800GTS?

Richard