G1000 vs Steam guages initial thoughts...

Jim Macklin wrote:
You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
"basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
thinking is done by the machine.

Fair enough, but what is the goal? Is the student "thinking" to second
guess the computer or is the student "thinking" in order to handle a
situation where both computers shut down? Second guessing the PFD is
not as necessary as old gauges because the computer shows a red X for
any fault (vs. the slow death roll of the old gauges). However, the
student still has 3 steam gauges to look at if he wishes (airspeed,
altimeter, attitude).
If the student is "thinking" in case the system shuts down, I think the
proper answer to that is always to carry a portable GPS when flying
IFR. The days of keep track of an emergency heading and time to head
towards an airport in IMC are probably gone. Flying against a portable
GPS is much safer. That applies equally to steam and glass. A full
electrical failure in my steam Mooney is much more likely than in the
glass so a 296 sits right on my yoke.

-Robert

"Jim Macklin" wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
$SZ3.4096@dukeread04:

You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
"basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
thinking is done by the machine.


The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and any
modern full screen GPS...

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:07:38 GMT, Judah wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
$SZ3.4096@dukeread04:

You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost certainly
come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
"basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to check
the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is forced
to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
thinking is done by the machine.


The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and any
modern full screen GPS...

Yup and there are a *lot* of pilots who end up depending on the GPS
without realizing it. The same is true for a good autopilot in IFR
versus hand flying. If you spend a lot of time in the soup you spend
a lot of time on autopilot. Enough time that if it fails it can be a
shock. Still, the competent pilot practices hand flying in IFR,
flying by map, watch and compass, and flying the back up instruments.

I wonder what the percentages are of dependent pilots versus those who
stay competent on the backups?

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

"Roger" wrote in message
news | On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:07:38 GMT, Judah
wrote:
|
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
| $SZ3.4096@dukeread04:
|
| You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
| information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost
certainly
| come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
| "basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to
check
| the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is
forced
| to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
| thinking is done by the machine.
|
|
| The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam
Guages and any
| modern full screen GPS...
|
| Yup and there are a *lot* of pilots who end up depending
on the GPS
| without realizing it. The same is true for a good
autopilot in IFR
| versus hand flying. If you spend a lot of time in the
soup you spend
| a lot of time on autopilot. Enough time that if it fails
it can be a
| shock. Still, the competent pilot practices hand flying
in IFR,
| flying by map, watch and compass, and flying the back up
instruments.
|
| I wonder what the percentages are of dependent pilots
versus those who
| stay competent on the backups?
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

Higher than it should be [zero percent], probably 20-30%
"Roger" wrote in message
news | On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:07:38 GMT, Judah
wrote:
|
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
| $SZ3.4096@dukeread04:
|
| You're missing the point, the G1000 displays some much
| information in picture form, the pilot WILL almost
certainly
| come to rely on the system to work and stop doing that
| "basic IFR" thinking. Sort of like pilots forget to
check
| the runway heading. With steam gauges, the pilot is
forced
| to THINK about the navigation situation, with the G1000
| thinking is done by the machine.
|
|
| The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam
Guages and any
| modern full screen GPS...
|
| Yup and there are a *lot* of pilots who end up depending
on the GPS
| without realizing it. The same is true for a good
autopilot in IFR
| versus hand flying. If you spend a lot of time in the
soup you spend
| a lot of time on autopilot. Enough time that if it fails
it can be a
| shock. Still, the competent pilot practices hand flying
in IFR,
| flying by map, watch and compass, and flying the back up
instruments.
|
| I wonder what the percentages are of dependent pilots
versus those who
| stay competent on the backups?
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

Judah wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in news:1_9Kg.6638
$SZ3.4096@dukeread04:
The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and any
modern full screen GPS...

Sure, and there is nothing wrong with that. Today most pilots would say
a moving map is MEL for serious IFR (more than just local approaches).
Sure you can fly IFR with a compass and a cat ala the 1930's but who
wants to do that. A handheld, self powered, back up moving map GPS
(296, etc) should be carried aboard any GA IFR flight.

-Robert, CFII

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
oups.com:


Judah wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news:1_9Kg.6638 $SZ3.4096@dukeread04:
The same could pretty much be said for a plane with Steam Guages and
any modern full screen GPS...

Sure, and there is nothing wrong with that. Today most pilots would say
a moving map is MEL for serious IFR (more than just local approaches).
Sure you can fly IFR with a compass and a cat ala the 1930's but who
wants to do that. A handheld, self powered, back up moving map GPS
(296, etc) should be carried aboard any GA IFR flight.

-Robert, CFII


I agree with you completely - there's nothing "macho" (or more safe, for that
matter) about not taking advantage of the equipment available to you, but it
is important to have a backup plan and be proficient enough to be able to
excercise the backup plan if an emergency comes up.

Admittedly, though, my backup GPS is not a 296, it's just a low-cost Magellan
with all the fixes as POIs - certainly enough to get by in an emergency in
combination with my ICOM A23. I also carry an extra set of AA batteries in
the flight bag...

Judah wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
oups.com:
Admittedly, though, my backup GPS is not a 296, it's just a low-cost Magellan
with all the fixes as POIs - certainly enough to get by in an emergency in
combination with my ICOM A23. I also carry an extra set of AA batteries in
the flight bag...

For my backup's backup I installed PocketFMS on my PDA that is always
in my pocket and I keep a little CF GPS unit in my flight bag for it. I
travel down into Mexico a lot where there isn't much ATC or VORs. A
lose of my GPS would leave me with just my Loran (which doesn't have
good coverage in lower Baja). So I have my PDA. Even in a super
emergency I could use it to navigate over an airport or spiral down
through a layer just off shore.
The best part is that once I land I switch to MS Streets and Trips my
PDA because a street navigator.
-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
oups.com:


Judah wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
oups.com:
Admittedly, though, my backup GPS is not a 296, it's just a low-cost
Magellan with all the fixes as POIs - certainly enough to get by in an
emergency in combination with my ICOM A23. I also carry an extra set of
AA batteries in the flight bag...

For my backup's backup I installed PocketFMS on my PDA that is always
in my pocket and I keep a little CF GPS unit in my flight bag for it. I
travel down into Mexico a lot where there isn't much ATC or VORs. A
lose of my GPS would leave me with just my Loran (which doesn't have
good coverage in lower Baja). So I have my PDA. Even in a super
emergency I could use it to navigate over an airport or spiral down
through a layer just off shore.
The best part is that once I land I switch to MS Streets and Trips my
PDA because a street navigator.
-Robert



Ooooh.. That's a VERY cool idea now that I got a Treo! I might have to look
into that... Certainly worth lightening my flight bag...