IR training in glass cockpit aircraft

[642vgs]

Two comments to make for discussion here with regard to IR training.

I recently spent a couple of hours with Atlantic flight training in Coventry looking at the possibility of doing an IR on the new glass cockpit twinstar. (very professional looking outfit and I was well received even though they were obviously busy). It occured to me on the drive home that I had understood that an aircraft, to be approved to conduct IR training, must have a certain level of equipment. The Cirrus sr20 has the same kit, and isn't approved for IR training so I'm told. (If the mfd screens fail you have no nav instruments at all) so how can the twin star?

I have since e-mailed this to Atlantic and am waiting for a repy but pose the question for comments.

The second point is - What do people think about the benifits or otherwise of having an IR gained on a glass cockpit aircraft. Would it do you any favours in the eyes of potential employers or might it be a hinderance if their aircraft are all equiped with more standard fare?

Regards 642vgs
(whose aircraft are remarkably free of nav instruments of any description!)

[FlyingForFun]

To the best of my knowledge, the SR20 is not currently approved for flight in IMC. This information may well be out of date - it comes from a student of mine who was thinking of buying one quite a few months ago, and I know that Cirrus were working on getting it approved at the time. And anyway, now I think about it, I might be confusing the SR20 with the SR22. So don't quote me as saying that it's not approved for IMC.... but if this is (or ever was) the case, it could explain why you've heard that it's not approved for IR training.

As for glass cockpits in general, I've been fortunate enough to spend a few hours flying a glass cockpit Seneca V (and I hope to spend a few more hours flying it, too, if I can find people to cost-share with!) I have to admit I was surprised at how easy it was to adjust to - the dials and guages all work exactly the same way as a steam-driven cockpit, except that they're on a computer screen. There were just two problems for me: first of all, I kept reading bank on the attitude indicator the wrong way (i.e. confusing left and right bank), but I got over that after a while. And secondly, I found that I was constantly fighting to keep the altitude right.... until the person who was checking me out pointed out that I was only 20-50' off, which would barely be worthy of a comment with an old-fashioned altimeter. It's just that since the glass cockpit shows you the data more accurately, you naturally try to fly it more accurately, which of course is much harder.

So, on the basis of my experiences so far, I can't see any advantage of doing the IR in a glass cockpit at all. It takes next to no time to convert, and the extra cost is probably more than it would cost to convert to glass cockpit afterwards. The only thing I can't comment on is how employers would look at glass cockpit time, but I would guess that would be down to individual employers anyway.

Hope my ramblings are some help to you!

FFF
-----------

[642vgs]

It may well be the more expensive option in the helicopter world but I've researched 7 commercial training providers for the IR in the UK for the total cost and have come up with the following for a 50 hour course:

Leeds Flying School - £13412
Aeros - £13859
Wolverhampton FC - £12692
Stapleford -£12602
Multiflight -£13329
AAA -£12981
AFT -£12877 (glass cockpit)

Please note however that these prices are particular to MY requirements. They include a 10% contingency on the basic quoted price, 3hr a/c hire for test, CAA test fee, CAA licence issue, VAT, an amount for approaches and landings where not included in the basic price (£400) and accommodation charges of (average) £450 for 6 weeks for those schools where I would have to live way from home.

If the schools want to take issue with these figures they are welcome to post on this thread but please dont hijack it completely! I've taken all figures from their own web sites or advertisements (some of which are extremely vague about what exactly you get for your money but that is a whole different thread).

I expect though that if you're considering flying helicopters that these prices must seem extremely cheap!!!

FFF

message overlap! Ramblings appreciated!

Just for continuity here is the reply I got from AFT to the initial question.


Hi Dave,

Thanks for your e-mail and I am glad that you found the trip useful. Apologies that I did not spend more time with you.

There were initially issues concerning the lack of secondary turn coordinator/turn and slip in the aircraft for the limited panel elements during the test. The solution, acceptable to the CAA, is that Andy Simmons, AFT Head of Training and IR (Examiner), is able to assess this portion of the test during training in the simulator. Other than that everything about the aircraft complied with the requirements for IR training and test and as such you will not have any restrictions or issues applied to your DA42 IR.

Hope the above helps and let me know if you need anything further.

Kind regards,

Matthew Margesson
Director
Atlantic Flight Training Ltd
Anson House
Coventry Airport West
Coventry
CV8 3AZ

Tel: +44 (0)845 4500530
Fax: +44 (0)845 4500531

[email protected]
www.flyaft.com

[bfato]

The problem with the Cirrus is that it has neither DME nor ADF, rather than the fact it's a glass cockpit.

[SR20flyDoc]

It's not a problem with the Cirrus :p , or it's AHRS. It even has RNP 0.3 and 8,33 KHz spacing, next to EGPWS.

And it is IFR cetified.

It's a problem with the rules in some EU countries ... :yuk:

Although it's easy to add DME and ADF as aftermarket options, it's useless except for the rules.

S.

[Piltdown Man]

I'd suggest that the quality of the training you receive is more important than type of equipment. To convert to glass is easy but going the other way round is more difficult. This is because with a full glass display (PFD & ND) and a decent flight director you become a very lazy bunny as you tend not to keep up your scan as you would with steam clocks. Also, don't forget that there are glass cockpits and glass cockpits, each is different and learning on one type will not neccesarily confer any advantages on "learning" another.

[Maude Charlee]

One word of caution for the glass cockpit training route. There are still many airlines who choose to use old analogue technology sims to sift out applicants for jobs, despite operating EFIS fleets. There are lots of tales of very experienced EFIS pilots struggling with analogue displays which they may not have seen for many years.

Having some good analogue experience is no bad thing. EFIS is all good stuff, but remember that it is also far better designed in an ergonomic sense than older cockpit displays and therefore more intuitive and far easier to adapt to than the other way round. No point having all that early EFIS experience if you can't pass initial selection.

[Gufo]

Yup, man. I would humbly say, go for the old gauges: that's gonna be a precious belonging for your future, eventually. I reckon basic IR in a glass cockpit is just an appealing way to get some more cash out of the trainees :*

Reading a glass cockpit is somewhat of an easy habit to develop; cross-scanning gauges is a SKILL. You'll hardly ever get to learn it, if don't actually start with it ;)

[englishal]

You'd be better off doing the IR as per normal instruments, then taking a holiday in the USA and rent a Glass Cockpit aircraft.

There are a few very nice Glass aircraft around Long Beach, ranging from C172's, CT206's, and TwinStars. Actually there is one place which now has an FAA certified G1000 sim if you're feeling tight......

You'll save a shed load of money too (GC T206, brand new, certified to FL280, for the same price as a crappy Warrior in the UK :ooh: ....just to put it in perspective ;) )

[642vgs]

Mmmm, Methinks many people putting into words what i was thinking. Perhaps it's best to continue on the tried and tested route. But perhaps we are being a bit inward looking. Just because everyone we know who took the IR has used steam guages doesn't mean its the way forward inperpituity. 5-10 years or so ago the prospect of glass cockpits in GA aircraft was either fancifull or only for those with very deep pockets. Times change and whose to say that IR training with PFD's etc wont become the norm. That said, I do agree with the general sentiment being expressed but would like to hear opinion from IR instructors or even those who carry out sim checks.

[Flying Lion]

As an addition to the earlier thread as well as being the cheapest you will find that Stapleford can offer both conventional and glass cockpit options for IR. They carry out multi rating in the PA34 with option to add DA42 Twinstar endorsement.

[B2N2]

642, I've sent you a PM :ok:

[Maude Charlee]

Talk to a selection of chief pilots (and CFIs from the larger FTOs) and I'll happily wager that the major cause of failure in both the IR and sim checks for newbies are poor instrument scan and inability to track using 'older' technology like the ADF.

[moggiee]

If you're going to use the forum to advertise your wares, it's worth pointing out that by the enbd of this year The Flight Centre at Wolverhampton will also be Twinstar-equipped and all home landing/approach fees are included in the price.

Thanks

[642vgs]

B2N2

very informative mate, thanks for taking the trouble to reply. I shall look into the possibilities. Thanks

Moggiee

Fail to see how I'm advertising 'my' wares. I'm a potential customer for an FTO making available the research that I've done on the subject. Not here to promote anyone. However, thank you for the additional info, it all goes to help make an informed decision

642.

[moggiee]

My apologies - I mis-read your post (the AFT contact details made me think you were them!). Note to self:: "read carefully in future!"

[pushapproved]

It's nearly 6 months since the last posting on this thread, interested to know how people have got on with the Glass Cockpit IR Vs the clockwork method.

Have any advantages or hinderances become apparant that weren't discussed previously?

Embarking on IR shortly, need to make a decision so any further feedback gratefully received!

[FlyingForFun]

Not directly answering the question, I know, but I recently did my multi/IR renewal on a glass-cockpit Seneca.

All went well, apart from an interesting dilemma on the partial panel. Examiner asked me what he should do regarding partial panel, I told him that he was the examiner, if he didn't know how should he expect me to know. He thought about it for a bit, and asked me to turn the brightness on the PFD down to its lowest setting so that I couldn't see the display, and fly on the standby instruments. So I used the standby attitude indicator and altimeter, which really wasn't too challenging - and after a very short amount of time, the examiner also came to the conclusion that this wasn't at all challenging, and allowed me to turn the PFD back up again!

So I'm curious - for those schools who regularly do IR training on glass cockpits, I assume your local examiners have addressed this issue? What do they do regarding testing partial panel???

FFF
---------------

[LFS]

I had heard that if a standby T/C was not fitted part of the IR test would have to be completed in an aircraft with traditional instruments. Although this may not be how it has turned out.

[Turkish777]

The hourly rate for the Diamond-42 (Glass/EFIS cockpit) for the sim and the aircraft is actually cheaper than the Senaca at SFC.

[BillieBob]

Considering that the DA42 burns less than a quarter of the fuel that a Seneca does, and that it's untaxed, one might ask why the price differential is as small as it is!

The most important consideration here seems to be that the transition from analogue to glass is easy, whereas the transition from glass to analogue is not. So long as employers favour analogue instrumentation for their sim checks, training solely in glass cockpits is probably a false economy, particularly as the schools currentl operating diesel-engined aircraft seem reluctant to pass on all but a tiny proportion of the advantage that they gain in operating costs.

[LFS]

I would imagine the reason for the small difference is the large capital outlay required to purchase the DA42

[BillieBob]

OK, a quick check on the internet reveals a one-year old Seneca V for $900,000 and a new DA42 for $360,000. Certainly a big difference in capital outlay but, unfortunately, in the wrong direction.

[pushapproved]

I wonder how long it will be before the goverment decide to add tax to Jet-A1 fuel for light aircraft?! :suspect:

[FougaMagister]

I did the ME/IR at AFT on the old Cessna 310 :ouch: and I would choose the DA42 any day if I had to do it now. That will give you good glass cockpit practice (how many modern airliners don't have EFIS these days?) As for getting used to old gauges for an airline sim assessment on the typical cr..py old sims they use, a couple of hours in the actual sim to be used (or a King Air or Seneca FNPTII) will only set you back a couple of hundred quid.

The DA42 isn't only EFIS-equipped, it's got FADEC, auto-identifies NAVAIDs, has easy engine tests, etc. Considering that the initial IR skill test is probably the harder skill test you will ever have to do (AND you want a first-time pass), why not make is as easy as possible?

AFT actually give students the option of doing the ME/IR on the Seminole :ok: if you fancy more traditional cockpits (it still has 2 Garmin 430s).

Cheers

[LFS]

Billiebob,

Fair enough if they are operating a Seneca V although a lot of flying schools would be operating older aircraft like a senece III which would go for more in the region of £125,000 as opposed to £300,000 for a DA42.

[moggiee]

Billiebob,

Fair enough if they are operating a Seneca V although a lot of flying schools would be operating older aircraft like a senece III which would go for more in the region of £125,000 as opposed to £300,000 for a DA42.
That pretty much sums it up. Older Seneca 2s and 3s are the order of the day at most flying schools, many of them are paid for outright but maintenance and fuel costs are very high.

The DA42 costs a lot more to buy but the costs are defrayed by the savings on fuel and maintenance. However, the big advantage for customers will be that as fuel prices continue to rise, DA42 operators should be able to avoid passing those costs on on the way that Seneca operators will have to.

[The96er]

Having passed my IR in November 05 in the Da-42, I would like to add my oppinion. The DA-42 is a fantastic aircraft, although one could argue that the advantages are more down to the Garmin 1000 avionics. Certainly, having an aircraft with the latest technology has many advantages, i.e no Mixtures, Props, Cowl Flaps etc... this helps a lot, especially when your mental capacity is stretched somewhat. I know some people would argue that doing the IR with Steam gauges and a million dials and levers makes you a better pilot and there may be a small amount of truth to this, but it is not that significant.
The recovery part of the test using the Turn and Slip (Which the DA-42 does not have), can be done with the approval of the CAA in the simulator or another aircraft with one fitted. Doing it in the sim, I found to be almost impossible due to the lack of feel and feedback in the system. Therefore, I opted to do it in the Cessna 152 which admittedly, I found difficult going from the big T.V screens of the DA-42 to the small guages of the C152 which resulted in me having to repeat the exercise.
Comparing the Da-42 to Piper Seminole (the only other twin I've flown), I would say that it lacks the truck like feel of the Piper and no matter how well I trimmed the aircraft, it still felt a bit slippery.
If I were to do the IR again, I would still pick the DA-42. I believe that the advantages outway the dis-advantages and the industry will only go forward i.e Diesel engines and glass cockpits - Aviation rarely goes backwards.

The96er

Oh, and I have a piece of paper from the CAA indicating first time pass and no mention of what aircraft the test was taken on.

[Port Strobe]

Given that the most common a/c mentioned on this thread for glass cockpit is the DA42 Twinstar, can I ask are there any restrictions placed on the IR since it's single lever operation on this type? Would you have to sit a test in an old fashioned twin to remove any restrictions? Could you also clarify what needs to be done regarding the turn and slip indicator part? Can you be tested partial panel in the Twinstar without using another type?

Cheers

[The96er]

Port Strobe, as I said in the previous thread, the part of the test regarding partial panel work using the Turn and slip can not be done on the actual aircraft (DA-42) because it does not have one. You are allowed however to do it in the simulator (which does have one) or another aircraft, say a C152 for example. The other limited panel parts of the test will still have to be done with the examiner in the aircraft i.e compass turns, climbing + descending etc.
As for your license, I believe that there are no restrictions regarding the IR. However, if you were to fly a different twin engine piston, then you will require differences training. I did my Multi-CPL on the Piper Seminole so I was covered for the Class rating aspect.

the96er

[Sky Wave]

Oh, and I have a piece of paper from the CAA indicating first time pass and no mention of what aircraft the test was taken on

But your log book does ;)

[Port Strobe]

Thanks 96, I'd heard some talk about IR only being valid on type with DA42 due to single lever issue but guess there's no substance in it. Cheers

[moggiee]

Thanks 96, I'd heard some talk about IR only being valid on type with DA42 due to single lever issue but guess there's no substance in it. Cheers
Just the class rating issues.

[BillieBob]

There are no 'class rating issues' specific to the DA42. As Dylan Dowd has stated elsewhere, there is a draft AIC doing the rounds that proffers 'advice' on differences training from and to the DA42 and similar aircraft (Glass cockpit, FADEC, etc.) but it does not mandate such training. This, according to the CAA, is because differences training is already mandatory between different MEP types (according to a very suspect interpretation of JAR-FCL1).

So, when the friendly CAA inspector asks to see logbook evidence of differences training from, for example, the Aztec to the Seneca, you'll be able to show him - won't you? What planet are these people on?

[SimJock]

I'd heard some talk about IR only being valid on type with DA42 due to single lever issue but guess there's no substance in it

I think there are some issues here, although SFC (for example) encourage you to do the ME on a PA34 and the IR on a DA42 thus giving you experience of both types, how comfortable would you feel doing an instrument approach in a PA34 after all that DA42 training, given the extra engine controls and older panel instruments ?

I think the DA42 route is OK if you intend to fly glass straight after, but if you are an older wannabe like me or a PPL/IR, and you think that the first job you get might be on older planes doing air taxi etc, then perhaps a PA34 IR is a better bet, or of more practical use, unless you can stay current with the DA42 by buying a share of one. There aren't that many to rent at the moment, are there ?

[Frank Furillo]

Just a note, 737 Classic (300 thru 500) are a mix of Glass and steam powered. You still need to scan and that takes time to get right. It will make a Type Rating easier if you have a good scan to begin with. I should know as I am currently doing one. I passed first time as well on a Beech Duchess down at Bournemouth. Also I am told that most sim checks are taken in steam powered aircraft, BA use a 1-11, for example.