FI(A) Course with G1000

[adamlouis]

Does anybody know any (smaller not OAA, FTW jerzes, CTC etc.) flight schools that uses G1000 aircrafts for their FI(A) courses?
Preferably around London

Thanks in advance

[Whopity]

I would imagine most schools would avoid using such an aircraft for a FI(A) course if they had one. It might be useful on an IRI Course.

[GgW]

Little bit of a commute from London, but Goodwood flying club have C172's with G1000's fitted. I would give them a call.
Not G1000, but Thruxton(Western Air) have a glass cockpit PA28.

Both these schools do FI ratings.

[BroCode]

Not London, but if you would consider Ireland then AFTA in Cork use a G1000 C172 for most of the FIC. Occasionally a conventional C172 also used if the G1000 unavailable.

[janrein]

G1000 equiped Cessnas (C172R/S) spinnable for FI course?

Just for the FI Course Air Excercises 11A and 11B I have the following observation and question.

The G1000 fitted C172R NAVIII and C172S NAVIII models according POH permit the manoeuvres, provided that they be loaded in the Utility category. However, I found that for individual aeroplanes of said models the M&B data made it impossible to reach the Utility loading situation, not even if the backseats would be removed. Maybe a coincidence with those individual aeroplanes, however I suspect the avionics in the tail may be a factor and this "hidden" limitation may be more common for these models. Anyone to comment on this perhaps?

Thanks,

jr

p.s.
of course for these specific excercises another aeroplane may be taken, I just wonder if it is a common inherent limitation of said models, or rather a coincidence for the few aeroplanes I had at hand ...

[mykul10]

G1000 FI??

Do you mind me asking why you would need a G1000 for an FI course?

[janrein]

To mykul10

… why you would need a G1000 for an FI course?

Not sure if your question is for me or for adamlouis

I for me, I do not particularly need a G1000 for an FI course. I do wonder if the "hidden limitation" that I described was a coincidence or if it may be a common characteristic of G1000 equiped C172īs in general, which would make them unavailable for spin manoeuvres, whether for FI course, FI refresher training or whatever other purpose.

To adamlouis

You may want to ask the school doing an FI course with G1000 Cessna if they confirm they can do the Air Excercises 11A & 11B with that aeroplane or if they have another model for that purpose.

Whatever the aeroplane you will be flying, enjoy the course.

jr

[Whopity]

You may want to ask the school doing an FI course with G1000 Cessna if they confirm they can do the Air Excercises 11A & 11B with that aeroplane

The instrumentation is inadequate for spinning and limited panel though LP is not in the basic FI(A) course.

[janrein]

The instrumentation is inadequate for spinning and limited panel

Whopity, thanks for your response.

I now believe M&B would anyway stop me or anyone from spinning the G1000 Cessnas. If not, I wonder in what way it would be inadequate, could the AHRS become upset in the manoeuvre? Get damaged perhaps? Have I missed a prohibition or caution in the POH? Or is this one of these things that never made it to the POH although it should have?

On Limited Panel, agreed, I could imagine some kind of software facility for similar exercises, but havenīt found such a substitute.

Regards,

jr

[Whopity]

I wonder in what way it would be inadequate,

No Turn and Slip Indicator, the primary instrument upon which spin direction is established or even a TC. Instruments without tied gyros can topple.

[BEagle]

It's going to be rather an interesting problem for schools who have re-equipped with glass cockpit aircraft when they have to deliver mandatory UPRT training in aeroplanes from 2018....

If EASA's latest NPA is approved, instructors delivering the UPRT FCL.745 course will be required to hold aerobatic ratings; the UPRT instructor course will include 'recovery from a fully developed spin'.

NPA 2015-13 is typical EASA heavy-handed bureaucracy. All that was really necessary was to insist that stall/spin awareness/avoidance is taught correctly!

[ifitaintboeing]

It's not really a problem since the spinning element of the course can be completed in another aircraft certified for spinning which is how many schools conducting the FI course in PA28s etc do it.

However, since most GA schools in the UK and Europe use non-EFIS aircraft for ab-initio training I would recommend completing the course in a non-EFIS aircraft for now, that is unless you know that you're going on to instruct in a school equipped with them.

BEagle, I've had a quick read through of NPA 2015-13, and was wondering why the committee decided that to teach UPRT I will need to meet significantly more rigorous recency requirements than those required to teach aerobatics?

ifitaint...

[janrein]

Whopity

Thanks for sharpening me up on that, perfectly clear now. In my training emphasis had been given to full visual recognition of spin direction, but I see the point particularly for an actual un-anticipated spin, and in less then perfect visual conditions.

Makes me think of a hypothetical panel configuration with a TC or better a TI in stead of the AI as the central standby instrument, might suit both limitations of the G1000īs. Hypothetical, because I would rather have a suitable classical "dials" aeroplane for those if not all excercises.

Regards

jr

[Whopity]

because I would rather have a suitable classical "dials" aeroplane for those if not all excercises.

Hence my original comment about most FIC instructors not chosing to use a G1000 fitted aircraft even if they had one. Its totally unnecessary and a distraction from what you are trying to teach.

[janrein]

Sure, now more clear to me than ever.

jr

[adamlouis]

Thanks for the reply`s!
For those asking the reason why I wish to do (some) of the FI(A) rating with EFIS is because I presume some of the instructing I will be doing will also be in some sort of EFIS aircrafts.
I personally like both, but considering about 90-95 % of my flying are with analog instruments I have nothing against those either.
The best would be Acrobatic, Night rating, EFIS and Non-EFIS for the FI(A) course haha

[Whopity]

I presume some of the instructing I will be doing will also be in some sort of EFIS aircrafts.

If you are conducting basic instruction, teaching a student to select hold and trim an attitude, then it is done by reference to the real horizon not an instrument. In fact, the entire PPL course, apart fom instrument appreciation, can be taught with no artificial horizon at all, so the EFIS is superfluous to that process.

[172510]

I don't understand the anti EFIS posture.

Why a student who has never seen a classic panel would be distracted by an EFIS more than he would be by the 6 dials?

I agree that it would be suitable to teach how to fly with no instrument at all, but as we need an AI for some exercises, the damage will be done anyway.

On the contrary, if you start with an EFIS, the student will be proficient with it, and not be distracted with it when he gets his PPL. And changing to a 6 dial won't be as difficult as the other way round.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by 172510

I agree that it would be suitable to teach how to fly with no instrument at all, but as we need an AI for some exercises, the damage will be done anyway.

There are no air exercises which require an AI in the PPL sylabus. I cover it up with a post it note for all presolo exercises.

Why would you want to look at a TV screen when there is a glorious high definition, wide angle, full colour "picture" available just by looking out the windscreen ?

[Whopity]

I don't understand the anti EFIS posture.

There is no anti EFIS posture, it is simply not relevant to basic instruction. Because of its size and dominance in the cockpit it is more likely to be detrimental and hence a distraction. I have observed on converting pilots to EFIS aircraft that there is a tendancy to over pitch on take off, due to pilots watching the display rather than the real horizon.