When things go wrong
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also think it is horses for courses stuff. Certain types, and how you operate them, will work well with advanced systems. Obviously the development and technological advances available at an ever increasing pace, is welcomed. However, aviation is still about the basics, regardless of size, lift/drag/thrust etc. Also knowing where you are and at what attitude relevent to everything else.
I agree, the glass stuff makes me feel somewhat detached - I do not have enough experience, nor training, to tell if I would warm to it.
That said, this thread examined VFR at low level in crap, and aware of visual clues. It drifted into GPS, possibly as sole reference, and as the units themselves say - NOT TO BE USED AS PRIMARY NAVIGATION AID.
I think there are those that do use them, do not see the need to carry a map, nor stopwatch, and have limited knowledge of VOR/NDB/DME etc. Good luck to them, it is not intended as any criticism, just it would not be my choice, particularly when carrying pax.
IMHO this can lead to trouble. I am also concerned when certain people see the old stuff as precisely that, stating technology forever. Again, I think this is somewhat silly.
I agree, the glass stuff makes me feel somewhat detached - I do not have enough experience, nor training, to tell if I would warm to it.
That said, this thread examined VFR at low level in crap, and aware of visual clues. It drifted into GPS, possibly as sole reference, and as the units themselves say - NOT TO BE USED AS PRIMARY NAVIGATION AID.
I think there are those that do use them, do not see the need to carry a map, nor stopwatch, and have limited knowledge of VOR/NDB/DME etc. Good luck to them, it is not intended as any criticism, just it would not be my choice, particularly when carrying pax.
IMHO this can lead to trouble. I am also concerned when certain people see the old stuff as precisely that, stating technology forever. Again, I think this is somewhat silly.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I dont think I really mind any combination, but it seems to me if the cockpit is glass the more elements that are combined the better. The earlier G1000s and Avidynes had seperate autopilots and the Avidyne, 430s and a conventional transponder. It made sense to combine these if only because you are dealing with a single piece of kit. Of course from a redundancy view point it may make less sense - with a pair of 430s at least you know that is enough to get you home if both screens fail.
I am not sure how reliant or not you become. It is true that it becomes more difficult to go back to a conventional cockpit because the information at your finger tips is unsurpassed. Gone will be the moving map, the plates, GPS (although not many will fly without GPS of some sort these days), traffic, etc. There is no doubt in my mind flying an IAP with a six pack is a much more difficult task.
In that respect some basic skills will be quickly lost but I am inclinded to say - so what, if that is what you fly so be it.
Of course I agree when the whole lot packs up it is a different matter but in the event that the whole system fails, you are not left with very much anyway - it is a real emergency.
At the light GA end in VMC even with the most integrated glass you are left with a AI, compass and with luck a radio and hand held GPS from your flight bag. That should be more than enough, and if it is, some sole searching of basic skills is warranted. A complete failure in IMC is a different matter; clearly it is well worth rehearsing what you would do, but at the least almost certainly it will involve getting as much help as you can from ATC and landing as soon as possible.
I dont think I really mind any combination, but it seems to me if the cockpit is glass the more elements that are combined the better. The earlier G1000s and Avidynes had seperate autopilots and the Avidyne, 430s and a conventional transponder. It made sense to combine these if only because you are dealing with a single piece of kit. Of course from a redundancy view point it may make less sense - with a pair of 430s at least you know that is enough to get you home if both screens fail.
I am not sure how reliant or not you become. It is true that it becomes more difficult to go back to a conventional cockpit because the information at your finger tips is unsurpassed. Gone will be the moving map, the plates, GPS (although not many will fly without GPS of some sort these days), traffic, etc. There is no doubt in my mind flying an IAP with a six pack is a much more difficult task.
In that respect some basic skills will be quickly lost but I am inclinded to say - so what, if that is what you fly so be it.
Of course I agree when the whole lot packs up it is a different matter but in the event that the whole system fails, you are not left with very much anyway - it is a real emergency.
At the light GA end in VMC even with the most integrated glass you are left with a AI, compass and with luck a radio and hand held GPS from your flight bag. That should be more than enough, and if it is, some sole searching of basic skills is warranted. A complete failure in IMC is a different matter; clearly it is well worth rehearsing what you would do, but at the least almost certainly it will involve getting as much help as you can from ATC and landing as soon as possible.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - I think you are disagreeing with something I didn't say 
Also
I don't see a connection between modern nav systems (which basically give you accurate LNAV, and possibly VNAV) and "basic flying skills". of course you need the latter, otherwise you will plummet as soon as you slow down the Citation to 30kt on long final
maxred -
What does this tell us?
It tells us that a particular pilot could not get his head around his systems. How many people are shocked?
When I got my TB20 in 2002, I never found an instructor who knew how to drive the KLN94, or the HSI. I just flew around Kent at 4700ft while I sussed it all out
This sounds elitist, but it is a fact that loads of pilots who can get a PPL will have problems understanding complex avionics.
I know a chap, who owned a rather pricey plane (7 figures; I am not identifying him more than that) who never got his head around the avionics in that plane. Eventually he bought a rather slower and simpler 7 figure plane He had hundreds of hours, with a "live-in" instructor.
And getting one's head around advanced avionics assumes the pilot can dig out an instructor who knows this stuff, which on the UK GA scene is a huge uphill struggle. The expertise in this department is awfully low. When I did my JAA IR ground school, very recently, I had three teachers there. 2 were long-retired ex RAF navigators. One did not have any apparent current knowledge. The other thought that a KNS80 was state of the art. How many years ago was a KNS80 discontinued??? The 3rd was an ex airliner flight engineer, retired maybe 20 years. All lovely chaps, but decades behind. As was the outrageously irrelevant IR syllabus. This is the face of the establishment training FUTURE AIRLINE PILOTS. Plus any GA pilots who need an FTO process (IR, or a CPL). Go figure....
In the USA, they have proper courses on this stuff. Over here, ther eis almost nothing. I gather TAA run some, for their Cirrus sales, and obviously they need to.
Technology makes it far easier to execute technically challenging flights. That's a fact.
That a similar # of people fly into hills tells us very little, because we have no data on total hours flown, etc.
Also, most CFITs seems to be done by people doing "silly stuff" even though they have IRs. We have done some recent ones (N2195B, N403HP, the recent G-reg one in S. France) as far as we could have. Very few people (none I recall off hand) have recently done a CFIT where they flew proper IFR procedures.
Once you depart from proper IFR procedures (and it is those that modern avionics assist with so much) then all bets are off, and about the only modern thing which will help you is synthetic vision And that will stop working soon enough if you fly in the bottom of some canyon
Well there you are. You were not trained on it. Why did you get airborne? You should have stayed on the ground until you spent some hours going through the systems. I know some people will drive off a rental car without first finding out where the indicators, lights, wipers etc are, but I wouldn't. So why do it in a plane, which is much less forgiving, unless you can engage the autopilot, which you probably can't either
Modern avionics are not complex in the sense of needing a maths degree or anything like that, but they are on the level of a full-featured piece of PC software; for example Photoshop. Somebody who can use Photoshop (fairly fully I mean) and understands principles of IFR flight (MEAs, routings, aircraft performance, etc) will be fine. But it is obvious that this rules out a fair chunk of the PPL community.
The "problem" is that anybody can buy a new G1000 aircraft and fly off in it... Like you did. There is no solution to that.
Also
It worries me somewhat with pilots who rely too much on displays and ignore their basic flying skills because one day they may need them.
maxred -
I flew it because he does not know how to work it, technology overload, and yes, he had been trained. He was basically afraid of it, and gues what, the 500k or whatever asset sits on the ground, 5 years old with a 100 hours on it
It tells us that a particular pilot could not get his head around his systems. How many people are shocked?
When I got my TB20 in 2002, I never found an instructor who knew how to drive the KLN94, or the HSI. I just flew around Kent at 4700ft while I sussed it all out
This sounds elitist, but it is a fact that loads of pilots who can get a PPL will have problems understanding complex avionics.
I know a chap, who owned a rather pricey plane (7 figures; I am not identifying him more than that) who never got his head around the avionics in that plane. Eventually he bought a rather slower and simpler 7 figure plane
He had hundreds of hours, with a "live-in" instructor.And getting one's head around advanced avionics assumes the pilot can dig out an instructor who knows this stuff, which on the UK GA scene is a huge uphill struggle. The expertise in this department is awfully low. When I did my JAA IR ground school, very recently, I had three teachers there. 2 were long-retired ex RAF navigators. One did not have any apparent current knowledge. The other thought that a KNS80 was state of the art. How many years ago was a KNS80 discontinued??? The 3rd was an ex airliner flight engineer, retired maybe 20 years. All lovely chaps, but decades behind. As was the outrageously irrelevant IR syllabus. This is the face of the establishment training FUTURE AIRLINE PILOTS. Plus any GA pilots who need an FTO process (IR, or a CPL). Go figure....
In the USA, they have proper courses on this stuff. Over here, ther eis almost nothing. I gather TAA run some, for their Cirrus sales, and obviously they need to.
However, your assertion that the technology is wonderful, and gets everyone in the place, where the want, at the touch of a button, is NOT backed up statistically - vis a vis incursions, crashes, CFIT - the accident rate appears level, therefore this technology has not increased safety
That a similar # of people fly into hills tells us very little, because we have no data on total hours flown, etc.
Also, most CFITs seems to be done by people doing "silly stuff" even though they have IRs. We have done some recent ones (N2195B, N403HP, the recent G-reg one in S. France) as far as we could have. Very few people (none I recall off hand) have recently done a CFIT where they flew proper IFR procedures.
Once you depart from proper IFR procedures (and it is those that modern avionics assist with so much) then all bets are off, and about the only modern thing which will help you is synthetic vision
And that will stop working soon enough if you fly in the bottom of some canyon
and I was not comfortable with the full glass - ok I was not trained on it, but, we still managed with all that technology to go into a Danger Area
Modern avionics are not complex in the sense of needing a maths degree or anything like that, but they are on the level of a full-featured piece of PC software; for example Photoshop. Somebody who can use Photoshop (fairly fully I mean) and understands principles of IFR flight (MEAs, routings, aircraft performance, etc) will be fine. But it is obvious that this rules out a fair chunk of the PPL community.
The "problem" is that anybody can buy a new G1000 aircraft and fly off in it... Like you did. There is no solution to that.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO - I think we are getting way off track here
The debate, if one is to be had, is VFR with ref to the ground. In muck.
The secondary debate that emerged is technology/glass cockpit. This is a current preference, not a dig at GPS wandering or glass vs steam
You relish the technology, others either do not, nor wish to.
As you state the vast majority of GA either cannot, through poor, inadequate training, grasp the advanced designs, or alternatively do not wish to use it. But this was the issue at hand. The dangers of either using the equipment with poor understanding, or utilising it as a primary nav technique, which is also foolish.
The debate, if one is to be had, is VFR with ref to the ground. In muck.
The secondary debate that emerged is technology/glass cockpit. This is a current preference, not a dig at GPS wandering or glass vs steam
You relish the technology, others either do not, nor wish to.
As you state the vast majority of GA either cannot, through poor, inadequate training, grasp the advanced designs, or alternatively do not wish to use it. But this was the issue at hand. The dangers of either using the equipment with poor understanding, or utilising it as a primary nav technique, which is also foolish.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You relish the technology
The dangers of either using the equipment with poor understanding, or utilising it as a primary nav technique, which is also foolish.
