Interesting discussion.

I must confess, when the cr@p hits the fan and I'm out flying bad weather in our Commander I find the old King 165 very comforting compared to our GNS430. I know the GNS shows me a heck of a lot more, but there's just so much that can get screwed up when the going gets tough.
I realize I need more practice with it, and should I have had a G1000 in the panel I probably wouldn't get off the ground for months before learning how to operate the damned thing.

I seriously agree to the training requirements for complex instrumentation/avionics. Steam gauges are too simple to compare.

Isn't this what a typerating covers for heavy equipment?
Perhaps avionics typeratings are necessary for the future...

Skydriller,

It's possible the pilot in question said to himself 'Look at that switch! I wonder what happens when I do this...' *dead silence firewall forward*.

The engine control units have a backup battery and runs off the alternator, even when no bus is powered.

However, if you turn off the Engine Master (which has a detent to prevent this) or the ECU that you have selected is turned off, the engine will stop.

So I suspect that incident was due to 'finger trouble'.

Deice,

An avionics type rating is a great idea!

I've been watching the development of this thread with some interest. A few issues seem to crop up relating to what the FAA call Technologically Advanced Aircraft (anything with G1000/Entegra/Meggit etc etc kit).

Firstly, the assumption that 'these systems are almost as complicated as an Airbus' is silliness - they are MORE complicated from a data, softkey and menu depth point of view. What they lack is the integration with complex autoflight systems and flight phase related issues.

Secondly, Flying School breadth of knowledge and currency in handling/coping with these systems and communicating best practise is extremely poor.

Regarding my first point, here's the rub. Airbus/Boeing EFIS and fourth generation airliners differ from light aircraft in two broad areas; Airliners generally operate in tightly controlled (class A, if you will) environments typically from controlled IFR capable airports to similarly equipped destinations. Next, they are operated by two crewmembers (with additional crew for longer sectors). Generally, when airliners operate outside of these environmental parameters the risk goes up and crews are trained to be alert to this.

The transition between IFR and VFR environments (for example a circling approach) is typically the worst handled aspect of using advanced instrumentation and avionics. Specifically, appropriate systems use is the root cause of many incidents.

Now here's where the words put some distance between traditional light aviation and 'new technology'. Pilots need to become familiar with managing their flight: Managing systems, workload, distractions and data are critical to effectively running a TAA operation. Retaining an awareness of appropriateness (!) and personal capacity must become second nature.

Guess what? Basic flying ability must simply 'live' underneath all of these other skills and - in the spirit of appropriateness - must leap to the fore when required.

Which brings me on to the second point. Without experienced instructors and coaches who remain current on the specific systems in addition to being talented educators we are lost. This demands legislative support that embraces this new kit and puts in place the framework on which to build skills.

In summary, this new machinery needs investment, technology in education and an open mind. Sadly, these characteristics are lacking at nearly every level in UK Light aviation.

Nothing much to do with airborne A-Class engines but sort of relevant, I feel...

M14P,

I'm surprised that someone has stronger feelings then me about this! I agree with every point you made, and I wonder how many accidents could occur in the TwinStar as a result of ignorance of all the principles you mentioned.

It's a chilling thought to realise that all this new technology could be some pilot's undoing, if the proper training is skimped on (which it will be). It's equivalent to putting a Seneca pilot into a Citation II with a few days' vague instruction and no TR.

That said, the DA-42 is a fantastically capable aircraft, and if I decide to buy one I'll get every scrap of training I can. Changes are that FlightSafety or an equivalent company will eventually put together an acceptable course. Until then, stand well back!

Confab

Not all Airline op's are in tightly controlled airspace, but I definately get your point about appropriate systems being used.

When somebody goes for a bimble to the local area on a gin clear day, will advanced systems be of any help? Not really and they may well distract from the primary business in hand.

This sort of kit obviously lends itself to long distance IFR operations rather than day VFR stuff and that to get the best from it takes a lot of study, look at how much time is taken up with the avionics on most jet type-ratings, surely something like a DA-40/42 with the 1000 fit needs something similar?

The aircraft itself I would have thought is fairly easy to handle, yes it's quick-ish, but it's no pocket rocket so getting 'checked out' on it shouldn't be too difficult from a handling point of view, but driving all the spangly bits may take some time. How big will the manual be?

I know having all this kit is wonderful, but isn't it a bit of overkill? Considering how often most people actually operate their a/c how long would it take for most people to forget the finer points of the avionics.

K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) for the 'average' weekend flyer, hopefully you can dial back some of the more advanced features when you don't require them (a la 73 NG).

Mind you, once you've got used to EFIS, it is hard to go back to steam!

Probably worth reiterating that I am strongly pro new generation cockpits and technology...

My feelings and thoughts come from many thousands of hours operating EFIS aircraft (and non EFIS) in many different environments.

SAS makes a good point that it is desirable to have a simple safe aircraft underneath all of this great kit. Cirrus, Diamond, Airbus and now even Boeing realise this... this allows pilots to stop worrying too much about the handling and get on and enjoy the flying!

As TAA kit is retro-fitted to older, more complex aircraft this is an aspect well worth considering.

The most important point to thrust across is the notion of 'appropriateness' and that - properly operated - a bimble about in a TAA is safer and more enjoyable than in a 'round dial' machine. Better airspeed trend info or simple engine handling would make just tootling around the circuit easier and more enjoyable. However, head down button pushing or letting one get bogged down in a particular routine within the the Nav kit can have disastrous effects.

I have watched highly trained professionals programming nav kit to fly a 'visual approach' (!) - I'll leave that open for discussion but from a logical point of view alone I find that odd.

Interestingly, although many suggest that the round dial selections on 737NG EFIS is wonderful, it is solely there for type commonality (not because it is better!).

What we need are structured training courses in simulators...