Diamond Twin-star
 

hello

I was just wondering what people are doing about their IR's, because of the whole Daimond thing.

I plan to go to stapleford after my atpl's and they are increasing the cost of training on theirs but are also offering training on the Piper Seneca.

So i was just wanting to know if people are continuing to train on the diamonds OR are they doing it on the sencas instead or anything.

I think the Seneca is £500 cheaper than the Twinstar over the course of the entire IR at Stapleford.

Pass rates are far higher on the Twinstar.

The cost of a partial or failed IR Skills Test is more than £500...

oh right so its not as bad as i thought

Garmin - Will take you 5-10 hours to get used to glass cockpit is the only down side (even with training software etc..)

Once you are tuned into Garmin your life will be MUCH easier on the Twinstar, from my experience:ok:

Transition period from analogue to glass
 

I don't think it should take quite as much as 5-10 hours to transtion to a glass enviornment. You can easily reduce transition periods by

1. using software
2. thoroughly reading the manuals
3. back seating
4. sitting in the a/c on te ground and running thorugh drills

It won't take you more than 2-3 hours to become comfortable enough. Scan is easier. Cockpit layout is much less cluttered and buttons/knobs are much easier to reach. Plus all the aircraft will have a uniform layout, as opposed to two different senecas which almost invarable have different nav/com, autopilot etc. equipment inside.

You are right - software and training aids all help with transition. i used mockups and sims but even so there is a minimum of 5 hours for anybody to transition between analogue and glass, more normally 10 hours.

Trend information is very hard to pickup initially and even after familiar still hard to identify trends which one takes for granted with analogue instruments. There is a well known school of thought that analogue instrumentation is in fact far better at presenting data to a pilot. There is a middle ground i think as you say it is a far less cluttered setup and also a more compact scan can be done with glass.

One thing you will notice is that your brain tries to process numerical information presented by the altimeter and TAS which is not very helpful when instrument flying.

So are more people going glass or are they staying with the analogue?

If so why?

:hmm:

Not having flown for a long time, had to do a full ATPL/IR flight test in South Africa earlier this year. Although I had plenty of glass experience I decided to do the training and test on a Twin Commanche rather that a Twin Star and am glad I did. It would have taken longer to get used to a different glass setup than it did to go back to an analogue.
However, if you are training up for a professional licence, you are presumably looking at an airline simulator check somewhere either quite soon or down the line. I don't know what most airlines use as sims these days for checks, analogue or glass, but I think that if I had that particular decision to make, between the two cockpit systems, I would tend to be more motivated by what a likely airline company was going to stick me in to for their assessment ride.
I suspect that it is as difficult, having trained on one system to adapt to the other, although the analogue will always, to some extent, stay with us because of the basic training. Also suspect that in Europe, most sim checks will be done in either a full glass cockpit or a mixed one, where some glass experience would be useful.
If the pass rate is higher in the Twin Star then surely the dice are loaded in its favour over something like a Seneca? I do remember as well, from SA, that a lot of system knowledge had to be absorbed for the Twin Star. It is a very different aircraft than that on which anyone may have done their basic training but as has been pointed out, much of this transitional difficulty can be resolved by pre training flight book work and back seating, which is an invaluable aid.:)
Of course, another point to watch out for in all of this expensive decision making is how long Twin Stars will still be in operation, given the company's present financial difficulties.:ooh:

hello

Did you prefer the Glass or analogue config?
as you say you 've had plenty of glass experience

:hmm:

Couldn't really call that one, to be honest. Think it rather boils down to the whole aircraft. The Do 328 might be more amusing to fly in Europe than an HS 748 but I'd much rather go smashing about the African bush in the Vomit Comet.:)

Basic IF flying
 

Using the twinstar for your basic trainning is just a very good way to store up problems for the future and should be avoided.

Most of you will go on to fly airliners with glass cockpits and spend most of your time following the magenta line however what happens when the FMC quits?

You will find that in this situation the aircraft will have to be reverted to glass version of the clockwork cockpit. If you do not have the basic skills to fly the aircraft in this condition you simply should not be sitting in the seat.

A friend of mine who is a Captain for a charter airline had an FMC failure and the newish FO instantly made a "pan pan pan" call to ATC because of the failure of in the FO's words the "total navigation failure" (the Captain contnued the SID using the "clockwork").

This abismal performance is indicative of the very low basic skill levels that using a glass cockpit gives the student, to put this in simple terms if you cant fly the aircraft using the "clockwork" you should not be flying the "glass".

As to the exam pass rate it would seem that a lower standard of student can get a pass with the glass but have you considered that this fact may be lulling you into a much more expencive hole when due to lack of basic IF flying skills you fail a jet type rating.

yes, but surely one day you are going to have to learn how to use glass cockpits wouldn't it be cheaper to learn now rather than when you get to your (expensive) type rating. And wouldnt you be taught how to use the cockpit with certain instument failures during your training. And isnt 'total' instrument failure quite rare?

Apparently not, as the NTSB now wants changes even to A320 glass display systems which have failed 49 times in recent years:

Aero-News Network: The Aviation and Aerospace World's Daily/Real-Time News and Information Service

I think the pass rates difference between Seneca and Twin Star are down more to handling than to the avionics fit - the Seneca is quite a handful, you need to look after the engines a lot more, engine failures drills are more work etc.

Yes, with a wide G1000 horizon you are less likely to end up in a turn without noticing, and there are fewer tasks where you have to look at the other side of the cockpit so you are "off scan" less often.

I would guess that a G1000 seneca would have pass rates closer to the classic seneca than to the TwinStar.

ali1986
 

This issue is not about total instrument failure, this is about loss off the FMC. this will result in the loss of the map function and so the crew being forced to return to the glass reprisentation of "clockwork dials".

This requires a good mental picture of the aircrafts positon in space and the ability to switch quickly to navigation without the big map. What I have seen from graduates of the magenta line kindergarden is a state of panic when the FMC has a bit of a brainfart, the result is the FO going head down pressing buttons in an attempt to get the FMC back rather that containing the situation by reverting to conventional navigation and then trying to get the FMC back.

All this usualy happens on the SID or STAR when without quick action the aircraft can very soon stray off track. Add to this high ground and a non-radar enviroment and you have all the makings of a CFIT.

As for doing trainning on "basic" instrument flying during a jet type rating this is a non-starter, these courses assume that you have a good level of basic insrument flying and if you can't hack it you will be out on your ear!

Doing the IR on a glass aircaft will not equipe you with the basic tools of the trade and you will be a worse pilot for it.

Magenta line
 

I recall, many years ago, conducting what is now called an SEP renewal for a 757 skipper who was on layover in USA.

I gave him a 'half mill' chart and asked for a VFR cross country to a nearby airfield. He elected to "busk it" (no planning).

On the downwind leg from the departure airfield he gave me the aircraft back - admitting that he "hadn't a clue" and without his magenta line and glass flight panel he was completely stuffed.

Gave him quite an uncomfortable wake up call, he said.

i find it hard to imagine that he had no idea what to do at all.

I'd like to confirm these ideas from the other side of the interview desk.

Some people have given very good reasons that I prefer to see training in a PA-34 (or PA-44, or a Be76) to DA42 in an applicant's logbook. If you can do it the hard way we all know you can do it the easy way, but doing it the easy way proves nothing about your ability to do it the hard way.

So if you had 2 applicants would you be more inclined to choose the person who had PA-34 or PA-44 on his logbook rather than the person with the DA-42 in there?

I wonder what the flight schools think about that.

ali1968, you don't need to imagine - just trust me, I was there - he abandoned.

his handling of a C172 which he hadn't flown for years and years was similar to what I would expect if I tried his 757.

Probably why both JAA and FAA require flight reviews and/or recency.

I dont doubt you in the slightest, i just find it suprising thats all

In the King Air(one of the new glass cockpit versions), El Capitan would have his screens on FMS mode, I would have mine on conventional VOR. Gave us good situational awareness. Having done my IR on a steam driven seneca, i actually found it quite difficult to get used to the FMS display.

ali

All other things being roughly equal, yes. I am sure the schools are well aware of it. However they used to get the lower costs and they probably get higher pass rates.

It might be perfectly acceptable preparation for some types of flying, although I do know that even in one airline flying with glass cockpits they had awful trouble with new FOs trained in Twinstars (one of their training captains was a friend of mine). On the other hand I can't think of a job for which training in an aircraft with clockwork cockpit and six levers would be poor preparation.

As I said, if you can do it the hard way then you can do it the easy way.

Ok this is a rough outline of what i can see people are saying

Twin star

Pros: Higher pass rates, reduces pilot workload and makes the IR simpler and introduces the pilot to the glass cockpit

Cons: Doesn't prepare you If things go wrong, more expensive, takes time to get used to the screens.

Analogue

Pros: Prepares you for if/when the FMC fails, Airlines like it better, Cheaper

Cons: More Pilot workload, the transition to glass on the flightdeck is more difficult

Why? The tricky thing about glass is the actual operation of the system, not the interpretation of the data and flying by it. The operation is different depending on the system, so I am not convinced that learning to use a Garmin 1000 is a particular help when you get into a Proline cockpit.

As for pilot workload being high, that is the main advantage to the potential employer. We know the pilot can cope with that workload, which will be experienced at some point.

I asked about this at stapleford...

The IR training is still done with the aircraft in effective 'steam' mode... i.e. no moving map etc so the only difference is a more compact scan and simpler engine drills.

what's the problem with that?

Nothing specifically wrong with it. It is not an vital consideration (one of the best pilots I have recruited trained on the DA42 at Stapleford). The pilot's attitude to work is far more important, for example. Experience is the most important factor in recruitment.

However the presentation of information in the DA42 is different, and of course better. Thus when they get into my clockwork cockpit the person who trained in a clockwork cockpit, the hard way, is at a small advantage. Many pilots will also fly piston or turbo-prop aircraft and will have to cope with more levers than the DA42 has.

Remember, moving to a simpler aircraft is not a problem. Moving to a more complicated aircraft might be!

An interesting debate this one!

One other important difference i found is the Glance factor - it does take time to not be able to glance for instance at the Airspeed to see green, white arcs , and vsi etc..

Operation of the unit can easily be learnt on the grounds with mock ups.

Another difference with the DA42 is stability - it does float around more than a seneca which tends to sit more like a lump where you put it.

As someone said an interesting debate, on one side the rose tinted glasses of the would be airline pilots wanting to fly the latest hi-tech kit and on the other side the people with thousands of airline hours issueing words of caution that are being dispelled by those with not enough hours to know much about the subect past buying the dream from a glossy sales leflet.

No way will the glsss cockpit in the Twin-star help you get a grip on a modern FMC, Ironicly the King KLN90 & KLN98B have some of the operating logic of the Boeing FMC but these are not sexy enough for the Twin-star. So the twin-star fails to win on both counts

Wodka I refer you to the statment by Christine Keeler in the Perfumo trial.

An interesting debate.
I did my IR on a steam driven Cougar. When I was doing my check ride for my current job in a steam driven Jetstream I had the necessary scan in place.
The G1000 is not like an EFIS flight deck, tho certainly much more so than an old seneca. Therefore it will stand you in better stead for an EFIS job.
People will always want it done the hard way because they did it that way. Diamond are to be applauded for moving GA forward, it is just a shame the engine situation has developed.
Incidentally does anyone know where the G1000 simulator can be found. The GNS430 sim was on the web site but I can't find the G1000 one.

I know its only a sim before im shot down

but i think on flight simulator x for the pc had the cessna with the garmin 1000.

I'm sure I'm missing something here.

I did the CPL and IR in the DA42, and what are the extra functions that are of use to us that are not available in a Seneca?

The moving map was, of course, removed. I had the glass horizon and HSI setup with the ability to choose what the bearing needles pointed at. That is all.

What extra 'FMS' style navigation was I using? There was no 'following' the magenta line, nor programming in of any SIDs/STARs for me to follow. I had to use conventional VOR/NDB tracking just like those on older aircraft.

I believe the F/O declaring the PAN tends to demonstrate a lacking in his TRTO for not giving him sufficient practice in flying using back up navigation or the equivalent.

Disappointing to hear about the interviewer favouring candidates who passed on steam driven aircraft. I guess I figured that level of short-sightedness deserves retirement as much as his beloved antique Senecas do.

During the IR course in a EFIS equipped aircraft you can ONLY use raw data and same goes for the skill test.
Very simple;
Why pay more to fly something old and tatty when you could fly something that was built this decade worth nearly half a million euros for less.
And I don’t quite agree when people say that its harder to fly something like a BE 76 than a DA42, it depends on the candidate. Ok with something like a BE 76 you have a few extra levers (mixture, props) , but you have a lot more complex systems in a Twinstar.

Does anyone know if more ppl are flying the modern props or are more people flying the older ones for their IR

Mierda
 

Wile I respect your opinion I just have to ask how much time do you have in the logbook and just what type ratings do you have (or had) to back up you opinion?

Lost man standing would seem to have a lot of airline flying behind him and the hours to back up his point of view.

Hi A and C

Like you said its an opinion, however for the IR course and test its a fact.The examiner will not allow you to use the moving map and load up approaches on your MFD.
Just to defend my opinion... I teach candidates on both types of machine.
They all have the good and the bad, but the bottom line is that its cheaper for the student to use a machine that consumes 40 ltrs of jet fuel (tax free) per hour than one that consumes 80 ltrs of Avgas an hour ( not tax free)
The real problem with the Diamonds at the moment is the Thielert engine situation.
The ability of a pilot depends on a lot more different factors than just what aeroplane he/she used for the CPL/IR course.
Anyway only my opinion-I hope it helps you guys decide what aircraft to use...

Is there light at the end of the tunnel for the thielert engine situation or does no one know?

There is, it will get resolved in the not too distant future, and Diamond are hoping to get their own engine certified by the end of October.
If you are going to do your course in A diamond, find out from your FTO how they are dealing with the situation, and what plans they have in place when Aircraft goes Tech, when they need parts etc etc.

oh well thats good news i thought things were looking rather bleak for it.

Just out of interest where abouts did you hear about that i ve found no news anywhere on it?

Mierdia
 

Thanks for the reply it was very illuminating, I am very pleased to see that the students for the IR can't use the aircraft for the IR test in the "full glass" mode.

However those who are choosing the aircraft because they think it will help them move to an airliner glass cockpit are also under a sad misapprehension as clearly they cant use any of the advanced features of the aircraft on the IR training.

I looks to me as if the PA34 is the route to go down, spend the same money as with the Diamond star, do an extra hour of flying and be in position that you can fly an aircraft with blue levers rather than letting the computer do it all for you!

In these lean times it may well come in useful.