glass cockpit users?

[LvPilot]

Just curious to hear from those out there who have made the leap to a glass cockpit. Was it worth the investment? Is it overkill for your average 100-200 hrs/yr GA pilot? Would you buy an aircraft without one now?

:cheerio:

 

[Ken Ibold]

Just curious to hear from those out there who have made the leap to a glass cockpit. Was it worth the investment? Is it overkill for your average 100-200 hrs/yr GA pilot? Would you buy an aircraft without one now?

Danny,

I have flown a glass SR22 a few times, but I don't do it routinely. They open up an amazing amount of awareness and capability. There is also every indication they will be more relliable in the long run than mechanical gauges. However, they also push you more in the direction of systems management, which you may or may not like. The more advanced systems may take more effort to retain proficiency, or they may take less. I don't have enough experience with them to know. But I think it says something that in the Cirrus there is a checklist to keep track of your checklists.

I think in a new single-engine airplane, they will be popular because they are cool and because they will enhance resale value/salability down the road, whereas "conventional" cockpits may be penalized in this regard. However, they do bring with them some advances. The bigger horizon alone will help basic instrument flying, for example.

Personally, what I'd like to see on the market solid-state instruments that would replace mechanical gauges in the standard instrument holes without forcing you to spend $50K on a panel upgrade.

A prediction: mechanical gauges will someday be called a conventional panel just as tailwheel airplane are called conventional gear. So I guess conventional = anachronistic.

 

[LvPilot]

Danny,

I have flown a glass SR22 a few times, but I don't do it routinely. They open up an amazing amount of awareness and capability. There is also every indication they will be more relliable in the long run than mechanical gauges. However, they also push you more in the direction of systems management, which you may or may not like. The more advanced systems may take more effort to retain proficiency, or they may take less. I don't have enough experience with them to know. But I think it says something that in the Cirrus there is a checklist to keep track of your checklists.
....

Thanks for your insight Ken. I think that I am going to hold-off on the $180/hr that my FBO is charging for their new glass panel 182. It sure looks nice ... but at those prices I'm not convinced that it is worth it.

 

[lsimonds]

Danny,

I agree with Ken's comment. With enough time, the steam gauge instrumentation will go the way of Lindbergh's pocket watch hanging from the compass.

I plan to pony up the $$ to use a G1000 C182 for IR training for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is so cool for me and impressive to friends and family.

My flying experience is limited to under 400 hours in VFR, plus what I've observed in airline jumpseats over the years. But I've watched technology in air traffic evolve over 20 years, and it has needed to. When I was a new enroute radar controller, we still had broadband available as a backup. Now the backup system so mirrors the HOST that a switchover is almost transparent. Color radar displays help terminal controllers filter information during their traffic scan, and data block advances help enrouters manage traffic management initiatives and RVSM eligibility. They NEED the new technology to manage a more complex system than I worked way back when. That's kinda how I see it as a pilot. The system is growing more and more complex and any edge that lets the pilot devote more time to another task is worth it's weight in gold. It could make a difference in survivability when the risk factors start multiplying for whatever reason. The NAS isn't really that accommodating to non-professional single-pilot operations, but technology helps level the playing field. Perhaps being a 100-200 hour a year pilot is more of a reason to invest, not less.

Those are my thoughts, but in the end I have to be honest and say it's the cool-quotient rather than safety that really pushes me over the edge..

Lisa

 

[Ken Ibold]

Those are my thoughts, but in the end I have to be honest and say it's the cool-quotient rather than safety that really pushes me over the edge..

I agree with that. The cool factor and the added capability are strong inducements. In my case, however, the mandatory 12-hour checkout (10 on the panel, 2 on the airplane) for the Cirrus -- at more than $200 per hour -- breaks the bank. I like it, but I don't like it enough to spend more than $2500 on the checkout.

 

[LvPilot]

Danny,

... They NEED the new technology to manage a more complex system than I worked way back when. That's kinda how I see it as a pilot. The system is growing more and more complex and any edge that lets the pilot devote more time to another task is worth it's weight in gold. It could make a difference in survivability when the risk factors start multiplying for whatever reason. The NAS isn't really that accommodating to non-professional single-pilot operations, but technology helps level the playing field. Perhaps being a 100-200 hour a year pilot is more of a reason to invest, not less....

Lisa

:zap!: Very compelling points Lisa! Maybe I 've been too hasty in poo pooing the idea of using the new C182 for IR training. But darn .. it is expensive. I keep thinking that handhelds are becoming so powerful, so quickly that you can have virtually the same thing in the palm of your hand for thousands of dollars less. Then again, I don't know enough about the glass panels to know if that is really true.

Danny

 

[rpadula]

However, they also push you more in the direction of systems management, which you may or may not like. The more advanced systems may take more effort to retain proficiency, or they may take less. I don't have enough experience with them to know. But I think it says something that in the Cirrus there is a checklist to keep track of your checklists.

Ken,

Could you expand on this line of thinking? In a single-engine plane, are we not basically managing the same systems, even with a glass panel? I guess there'd be tighter integration with nav/com/autopilot, but I can't really think of anything else...

Guess I should go find out. There's a Diamond 40 with a G1000 over at my home field for $150/hr I think.


-Rich

 

[river_rat]

:zap!: Very compelling points Lisa! Maybe I 've been too hasty in poo pooing the idea of using the new C182 for IR training. But darn .. it is expensive. I keep thinking that handhelds are becoming so powerful, so quickly that you can have virtually the same thing in the palm of your hand for thousands of dollars less. Then again, I don't know enough about the glass panels to know if that is really true.

Danny

You could try the G-1000 DA-40's at First Flight, it is probably $30-$40/hour
cheaper.

greg

 

[lsimonds]

:zap!: Very compelling points Lisa! Maybe I 've been too hasty in poo pooing the idea of using the new C182 for IR training. But darn .. it is expensive. I keep thinking that handhelds are becoming so powerful, so quickly that you can have virtually the same thing in the palm of your hand for thousands of dollars less. Then again, I don't know enough about the glass panels to know if that is really true.

Danny

Danny,

It is all SO expensive. I didn't fly for many years because it just seemed like a frivolous hobby, but do I love it! I can't afford the IR training now in the glass panel or a cheaper airplane, more than that, I can't afford to fly enough to stay IR proficient. But I'm a-workin' on it! Happy flying to you!

 

[lsimonds]

Oops, one more thing I meant to mention. See, for me, and I'm may be one of a certain group of people, the hand-held would be a distraction. It would be helpful, but I would still be multi-tasking, and it would interupt my scan, etc. Some people are better at working between a couple of things than I am. Just one personal limitation I have to take into account.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Could you expand on this line of thinking? In a single-engine plane, are we not basically managing the same systems, even with a glass panel? I guess there'd be tighter integration with nav/com/autopilot, but I can't really think of anything else...

The problems I see are several.

1) The sophistication of the system means you have to understand how all the various components work together, and how failure of one cascades throughout.

2) The switchology depends a lot on soft keys ... buttons that change purpose depending on which menu is active at the time. So if you want to do something, I dunno, change altimeter setting or something, you have to know which submenu it's in, find it, switch it, and turn it back.

3) The capabilities induce people to load them up with stuff. Let's say you're switching from an airplane with a couple of nav comms, a DME, ADF and maybe an IFR GPS. Now suddenly you have traffic watch and stormscope overlaid on a moving map that also shows terrain and flight plan. What do all the symbols mean? How do you declutter? What are the weak spots in the info you have? You have to know it now and know it cold.

Like I said, I don't have a lot of experience with these things. I've flown the Avidyne a handful of times and I haven't flown a G1000 yet. But the mere fact that they're talking 10-hour minimum panel transition time is a little telling. I would think it was just a revenue-producing ploy, but somebody in one of the aviation mags ... Goyer? ... said that's what it took him to transition when he bought into a fractional.

 

[spiderweb]

Right now, it is just too much money for me to get checked out in one. There is a minimum of 9 hours air and 4 ground at the local place. While I think that is reasonable, I'd much prefer to put the towards a multi certificate.