Instrument training with a glass cockpit

[Nav8tor]

In another thread involving options for instrument training in the Phila area, two of the recomended FBO's have aircraft with glass cockpits.

This got me thinking about the relative advantages/disadvantages of training with state of the art glass cockpits versus traditional steam gauges.

I have no experience with glass cockpits, but I would think that they would be better for flying IFR since the information is presented in a manner that reduces visual scan requirements and they can be configured to show the information pertainent to a specific phase of flight to help with improved situational awareness.

The downside as I see it is that a pilot doing his/her training 100% in a glass cockpit would have a difficult time transitioning to instrument flying in a traditional cockpit. This being the case, unless the instrument student owns the aircraft or intends to do all of his/her training in the glass cockpit aircraft my advise would be to train in a traditional cockpit.

Your thoughts?......

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

In another thread involving options for instrument training in the Phila area, two of the recomended FBO's have aircraft with glass cockpits.

This got me thinking about the relative advantages/disadvantages of training with state of the art glass cockpits versus traditional steam gauges.

I have no experience with glass cockpits, but I would think that they would be better for flying IFR since the information is presented in a manner that reduces visual scan requirements and they can be configured to show the information pertainent to a specific phase of flight to help with improved situational awareness.

The downside as I see it is that a pilot doing his/her training 100% in a glass cockpit would have a difficult time transitioning to instrument flying in a traditional cockpit. This being the case, unless the instrument student owns the aircraft or intends to do all of his/her training in the glass cockpit aircraft my advise would be to train in a traditional cockpit.

Your thoughts?......

You're on the money. This is a complicated issue for instrument training right now. The FAA, flight schools, CFIs, and renter/owner pilots are all wrestling with it.

The challenge seems to be jumping backwards into "conventional" cockpits, as you've described. Six-pack scanning and interpretation skills can be transitioned relatively easily into glass cockpits, but the reverse doesn't appear to be true.

And I'm afraid there are no good answers I'm aware of right now. We must hope, and trust, each pilot dealing with issues related to conventional vs. glass instrumentation to make safe decisions when it comes to exercising the privileges of their instrument rating.

 

[poadeleted20]

What Ryan said. Plus the fact that switching from a Garmin G1000 to an Avidyne Entegra isn't like switching from a King KX-175 to a Narco MK-12. The basic functionality is so totally different that you really have to go back to school to switch from one system to the other. This is a challenge for trainers as well as users.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

What Ryan said. Plus the fact that switching from a Garmin G1000 to an Avidyne Entegra isn't like switching from a King KX-175 to a Narco MK-12. The basic functionality is so totally different that you really have to go back to school to switch from one system to the other. This is a challenge for trainers as well as users.

Those two points, plus that the FAA textbook training regarding potential systems failures lacks the electronics failure points found in a glass cockpit.

 

[Stache]

As I see it right now the FBO are handing it out. Say a pilot rents a SR-22 and get 2 maybe 3 hours flight time enought to meet the insurance requirements. Then has a accident, can you guess who is at fault?

1. FBO
2. CFI
3. Pilot
4. Local Airport

All four will be named in the law suite. This is why CFI's need to carry insurance to protect themselves and make sure their students are really trained correctly. From the cases I have seen the pilot always blame their CFI's for not training them or the FBO for not providing more trianing. In this case everyone loses.

I can for see a rating system like Europe has with class rating in the future because of the accident rates and law suits.

Stache

 

[BruceAir]

You will find much useful information about this topic in the new Technologically Advanced Aircraft Special Report, available on the AOPA Air Safety Foundation Web site.

I have also written about this topic, which is a special interest of mine because the flight school where I teach has a growing fleet of glass cockpit aircraft, including several versions of the G1000 and the Avidyne system.

You'll also find a lot of useful information on the FITS Web site maintained by the FAA and a consortium of aircraft and avionics manufacturers and training organizations like UND Aerospace and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. That site has many useful resources and provides much background on the topic of Technologically Advanced Aircraft (TAA).

For example, the FITS site and the FAA Designee Update site include a relatively new document from Garmin, "Guidance for Designated Pilot Examiners and Certified Flight Instructors on using Garmin G1000 Equipped Aircraft for Instrument Rating Training and Practical Examinations." It describes specifically how instructors (and examiners) can simulate various failures during training and practical tests and provides guidance about how to ensure that pilots flying G1000-equipped airlines can understand and cope with problems.

(The Designee Update site is a gold mine for instructors, pilots working on new certificates and ratings, and examiners. It contains online versions of newsletters that cover a wide range of topics, including issues related to glass cockpits.)

The latest PTS for the airplane instrument rating also contains specific guidance for examiners who administer practical tests in glass-cockpit aircraft.

 

[Larry Liebscher]

What is nice about forums like this is that I can post stuff without any experience. authority, or slightest idea of what I'm talking about. So here goes.

Not only does it seem like a big problem for those training in glass and then moving into steam guages, but the other way around is also fraught with danger. I just don't know which is harder, having done neither.

It used to be that you could move from plane to plane and the guages and radios worked pretty much the same. Heck, when I look into the cockpit of some DC-9's it all looks pretty familiar. But with all of the advanced electronics available today that are menu driven and non-standardized, it takes a lot of study and practice to become adept at just one layout. You can't assume that you can switch from one to the other effortlessly, especially for a low time pilot. It may be that choosing what you train in based on what you will be flying after you get your ticket is going to be even more important in the future.

Richard Collins remarked in his column this month that he had a 6 week layoff from instrument flying and found himself rusty in managing his Garmin 530. That should give those of us who fly infrequently a lot of pause.

As I said, I don't have personal experience with all these high end toys. Mine is very old time basic stuff. But I did recently purchase a new Honda minivan with a navigation system. I have been amazed at the number of times I have caught myself staring at the map or messing with some of the whizbang gadgets, only to realize that I have not been paying attention to the road. While all this stuff can be a help in many situations, such distractions may have increased the risk of simply driving to the neighborhood store compared to my old technologically challenged van.

Multiply the complexity, distractions, and consequences involved in IFR flying. I find it more than a little concerning.

 

[poadeleted20]

I can for see a rating system like Europe has with class rating in the future because of the accident rates and law suits.

I've spoken with the FITS people in AFS-800 about this, and their position is that they most definitely do NOT want to start trying to regulate this -- there are just too many variables and it takes so long to get a reg approved that they'd be 8 years behind the times. They told me that the FAA HQ plan is to NOT regulate, but rather to allow the insurance industry to force adequate standards on users, as they seem to be doing already (e.g., insurance not available on a Cirrus unless you go the factory school, the UND school, or a COPA-approved training program). Since the FAA can't be sued for failure to make regulations (see the Federal Tort Claims Act on "discretionary" activities -- the FAA can only be sued for failure to comply with the regulations that are written), law suits won't cause the FAA to regulate -- only Congressional and other political pressure can do that.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

In the Baron I just purchased, there is a 430/530 that cross feeds info; Sandel; WX500 and Garmin 330 traffic info. Color radar. We intend to add Nexrad weather when I get back from a trip. We spend most of the dual time required to be insured working on instrument approaches using these systems. Tough to get sim time or time with a CFI that understands each of these systems well in addition to knowing the P-Baron.

There were several things I noticed: If one made an error in setup, since the Sandel is coupled--it can automatically switch lubber lines. My old HSI stayed where you had put it; although it might not work properly. Now, a setup error is compounded. So, I've developed a set up check list. Actually, I know of several guys that have kept an ADF or HSI in a plane that was upgraded for this very reason!!

I'll put a back up 296 in here for cross check and in case I lose primary systems.

On the first flight, the first time we put an approach in, it cross feed, then switched to localizer when we wanted GPS (while being vectored out bound)-- really got my attention. Real easy to get behind the approach when everything on the Sandel just changes!! Then you find the 430/530 have changed from what you thought was put in!!

I plan to stay out of any heavy IFR until I completely understand and trust this new systems; even through we've made many approaches with them. Purchased the Garmin video and read a short course on the systems, but it doesn't explain how the interface with the Sandel works.

It's possible to mix and match systems in a manner today that can confuse almost anyone!! In that case, there needs to be a fallback. In my case, the 296 might do that. It would be nice to have a basic fallback that could be relied upon that is standardized in these new glass panel birds that allows basic nav and perhaps an instrument approach capability.

Best,

Dave
Baron 322KS

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

I plan to stay out of any heavy IFR until I completely understand and trust this new system; even through we've made many approaches with them. Purchased the Garmin video and read a short course on the systems, but it doesn't explain how the interface with the Sandel works.

It's possible to mix and match systems in a manner today that can confuse almost anyone!! In that case, there needs to be a fallback. In my case, the 296 might do that. It would be nice to have a basic fallback that could be relied upon that is standardized in these new glass panel birds that allows basic nav and perhaps an instrument approach capability.

Great post, Dave. This reminds me of a concept which was pounded into me almost from the very moment I started flying jets. It is called the "Golden Rule of Automation" and is very simple. The so-called Golden Rule is this: whenever the level of automation you're using becomes confusing, you step down a level without attempting to continue the operation using the previous method. If the Flight Director doesn't perform the way you expected, kill it and drop back to AP + raw data. If the autopilot is causing confusion, disconnect it and hand-fly.

Now that piston airplanes are becoming so advanced, avionics-wise, it's time those of us who fly them start thinking about applying the same concepts to our flying.

 

[grattonja]

I've got a couple of hours in the Diamondstar with the G1000 system. Not enough to qualify me to a real opinion but enough to get some impressions. We had a Diamondstar experienced CFI on board, but were mountain training in Co too, so there were various complications.

First, despite sitting back seat for several hours first, it took me a while just to locate and incorporate into my scan various engine management tools. The logic of location seemed good, but much different than what a steam gauge person is used to (by the way, we were CAVU VFR, so this was not IR training). Second, despite some familiarity by the CFI, we, none of us, were able to find everything. We found what we needed for VFR flight, but I would have needed at LEAST 10 hours in that thing, under a hood, with more hours before on the ground reading the manuals, to feel remotely comfortable entering a cloud. Third, it was distracting as hell. At one point, coming into Boulder, all three of us had our heads in the cockpit, watching targets materialize on the traffic reporting equipment on the right screen. I realized that at least one of us should have our head out the cockpit, watching the 12 or so gliders working the thermals in the foothills west of the airport, that we were now blithely plowing through. In all honestly, the traffic reporting equipment was less help that hindrance under those conditions.

I am looking forward to our cessna pilot center getting a G1000 hawk in the next year. I will be in a platform that I could fly without instruments at this point, and will be able to go up with a CFI and really concentrate on learning the systems. But... I think all of us who are used to steam gauges, even those used to GPS, are going to be very busy when we start transitioning to these glass cockpits. Just my 2 pennies.

Jim G

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Jim:
Your opinion seems to be right on to me!!

That's what Ryan put so succinctly and I stumbled around with. Really, there are just a few essential instruments that need to be watched to control the plane. Then, those need to be cross checked. Having a back up system you know, like the Garmin 296 and staying out of challenging conditions until you really know the systems is one way to make the transition.

In each of my planes when making a transition, I first focused on basic systems and safely controlling the aircraft; then, moved into the peripheral systems.

Best,

Dave
Baron 322KS

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I can see the day where rental pilots will need a "qual card" for specific glass cockpits.

It's hard enough now for me to adapt to the various loran and gps installations I deal with among a half dozen different available aircraft for rent.

Steam gages I can handle.

Steve,

That makes me wonder how many people will end up using the "backup" steam gauges as primary.

One problem we may well end up with soon in my flying club - We're planning on selling one of our Archers in the next year or so and upgrading. There are two main camps right now, the Diamond Star camp and the New 172 camp. If we end up with a new 172, we'll have three airplanes with IFR GPS - One King, one Apollo, and one Garmin! Yikes! (Personally, I'm gunning for a Garmin-equipped Diamond Star, then we'll only have one different GPS.)

I think there will have to be some standardization on the glass panels. In the 60's and before we had "shotgun" panels, then the human factors people came up with the six-pack that makes it so easy for us to transition between steam-gauge planes today. I think the same thing will eventually happen with the glass panels, and that is when they will become more viable for instrument (and other) training.

 

[poadeleted20]

That makes me wonder how many people will end up using the "backup" steam gauges as primary.

Not possible -- there aren't enough of them, particularly with the G1000 which eliminates the actual radios from the cockpit and provides access to navigation and communication ONLY via the G1000 system. The backup gauges are only airspeed, altimeter, and AI, which aren't enough to fly on other than in an emergency, and in some aircraft, they are very awkwardly located. Unlike traditionally instrumented planes with, say, a Garmin 430 in addition to more traditional avionics, where you can just ignore the 430 and fly "normally" with the other radios and instruments, if you fly a glass panel airplane, glass panel will be your primary -- period.