Is it cheating

[Ted]

LOL- Count on Ted to .

Don't see how I'm doing that. I do see people who seem to be missing what I've said repeatedly.

I'm not even sure if the original question has been answered. Perhaps we just took the circuitous route there?

I think it was answered repeatedly, there's just been a lot of thread creep. Mostly misunderstandings.

 

[Alexb2000]

Who said that? Nobody I saw...

"No, it does not do that. It makes you a more capable IFR pilot, but not safer."

"Not safer."

"I will say it is certainly not essential to safe flying"

"all that technology becomes merely "nice to have" rather than "you bet your life on it."

"whether you are "safer" or not does not follow technology"

Sometimes it's hard to make a point without writing a book and brevity can certainly lead to mis-understanding. The OP asked whether using SVT, LVL, was "cheating". I believe that it isn't cheating, but a way to increase safety above the basics and deserving of more than, "look at the pretty pictures that you don't really need" training. The people who I quoted above apparently do not believe so, that's fine by me.

Look at any conversation about any aspect of TAA aircraft. Supporters will automatically be thrown into a stereotypical "plastic" pilot cast. Someone who never looks out the window, never hand flys, never flys partial panel, declares an emergency if the GPS fails, can't tune a VOR, can't tell time, needs to watch a 20 minute video on technology dependance, etc.

I fly a lot in the Rockies, every year there are good pilots killed in CFIT events and many more close calls. This isn't the same thing as flying 4,000 AGL over the plains where a loss of situational awareness or navigational error doesn't mean anything except now you have to figure out where you are. I'm flying in an environment where you are in constant close proximity to the rocks, couple that with reduced visibility (night, IMC, smoke, etc.), and you have a scenario that doesn't forgive the slightest navigational error or loss of situational awareness. Couple this with the reality that all humans at all skill levels make mistakes and you can see why we lose people every year.

I may not be able to carry a flight bag for some on here, but I still firmly believe that technology like SVT does increase safety in my operations.

 

[Jaybird180]

The OP asked whether using SVT, LVL, was "cheating".

Here's what I said

Synthetic Vision during IFR training
-Sythetic vision provides an outside view on a glass cockpit equipped airplane.
Cirrus's LVL function in the Perspective System during PPL training
- LVL function is a 1 button that is advertised to recover the airplane from any attitude and return the aircraft to straight and level.

Thoughts?

I say yes to both, they are cheating.

I read an article about Aspen's CEO getting his IR and he used it during training. I am dubious about the value of Synth Vis during training.

Also, one of the best things about PPL training is gaining the confidence of "yes, I can do this" and knowing that you can bring yourself safely back to earth. LVL command somewhat takes this away by providing an electronic Flight Instructor (so to speak).

It was then reiterated here:

I think the concensus is that for operational to use all available tools. I'm asking about primary training. I've already decided what my course of action will be during IR training. I just hope that my CFII agrees that /A is the way to go initially and then bringing the GPS into the picture, handflying approaches and then as I prepare for the checkride, doing coupled approaches.

I hope that clarifies.

 

[Jaybird180]

Don't see how I'm doing that.

LoL- My original comment stands Sir.

 

[Wingsofglass]

Another way to look at this question is by focusing on margin of safety rather than proficiency. While proficiency increases margin of safety, it is only one part of the puzzle. The truth is, unless you are pulling 9gs at corner velocity trying to get missile lock on a Mig hell-bent on evil, there is never a reason to be on the edge of your plane’s performance envelope flying GA. Even in a 152, if you have to use every horsepower available to clear those trees at the end of the runway, you have sacrificed margin of safety in a dangerous and foolish way.

While this seems obvious, the mistake people make is to limit their thinking on margin of safety to just the airframe and power plant. Sure no sane pilot routinely pulls 4g turns in the pattern (unless one is performing an overhead break, in which case all sorts of reckless flying is both encouraged and appreciated) but the same logic holds true to pilot and avionics. If you are flying home at night after working an 18 hour day, you are flying on the edge of the envelope of the pilot, which blows all your margin of safety in whatever skill level the pilot has.

The same can be said of the avionics. If you are flying VFR out of an airport at night in the mountains and are totally relying on SVT to keep out of the dirt, you have sacrificed all margin of safety and SVT affords no benefit as you fly on the ragged edge of your avionics performance envelope. On the other hand, fly under those same circumstances IFR or at least a DP using SVT, a moving map and VORs dialed in as a backup and now you have a situation where this technology truly does increase safety because it provides more of a margin in safety. In short, you are flying without putting yourself in a single point of failure situation which inherently is safer.

I still maintain that if your plane has SVT, you are better of getting your rating with the technology because what really matters is that you learn how to fly with multiple systems failures which again increases your margin of safety. Not to beat a dead horse but if the only way you can keep your wings level is by putting the fight path marker through the rectangles, you have no margin of safety and have no business flying in the clouds. On the other hand, I would feel much safer sitting in the backseat with a pilot with 1,000 hours behind an SVT G1000 that knows and is proficient at handling all its failure modes than with a pilot who is awesome at flying a six pack in IMC but has little time with the G1000. If the AHRS goes out low on the approach and you can immediately transition to flying a glideslope and knowing where to look for ground track and groundspeed information, your chances are much better than someone who is trying to figure out what just happened and put it in a six pack frame of reference. The same of course holds true in reverse.

 

[TMetzinger]

Jay, to your original question.

Nothing wrong with training in an SVT airplane. But if you never turn it off and learn to fly to standards without it, you've certainly been cheated of learning skills you WILL need someday.

Now, after you've mastered the airplane from the fundamentals up, then you are cheating yourself if you're not thoughtfully using the capabilities to have to maximize safety. That can include, in certain situations, going "old school" and flying the plane using raw data instead of trying to enter 7 PBD* waypoints to create the perfect arc or procedure turn in the flight plan. Or as we saw in the video, manually putting in the ILS freq and sidestepping to a new runway, and getting set up to fly the missed manually.



*PBD= Place/Bearing/Distance. If I wanted to create a 10 mile arc around the FDK VOR I might enter something like

FDK010/10
FDK020/10
FDK030/10
FDK040/10
FDK050/10
FDK060/10
FDK070/10
FDK080/10

To describe 70 degrees of the ardc.

 

[Ted]

Alright, we're having a failure to communicate here.

1) Safe flight is perfectly doable without SVT, GPS, etc. Millions of flight hours have shown this

2) If you choose to make unsafe decisions as a pilot, then no amount of safety features will help you. Safety starts at home, before you even leave the house

3) A proper implementation of these new avionics tools is to be an addition to safety, not as a replacement for a safe mindset and basic situational awareness

4) A proper understanding of flight without the gee-whiz-bang tools will make you a safer pilot when flying with the gee-whiz-bang tools.

5) I personally do like having them. I know how to operate without them. Where they improve safety for me is, if I screw up, they catch me before I hit the mountain. So far, never needed them. But I am human, and therefore I can screw up

6) To clearly answer the OP's question (well, at least clear as mud): Legally, it's not cheating. As a CFII, though, I believe that it is "cheating" in the sense that it cheats the student out of being forced to build a good situational awareness. It seems that most CFIIs I know agree with me. The ones that don't are the ones who also put Cherokees into holding patterns for extended periods of time in actual icing, just to scare their students. Not smart.

 

[L.Adamson]

Jay, to your original question.

Nothing wrong with training in an SVT airplane. But if you never turn it off and learn to fly to standards without it, you've certainly been cheated of learning skills you WILL need someday.

They'll never admit that the standards...............aren't even close to the precision and situational knowlege that's available with today's equipment.

But that's okay...........according to some. We'll just still run into mountains, attempt takeoffs & crash on the wrong runways, violate airspace, fly inefficient routing, guess on the weather, etc. So...........do turn that equipment off.............just for the sake of doing like they had to...

Standards & Skill-----------when it refers to old school is non-sense...period!
It's promoted by old timer CFI's who are still uncomfortable with new electronic systems, and don't have desire to get training from someone else....let alone keep up with the new skills required.

L.Adamson --- an old timer myself.

 

[Ted]

It's promoted by old timer CFI's who are still uncomfortable with new electronic systems, and don't have desire to get training from someone else....let alone keep up with the new skills required.

Where do you get that idea, seeing as several of the "old timer CFIs" are people who have the most experience, the most training, and are the ones who probably fly with more modern tools than most of the new-fangled folk?

 

[L.Adamson]

Alright, we're having a failure to communicate here.

1) Safe flight is perfectly doable without SVT, GPS, etc. Millions of flight hours have shown this

B.S.--- I have decades (since the 1930's) of accident reports that say otherwise. Thousands of lives could have easily been saved, had this technology been available back then. In fact, thousand of lives could have been saved with cheap handheld portables, had the technology been there.

L.Adamson

 

[Ted]

B.S.--- I have decades (since the 1930's) of accident reports that say otherwise. Thousands of lives could have easily been saved, had this technology been available back then. In fact, thousand of lives could have been saved with cheap handheld portables, had the technology been there.

B.S. You have no way of knowing that those lives would've been saved, and that people wouldn't have made just as many bad decisions. We know this to be true because, even with all the new gee-whiz-bangs, people still make bad decisions and kill themselves.

It is needless. They could have made a smarter decision before leaving the house.

 

[L.Adamson]

Where do you get that idea, seeing as several of the "old timer CFIs" are people who have the most experience, the most training, and are the ones who probably fly with more modern tools than most of the new-fangled folk?

Because I'm nearly 61, an airport bum, plane owner, etc, and have many friends and associates who are airline pilots, as well as CFI's..................and know exactly what goes on.

 

[L.Adamson]

B.S. You have no way of knowing that those lives would've been saved, and that people wouldn't have made just as many bad decisions. We know this to be true because, even with all the new gee-whiz-bangs, people still make bad decisions and kill themselves.

It is needless. They could have made a smarter decision before leaving the house.

The **** I don't!!!!!!

I damn well know. But, I have to leave now...

 

[Alexb2000]

Seriously, it's a bad debate tool to personally insult ("so damn good") the other side. It's actually penalty points at formal debate....which is as it should be.

Your prior post:

Everyone knows I don't suffer fools well. I'm done with you two. You don't have to stay here- go google flying 2.0 and drink the kool-aid. Bye

I'll take my point deduction, how about you?

You're still not getting the difference between CAPABILITY and SAFETY. And, in the end, you're probably flying a piston single, and that is the greatest limitation to Capability, in any case. What the pilot DOES with capability might or might not create safety; that depends on judgement.

Capability in my mind is the ability to climb at 3,000' a minute, or a service ceiling, etc. TCAS for example doesn't change the capabilities of the aircraft it's installed in. It only serves to increase safety by directing a pilots attention to relevant traffic, the pilot still has to use the capabilities of the aircraft to avoid.

I just don't see how SVT changes capability. If you lost situational awareness and SVT showed terrain ahead, that's just a safety feature like TCAS, but it won't change your climb rate.

And looking at the roster of posters who have commented, there's in excess of 50,000 hours who are not convinced that the tools make safety.

How many of the 50,000 hours do the posters have using SVT in real operations? No, I don't mean rolling along on a VFR training flight in an aircraft that happens to have SVT, I mean actually using it in an operation where it's relevant? I gave an example on page one that I doubt many pilots have ever tried, given that no one took the golden opportunity to tell me how little I know, I still suspect that's true.

 

[Ted]

The **** I don't!!!!!!

I damn well know. But, I have to leave now...

Go on thinking that, then... You clearly don't understand how much people can fail, regardless of the tools they're given.

 

[Ted]

I just don't see how SVT changes capability. If you lost situational awareness and SVT showed terrain ahead, that's just a safety feature like TCAS, but it won't change your climb rate.

It may increase your ability to realize 'Oh crap, I'm in a bad spot" and perhaps fix something before you hit the mountain.

A lightly loaded G-V can't outlcimb a mountain if not given appropriate notice.

 

[Alexb2000]

It may increase your ability to realize 'Oh crap, I'm in a bad spot" and perhaps fix something before you hit the mountain.

A lightly loaded G-V can't outlcimb a mountain if not given appropriate notice.

Exactly, 100% agreement. It may be a lot of semantics, but I call that an increase in safety.

 

[poadeleted20]

Nothing wrong with training in an SVT airplane. But if you never turn it off and learn to fly to standards without it, you've certainly been cheated of learning skills you WILL need someday.

...starting with your IR practical test when your primary flight instrument is turned off or covered. FWIW, by regulation, I must train you to fly without that gear as well as with it. If I sign you off for your IR practical test having trained you only with all that gear operational, I have technically violated 14 CFR 61.59 by falsely certifying that you have received all the training required by 14 CFR 61.65 and are prepared for the IR practical test.

 

[Ted]

Exactly, 100% agreement. It may be a lot of semantics, but I call that an increase in safety.

It is a lot of semantics, and other than Adamson (who seems to believe people are not at fault for making bad decisions, and extra tools will overcome bad decisions), I think most of this discussion doesn't have a huge disagreement. Just different wording.

What it ultimately comes down to, is a bad pilot will make a bad decision, regardless of the tools afforded him or her. A good pilot will use the tools to his or her advantage.

People make bad decisions, people make mistakes, and some days it's just not your day. These extra tools can help rectify mistakes. They may help with bad decisions, although never universally. When it's not your day, it's just not your day.

 

[Everskyward]

Experienced pilots flying sophisticated airplanes make mistakes too. You only need to look at Air France 447 to see that.

 

[Ted]

Experienced pilots flying sophisticated airplanes make mistakes too. You only need to look at Air France 447 to see that.

Exactly.

 

[bbchien]

How many of the 50,000 hours do the posters have using SVT in real operations?

I see. Flight without SVT doesn't count. Sheesh. Not only is that bogus, but you won't find support for that in the AIM, or anywhere in the FAA.

Yeah, I'll take a point too. But you have to reconcile yourself to the rest of the herd. (...why am I arguing with a kid, without a real name?)

 

[Alexb2000]

I see. Flight without SVT doesn't count. Sheesh. Not only is that bogus, but you won't find support for that in the AIM, or anywhere in the FAA.

I am not trying to discount anyones experience nor offend anyone, I'm simply saying that it's presumptuous to make an absolute judgement about something until you really fly it in an operation for which it is designed.

Does NASA count?

Here is an portion from a NASA study on SVT:

4.1. Safety Benefits
Synthetic Vision Systems are characterized by the ability to represent visual information and cues of the environment external to the aircraft that are intuitive and resemble visual flight conditions with unlimited ceiling and visibility. In terms of safety benefits, synthetic vision may help to reduce many accident precursors including:
• Loss of vertical and lateral path and terrain awareness
• Loss of terrain and traffic awareness
• Unclear escape or go-around path even after recognition of problem
• Loss of altitude awareness
• Loss of situation awareness relating to the runway environment and incursions
• Unclear path guidance on the surface
• Unusual attitude / upset recognition
• Runway incursions
• Non-compliance with Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearances
• Transition from instruments to visual flight
• Spatial disorientation
These safety benefits are particularly evident during non-normal and emergency situations. In these non-normal events, mental workload and tasking/attentional demands placed on the pilot are high. Synthetic vision systems, through their intuitive display and presentation methods, off-load the pilots from basic spatial awareness tasking (to avoid terrain, traffic, and obstacles) and increase their speed of situation recognition.
4.2. Operational Benefits
The aviation safety benefits alone of synthetic vision may be reason enough to pursue the technology, but operational and economic benefits must be considered for Part 121 and 135 operations because of the costs associated with implementation of these systems. Analyses have demonstrated that synthetic vision could serve to increase national airspace system capacity by providing the potential for increased visual-like operations gate-to-gate even under extreme visibility restricted weather conditions (e.g., Category IIIb minimums). For example, a NASA-sponsored cost-benefit analysis of 10 major US airports calculated the average cost savings to airlines for the years 2006 to 2015 to be $2.25 Billion. While these savings are predicated on several technology developments and success implementation/certification, this analysis indicates the potential order of magnitude savings and operational efficiencies offered by these technologies. Operational benefits of synthetic vision systems may include:

Here is the link to the document:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090007635_2009006413.pdf

 

[bbchien]

...and it has not been shown to reduce accidents. Theory vs. Fact.

Safety is what the pilot decides to do with the information. It's well known that when you give a farmer a wider tractor, he just tills further up the hill on the back 40.

Capability it the ability to till further up that hill.

They are NOT the same thing. See the Oxford English Dictionary. You have to possess the right tools for such a debate before starting.

 

[TMetzinger]

They'll never admit that the standards...............aren't even close to the precision and situational knowlege that's available with today's equipment.

But that's okay...........according to some. We'll just still run into mountains, attempt takeoffs & crash on the wrong runways, violate airspace, fly inefficient routing, guess on the weather, etc. So...........do turn that equipment off.............just for the sake of doing like they had to...

Standards & Skill-----------when it refers to old school is non-sense...period!
It's promoted by old timer CFI's who are still uncomfortable with new electronic systems, and don't have desire to get training from someone else....let alone keep up with the new skills required.

L.Adamson --- an old timer myself.

I'm on my first CFI certificate, and I do "gadgets" for a living. I'm very comfortable using high amounts of cockpit automation.

In that discussion about the runway switch and the FO going heads down with the FMS... I'm one of the geeks who could reprogram the FMS very quickly for the other approach and give the captain LNAV to the localizer and have the missed approach ready in about 20 seconds. That doesn't stop me from recognizing that it's not required, and in THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION (busy terminal airspace, VFR, high workload) it's probably NOT enhancing of safety to do this, since I bet policy would require the captain to review my FMS changes before I execute them.

You keep coming up with reasons the people who disagree with you are wrong, often attributing attitudes and statements to them which are not in evidence. That says more about you than it does about the topic under discussion.

Anyway, I'm gonna join Ron over in the corner, as we're at the horse and water stage here.

 

[Everskyward]

I am not trying to discount anyones experience nor offend anyone, I'm simply saying that it's presumptuous to make an absolute judgement about something until you really fly it in an operation for which it is designed.

The OP asked about synthetic vision in the context of getting a private. This was not what it was designed for. You should be using your real vision instead of looking at a screen.

 

[Alexb2000]

...why am I arguing with a kid, without a real name?)

I didn't want to admit this, but you're right; the 2000 in my ID is when I was born.

BTW- I can only continue this debate until my mom comes home.

 

[Alexb2000]

The OP asked about synthetic vision in the context of getting a private. This was not what it was designed for. You should be using your real vision instead of looking at a screen.

Before the OP jumps in to correct again. It was actually using SVT for instrument training.

Once again, I'm not advocating changing any aspect of the basics or how they are taught. I am suggesting that if SVT will be available on the aircraft that the student will be flying it deserves some focused training as well, maybe at the end of the course. Why not send someone out into the clouds using everything they can to stay safe?

 

[Jaybird180]

Before the OP jumps in to correct again. It was actually using SVT for instrument training.

Once again, I'm not advocating changing any aspect of the basics or how they are taught. I am suggesting that if SVT will be available on the aircraft that the student will be flying it deserves some focused training as well, maybe at the end of the course. Why not send someone out into the clouds using everything they can to stay safe?

I think Ron said that.

 

[Alexb2000]

Capability it the ability to till further up that hill.

They are NOT the same thing. See the Oxford English Dictionary. You have to possess the right tools for such a debate before starting.

Do you feel better ending every response with some condescending comment?

I'm offering you new information, more than my opinion, and suggesting that you give SVT a try before you pass judgement.

Apparently, you can't offer much more than repeating a tractor analogy.

Does SVT change the flight characteristics of the aircraft? No.
Does SVT allow IFR operations to a different set of limits (i.e. minimums)? No.
Does SVT allow for a different form of navigation? No.
Does SVT allow for a change in VFR operations requirements? No.
Does SVT change/influence the decision making process for any flight? No.

So how does it change capability (Oxford English Definition)? Or in your language, how does it allow you to till further up the hill?

 

[Jaybird180]

Does SVT change the flight characteristics of the aircraft? No.
Does SVT allow IFR operations to a different set of limits (i.e. minimums)? No.
Does SVT allow for a different form of navigation? No.
Does SVT allow for a change in VFR operations requirements? No.
Does SVT change/influence the decision making process for any flight? No.

So how does it change capability (Oxford English Definition)? Or in your language, how does it allow you to till further up the hill?

Wait a second...you're telling me that if I have SVT, I can't fly VFR into IMC?

 

[poadeleted20]

I think Ron said that.

Indeed I did, right up at the front.

Don't misunderstand -- you will learn how to use everything in the plane if you train with me. But you'll also learn how to continue flying safely without each of those features, too, just so's I know a single failure won't kill you. I do the same with non-TAA planes, e.g. you learn raw VOR without the GPS first, then you learn to integrate the GPS, and you learn to hand-fly everything before you get to use the autopilot.

And I think I later pointed out that the IR PTS requires that you be able to use every system in installed the aircraft.

But I also noted that it also requires that you be able to perform a nonprecision approach with the magic stuff out of commission. And having seen PFD's go black, and the GPS INTEG light come on, I'm all in favor of the FAA's position on that.

As for which to train first (fundamentals or with all the gizmos), my 1500 hours of instrument flight training given and uncounted hours of instrument sim training given suggest to me that you do better if you start with the fundamental skills and then learn how automation can take the load off. My observation is that people do a better job with the gadgetry (especially knowing when the gadgets are leading them astrary due to malfunction or misprogramming) if they have a firm grasp of the basics first. But that's just a subjective conclusion based on my years of instrument flight instructing experience with such systems, not a regulatory matter, and thus is subject to reconsideration based on actual flight training experience and results.

 

[TMetzinger]

Before the OP jumps in to correct again. It was actually using SVT for instrument training.

Once again, I'm not advocating changing any aspect of the basics or how they are taught. I am suggesting that if SVT will be available on the aircraft that the student will be flying it deserves some focused training as well, maybe at the end of the course. Why not send someone out into the clouds using everything they can to stay safe?

If that's your position, then we're in agreement. Glad we got there before your mom came home.:wink2:

I believe Henning first came up with the idea in this thread (or another) about altering the training for the IR based on SVT and it's ability to turn IMC into SVMC (Synthetic Visual Meteorological Conditions - This acronym is copyright 2012 Metzinger Air Services LLC all rights reserved ).

An instructors job is to ensure that his student knows how to use everything in his airplane and meet the practical test standards for knowledge and skill. If the student desires and his budget allows, he may wish supplemental training in more capable systems his airplane doesn't have, which can be accomplished with aircraft or training devices or even supervised ground study.

I recently spent a few hours with an older pilot who was getting ready to put in an IFR GPS in his airplane (PA32 which currently has a KNS80 and a 155), and we covered GPS 101 and 201 and ended up with a discussion of WAAS and LPV approaches. The simulators I have for different units on my laptop came in handy. I think he's now torn between a used 430W or 530W and the brand new Garmin units.

 

[TMetzinger]

My observation is that people do a better job with the gadgetry (especially knowing when the gadgets are leading them astrary due to malfunction or misprogramming) if they have a firm grasp of the basics first. But that's just a subjective conclusion based on my years of instrument flight instructing experience with such systems, not a regulatory matter, and thus is subject to reconsideration based on actual flight training experience and results.

That's been my experience with EVERY "gadget" in every field I've ever worked:

• Mixdown automation on a high-end mixing console is best taught AFTER the student masters all the EQ/Dynamics/Signal Routing and can do a good mix in real time. Then you get into how automation can take the load off.
• Automatic defibrillation/cardioversion is best taught to paramedics AFTER they can reliably recognize the different dysrhythmias and know how to treat them.
• Scripted responses in an IT system are best implemented only after the geek knows what each individual command does and why it's used.
• Autopilots are best taught after the student has the fundamentals of flight and the workings of all the systems (primarily the aileron, elevator, and elevator trim in light training airplanes) mastered.

The commonality? Knowing the fundamentals allows you to notice when the automation is doing something different than you intended, or reaching a limit.

 

[denverpilot]

There's a side of me that's screaming "the fundamentals of driving a car used to include manually setting the spark timing via a lever"!

"Hard" *Fundamentals* don't change.

Time, Speed, Distance. But...

In Instrument flying, there's been multiple technology upgrade disruptions going on for years now, with little chance that will slow down.

GPS, displays based on what the designer wants to "draw" not what a needle hooked to a magnet will show when a voltage is applied. Colors, etc.

Early GPS systems went out of their way to display the data in formats people used to seeing on traditional gauges. A virtual HSI setting, for example. Still do.

Henning's looking ahead to the next generation. The system displays the world outside, has built in backup enough to trust it, and the needles, dials, and gauges fade into history as better ways to display that information are accepted -- by the humans used to looking at those older devices.

We are the weak part of that chain right now. It takes people a while to accept the new tech. And to pay for it too, I suppose. Since nothing new is ever cheap in tech.

 

[poadeleted20]

Once again, I'm not advocating changing any aspect of the basics or how they are taught. I am suggesting that if SVT will be available on the aircraft that the student will be flying it deserves some focused training as well, maybe at the end of the course. Why not send someone out into the clouds using everything they can to stay safe?

I'm glad you've come around to agreeing with what I said originally over a hundred posts back.

 

[Jaybird180]

Give a guy an opportunity to change his mind or expression.

Can we sing Kum-By-Ya now?

 

[TMetzinger]

Well if nothing else, I have my topic for this semester's research paper:

"How do advanced cockpit avionics alter flight operations in general aviation aircraft?"

 

[Alexb2000]

I'm glad you've come around to agreeing with what I said originally over a hundred posts back.

If we're on the same page I'm glad as well.

Since you train people to use SVT, I'm very interested in what kind of training you do with it?

 

[Alexb2000]

We are the weak part of that chain right now. It takes people a while to accept the new tech. And to pay for it too, I suppose. Since nothing new is ever cheap in tech.

Good post and so true. If you haven't seen it here is a good video of a 737NG night landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsG_rvyLnYQ

This will at least get rid of the "pilots don't look out the window anymore" complaint.

I love it.