TMetzinger
Final Approach
Well said. Much more concise and it doesn't ruffle feathers.
I might have to steal that.
Do it fast before the Internet gets shut down!
Well said. Much more concise and it doesn't ruffle feathers.
I might have to steal that.
I agree with this. For example, if your airplane doesn't have an ADF and you never intend to do an NDB approach then there really isn't any point in learning other than for curiosity's sake. In fact, even if you do learn and you never use it you'll forget pretty quickly. We don't make people learn the old four-course radio ranges either. I realize that NDB approaches are more common in other countries but many people will never go there.I think the answer here depends on whether or not you are cheating yourself. I got my IR in a G1000 with SVT. This made a lot of sense for me since it was my plane and some four years later, 99% of my hours are in that plane behind the same avionics package. IR training is a fantastic opportunity to gain proficiency with a G1000 since so much time is spent learning how to deal with failure modes. I think the pilot flying behind a G1000 with say an AHRS failure is better off if they are trained to land safely with that failure than a pilot with more limited G1000 experience but proficient with a six pack.
There is a big HOWEVER here. Because almost all my training and flight time is with SVT, I am in no way proficient to fly a six pack plane in IMC. I can fly a G1000 plane with SVT and any failure you can think of including two black screens, but that s not the same thing. I don't even think I would want to fly behind a G1000 without SVT in IMC unless I practiced a little before.
So my answer to your question is if you think you are going to fly a plane without SVT in the clouds and fly approaches in actual conditions, yes you are cheating yourself in a very dangerous way. If the answer is no, then the more practice you have with the equipment you will fly, the better.
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).
I think it's a great idea -- if that's the equipment with which you'll be flying after you get your IR. Otherwise, I suggest training with what you'll be flying later -- Laws of Primacy and Exercise, and all that.Not to hijack, but what's your opinion of training with an IFR GX55 (terminal and enroute with a CDI) and a KX155/Nav/GS?
You're saying a PP-ASEL would be capable of passing an IR practical test in a plane with SVT with only 2-3 hours of IR flight training? If so, I think you should get your CFI with ASE and IA ratings, and train ten or fifteen people for their IR's (including some with SVT and some without) before you say that again.I've been saying it for a long time, an SVT-IR rating will take 2-3 hrs in the plane training.
I'm one of the first to say that an a/p should not be a crutch, but if you're going to fly several legs a day SPIFR, an a/p is not superfluous, it's a fatigue reducer which can be the difference between being physically able to fly four hours or eight hours in one day safely.Most everything to learn with SVT will be procedural rather than physical. SVT makes an A/P superfluous unless you're just lazy and don't want to fly.
I think it's a great idea -- if that's the equipment with which you'll be flying after you get your IR. Otherwise, I suggest training with what you'll be flying later -- Laws of Primacy and Exercise, and all that.
You're saying a PP-ASEL would be capable of passing an IR practical test in a plane with SVT with only 2-3 hours of IR flight training? If so, I think you should get your CFI with ASE and IA ratings, and train ten or fifteen people for their IR's (including some with SVT and some without) before you say that again.
Like I said, your lack of experience giving training for instrument rating is showing. Train a dozen or so, and you'll change your mind.When 12 year old kids can fly an approach to minimums with 20 minutes of stick time, yep that's what I'm saying. Everything else that is required to be learned for an IR can be done on the ground just as easily and well.
Close to 100 hours and about four (from memory). How many instrument students have you trained on SVT equipment? Or any equipment? When you have even half my experience giving instrument training, you'll be a lot more credible on this subject.BTW Ron, how many hours flying SVT do you personally have and how many instrument students have you taught on SVT equipment?
You do a type with a couple hours in the plane as well, because the flying part isn't the issue really, the issue is making the equipment function correctly;
And you are typed in what?
With PIC, I have used the Elite PI-135 and the ATC-610J.What types of simulators do you use?
The modern Elite ATD is a better teaching tool than the antique ATC-610J FTD for a lot of reasons even though it is a "lower level" flight simulation device, primarily related to the developments in technology in the 40 years since the ATC-610J was designed, so I can't say it's a fair comparison.Does the simulation level help with the learning curve?
You oughta know that with the right experience and equipment, per 61.64, you can get a type rating without ever flying the real plane. But I don't think that's what Henning is talking about.
And what airplane is this that you can do a type only by flying a couple of hours?
Was given the company program for the BAe 3100 for TR at a 121.
A month + of training which included 10 hrs in the sim. All the rest of the time was classroom learning systems. Every other TR program I've looked at was the same.
What TR program is there that spends near the time on flying that it does on systems? You are expected to know how to fly a plane when you show up, same as for an IR. Differences between the 'flying' of different types of planes aren't that great. When you eliminate having to learn instrument interpretation you save a heck of a lot of flying time in the learning process.
You oughta know that with the right experience and equipment, per 61.64, you can get a type rating without ever flying the real plane. But I don't think that's what Henning is talking about.
I'm with ya on that! Perhaps if Henning got his CFI and trained a few people, he'd understand the issue better.True, but the "flying" still takes place in a simulator, and is quite a bit more involved than "just a couple of hours" as was alluded.
Henning isn't typed in anything:
HENNING LUDWIG HEINEMANN
1612 SE 12TH ST APT 22
FORT LAUDERDALE FL 33316-1428
County: BROWARD
Country: USA
Medical Class: Second, Medical Date: 8/2011
CertificatesCOMMERCIAL PILOT
Date of Issue: 8/27/2010
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT Print this certificate
Ratings:
COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE SEA
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
Limits:
ENGLISH PROFICIENT.
No argument that technology CAN make things better. But only when ADDED to the fundamentals, not as a REPLACEMENT for them.I'll be blunt.....
There is a lot dead pilot and passenger blood scattered across the mountains around here! And a good portion were during the termination, or plans of opening an IFR flight plan in route. GPS and synthetic vision are not "cheating". They are a tremendous improvement over older methods!
As I've said in the past, if your instructor demands that you throw the GPS into the backseat, then throw them out!!! In reality, many instructors are not familiar enough with panel mounts, let alone the variety of portables. I just wish they'd admit the fact.
In the meantime, at nearly 61 years of age, I've seen the results of far too many flight into terrain accidents. Thanks to advancments in technology, it just doesn't need to happen anymore.
L.Adamson
Train in whatever you are going to fly.Ron and Doc Bruce,
Not to hijack, but what's your opinion of training with an IFR GX55 (terminal and enroute with a CDI) and a KX155/Nav/GS?
No argument that technology CAN make things better. But only when ADDED to the fundamentals, not as a REPLACEMENT for them.
I'll be equally blunt -- it didn't need to happen before, either. Point is, GPS and SVT can fail. If you can't navigate safely without your GPS or SVT, you don't belong in the air. That's why when you train with me, you must learn how to use everything you have in your airplane, but you also must learn how to operate if it any of it fails.Thanks to advancments in technology, it just doesn't need to happen anymore.
Nope. TECHNOLOGY (NDB/VOR/Markers) may get replaced, just as four course ranges did.The fundamentals, if that refers to old school.........will be replaced.
Nope. TECHNOLOGY (NDB/VOR/Markers) may get replaced, just as four course ranges did.
Fundamentals like ded reckoning? Not going away. The ability to look at a chart (paper or an image) and say "I was here 30 minutes ago before the GPS receivers failed, and I've been flying at 120 knots at a heading of 135 degrees means I was on a course of 120 degrees and I should be HERE and I need to climb because that ridge up ahead is higher than I am" remains a requirement.
I'll be equally blunt -- it didn't need to happen before, either. Point is, GPS and SVT can fail. If you can't navigate safely without your GPS or SVT, you don't belong in the air. That's why when you train with me, you must learn how to use everything you have in your airplane, but you also must learn how to operate if it any of it fails.
No, it is the point.That's beside the point.
Is it your contention, then, that those should be mandatory equipment for all instrument flight? And even if they were, then those are systems which can fail, and you must be able to handle any single system failure in flight short of catastrophic failure.It's unfortunately a fact, that many high time pilots, as well as low time; including military, commercial, and instructors.......have met their demise along with their passengers at a critical moment, when situational awareness was lost. GPS and SV can reverse that trend.
No, it's not cheating, but if you're going to get your IR, you must be able to get along without it, just like pilots of traditional 6-pack planes must be able to safely complete an instrument flight without the vacuum-powered gyros.I could go on and on, with examples such as the United Airlines DC-8 that slammed in to the mountain close to home in 1977, or two IFR instructors who hit the mountains in this state, and so forth. I hope that some get the point. New technology is NOT CHEATING! It's just a vast improvement that pilots and passengers didn't have in the past.
No, it's not cheating, but if you're going to get your IR, you must be able to get along without it, just like pilots of traditional 6-pack planes must be able to safely complete an instrument flight without the vacuum-powered gyros.
Adamson, I think you're missing the point that people are trying to make.
There is a lot of benefit to you as a student to learning the fundamentals the old fashioned way. Primarily, that benefit is in situational awareness beyond the moving map.
All these additional tools are excellent to have. But if you're doing them from the get-go, it ends up hurting your development in situational awareness. Towards the end of your training is when it's a good time to start implementing those things, because adding them is quite easy by comparison.
One other question? In your mind, just what do the fundementals consist of? Besides pilotage & charts, is it the use of the primitive VOR system? That's nothing more than an electronic system, that replaced an inferior navigation system before it.
(I should stop hijacking threads but this one already went off the rails and the topic is similar to the last few posts)
My instructor and I planned my dual cross country today. I'm comfortable with math and with maps, so I was able to bust it out quickly and plan out another route with him in the time allotted.
One thing that came up was that during our dual cross country I'd be flying with triangulated VOR to verify my check points. I agree with this philosophy 100% and think it is important. I showed him Naviator on my Samsung Galaxy S II, and he said that would be perfectly fine to use on my solo cross country to enhance situational awareness after I demonstrated proficiency using VOR on the dual.
Cheating?
Time, heading, speed, and distance for navigation, and attitude and power for aircraft control. Everything else is just an aid.One other question? In your mind, just what do the fundementals consist of?
Time, heading, speed, and distance for navigation, and attitude and power for aircraft control. Everything else is just an aid.
No, unless we run out of gasoline. But you still know how to walk, and which direction the sun rises and sets in, right?My forefathers crossed this country with wagons and oxen. Doesn't mean I have too.
L.Adamson
I prefer using a computer or a cell phone, as an aid..........instead of tapping out Morse code for the normal course of conversation. Like a moving map GPS, these aids are more efficient, and allow more time for the brain to concentrate on other events such as scanning for birds and other aircraft.
In today's world, do we really want to teach students to fly.....just by the basics that you've listed above? Or is it more important to know exact boundaries for so many restricted airspaces that exist across the country, or the ability to plan hundred of miles in advance for weather.....without having to maintain contact with an FSS. Not to mention TFRs, obstacles, etc.
Is there a problem with creating more direct routing, rather than hop scotching between VORs, or triangulating which requires more eye time in the cockpit, instead of scanning the sky ahead?
If it all goes to ****, won't synthetic vision beat interpreting dials, while nothing but shades of gray or black are seen out the windscreen?
Why not just teach all of this at the beginning, instead of creating the illusion that it's cheating or an unnecessary aid. My forefathers crossed this country with wagons and oxen. Doesn't mean I have too.
L.Adamson
What do you think people did 10-15 years ago?I just don't think it's realistic to expect a 100 hour per year casual pilot that might shoot 1-2 in actual per year to be able to handle the system as it is in a /U, no auto pilot, basic aircraft, without making a lot of mistakes. The workload is just too high without some technology to help.