Just in case you're bored - my paper on glass cockpits

[TMetzinger]

Here's the first cut of my paper, which makes the argument that cockpit technology such as moving maps, autopilots, synthetic vision, CAN enhance GA flight safety, but it's highly dependent on the quality of the training received initially or in transition.

 

[Captain]

I didn't read the paper...but:


Training smaining. Yes training is important, I'll concede that. But it's not the end all be all of a pilots future. To say that training is what separates the great from the horrible misses the mark. Many pilots go through the exact same training and most come out fine and some come out bad. Is it the training? Is it the pilot?

I say it's the attitude. If anybody goes into new technology training with the right attitude then they will do well given a competent instructor. If the attitude is 'this new fangled box is stupid and crazy' then the training isn't going to go so well.

I fly glass with an FMS. It ain't rocket science, yet I see lots of guys affraid of the box and they do not do well. The only difference I see going in is attitude. Not intelligence or ability. Attitude either makes or breaks training on new technology, IMHO.

 

[olasek]

I read the whole paper.

Is it quality of training, poor attitude or yet something else? For example pilots who are in nature more inclined to take higher risk gravitate towards ATA. We may never know for sure and the topic may be as elusive as trying to prove or disprove whether death penalty deters violent crimes.

 

[TMetzinger]

I didn't read the paper...but:


Training smaining. Yes training is important, I'll concede that. But it's not the end all be all of a pilots future. To say that training is what separates the great from the horrible misses the mark. Many pilots go through the exact same training and most come out fine and some come out bad. Is it the training? Is it the pilot?

I say it's the attitude. If anybody goes into new technology training with the right attitude then they will do well given a competent instructor. If the attitude is 'this new fangled box is stupid and crazy' then the training isn't going to go so well.

I fly glass with an FMS. It ain't rocket science, yet I see lots of guys affraid of the box and they do not do well. The only difference I see going in is attitude. Not intelligence or ability. Attitude either makes or breaks training on new technology, IMHO.

I fully agree that student attitude is a driving factor. I do high tech for a living and my success is a direct result of my smarts and my attitude and passion for the work.

Quality training should mean that a wrong attitude is detected, and corrected, or the student doesn't pass. For example, your "I didn't read the paper but I know the thesis is flawed" approach might be a negative indicator. One of the values of scenario based training is that it lets the instructor evaluate the student as an aviator, not just an airplane-maneuverer.


Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

 

[TMetzinger]

I read the whole paper.

Is it quality of training, poor attitude or yet something else? For example pilots who are in nature more inclined to take higher risk gravitate towards ATA. We may never know for sure and the topic may be as elusive as trying to prove or disprove whether death penalty deters violent crimes.

It certainly is an elusive subject. But I can't tell if you're asserting that risk-taking pilots prefer TAA. This is at heart a psychological issue and as such driven by beliefs as much as facts.

Thanks for taking the time.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

 

[darthnomster]

I didn't read the paper...but:

Really? REALLY?

 

[Ted]

I'm going to read this later. And then I'll comment.

 

[deltafox]

I'm old. My training (ATP) was all steam gauges with a GNS430 thrown in when it was introduced. A few years back I transitioned to a Cirrus Entegra system. It was a hard change. Like moving to the UK and driving a stick shift. (Everything is there, just not where it was before.) So in stressful situations "Primacy" takes over and you look for something familiar. I would immediately disengage the autopilot and hand fly the plane. I would look for nav needles and trend instruments. The ergonomics of entering and retrieving information was difficult. I did read your paper, and believe you are missing a chapter on attitude. "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or NEGLECT." Neglect the necessary training or become complacent and suffer the consequences.

 

[ebetancourt]

Good article. I think the real problem with training is...
money.

I have given this some thought (and no research, entirely anecdotal) as I have been teaching my granddaughter how to fly. Most programs are built to accomplish some minimum goal, usually get a PP license, etc. I have had the luxury of teaching her without regard to cost. I own the airplane we are using, I fly for pleasure, and flying with her meets that goal. So we have spend 40+ hours over a year, focused almost entirely on aircraft control. AOA, slips, stalls, even chandelles and lazy 8s, in addition to the pattern. Several airport regulars joke about her flying crosswind landings because during a time we had really strong direct crosswinds we worked the pattern hard. (She can wheel land or 3pt in 20K direct crosswinds and has - a lot). We will get all the PP requirements except solo before her 16th birthday and throw in aerobatics before then as well. After solo we will begin instrument training with the goal of getting her PP and instrument shortly after her 17th birthday. I expect her to have hours and experience way in excess of the minimums when she takes her practical tests.

This would not be possible for most students and if an instructor did what I have done, they would be accused of extending the training to generate income. After the private, how many pilots continue to train seriously? Money and to a slightly lesser degree attitude are the problem. Can you imagine the furor if instead of a biennial review we had to take a retest? How many could pass 10 years after their certificate was granted?

 

[upstateny]

I think there's a generational aspect to this too. Younger student pilots, who have grown up playing video games for hours on end, tend to fixate on the panel. My theory is that to them it looks like just another video game. I have to constantly remind them to look outside. Also, I see this more with glass panels than steam gauges. I guess the advanced technology looks more like a video game.

I haven't had enough Instrument students to see if they fly any better when they have to concentrate on the display.

 

[Kiloalphadriver]

Here's the first cut of my paper, which makes the argument that cockpit technology such as moving maps, autopilots, synthetic vision, CAN enhance GA flight safety, but it's highly dependent on the quality of the training received initially or in transition.

Tim,

I didn't read your paper, but I did stick my finger in the USB port and "download" it..

Seriously, I read it and it's great! You nailed it..IMO

I sent it along to several flying buddies..

 

[Alexb2000]

Agree with others, well written in an easy style.

Couple of points:

Although I was under the same perception, icing is not listed as a cause of Colgan 3407 in the NTSB final report (I still think it played a roll, not to digress).

The AOPA study referenced as the "meat" of the research is highly flawed IMO. I say this because of two things:

1. No accurate data about the amount of time any GA aircraft flies, in what conditions, and to what destinations. Taking the number of registered aircraft as a baseline is ridiculous, since many of them don't fly at all in a given year.

2. Anecdotal evidence gained through casual observation just doesn't agree with the AOPA conclusions either. Flying cross country on bad weather days, one doesn't hear much GA piston traffic at all. Those that are heard are generally the more capable, and/or newer aircraft. While that alone doesn't offer any distinction between a TAA aircraft and a "steam" gauge aircraft, one can conclude that the vast majority of the GA fleet is on the ground during bad weather and thus not exposed to the same risk.

General comment on the referenced studies: While studies conducted in sims are somewhat interesting, IMO they fail to fully duplicate the conditions of flight, and so they cannot replace actual data gathered from real flying. I'm sure that having the ability to pause the sim, take a break, get a cup of coffee, and use the bathroom would greatly reduce the mistakes I make regardless of insturmentation.

I would also offer that the real reason we don't see any advantage with TAA aircraft is we don't train to use the information it provides. The PTS is generic in nature and most CFI's follow the same training curriculum regardless of instrumentation. One on many possible examples, when flying above an overcast layer the TAA aircraft can be checking the weather at every airport below, knowing the conditions, knowing where things are better, and building a mental picture of what to expect if a descent into IMC was required. The pilot without can call flight service, but that isn't efficient to do on a continuous basis, so for all practical purposes doesn't happen. Regardless, I suspect the most common scenario is neither do it, so the advantages of the TAA aircraft are lost even though the information is at the TAA pilots finger tips.

I believe an interesting topic for a paper would be, revised training to make the TAA aircraft safer.

 

[Everskyward]

I think there's a generational aspect to this too. Younger student pilots, who have grown up playing video games for hours on end, tend to fixate on the panel. My theory is that to them it looks like just another video game. I have to constantly remind them to look outside.

Student pilots years ago tended to fixate on the panel too, though, and had to be reminded to look outside. This was when the most sophisticated video game was Pong.

It's possible that younger people, on average, or people who are used to dealing with computer technology, would be more more comfortable with the button-pushing required to program a GPS or FMS. However I've seen many instances, including my own, where someone's fingers get ahead of their brain. When something is misprogrammed can be difficult to catch the mistake or fix it in a timely manner before the airplane starts doing the unexpected.

 

[oldShar]

Quality training should mean that a wrong attitude is detected, and corrected, or the student doesn't pass.

That's not PC. Hurts the esteem of the student, doncha know ...
Just ask the US Dept of Education and the NEA and AFT and NLRB and ....

 

[Captain]

I didn't read the paper...but:

Really? REALLY?

There, I fixed your quote for you...


Yup, really. I admitted up front I didn't read it. What's wrong with that? I didn't blast the unread paper. I responded to his post. The OP covered the highlights on post #1.

I responded to them and identified the fact that I didn't read the linked document.


Now I have read the document. Not supper impressed nor do I think it's bad. It is a draft after all. I would drop the use of calling time and speed the 'fourth dimension'. It's not.

Training is important. I mentioned that given a competent instructor attitude is the driving force. I still agree with that.

Take care head banger.

 

[TMetzinger]

Agree with others, well written in an easy style.

Couple of points:

Although I was under the same perception, icing is not listed as a cause of Colgan 3407 in the NTSB final report (I still think it played a roll, not to digress).

The AOPA study referenced as the "meat" of the research is highly flawed IMO. I say this because of two things:

1. No accurate data about the amount of time any GA aircraft flies, in what conditions, and to what destinations. Taking the number of registered aircraft as a baseline is ridiculous, since many of them don't fly at all in a given year.

2. Anecdotal evidence gained through casual observation just doesn't agree with the AOPA conclusions either. Flying cross country on bad weather days, one doesn't hear much GA piston traffic at all. Those that are heard are generally the more capable, and/or newer aircraft. While that alone doesn't offer any distinction between a TAA aircraft and a "steam" gauge aircraft, one can conclude that the vast majority of the GA fleet is on the ground during bad weather and thus not exposed to the same risk.

General comment on the referenced studies: While studies conducted in sims are somewhat interesting, IMO they fail to fully duplicate the conditions of flight, and so they cannot replace actual data gathered from real flying. I'm sure that having the ability to pause the sim, take a break, get a cup of coffee, and use the bathroom would greatly reduce the mistakes I make regardless of insturmentation.
.

I agree that the AOPA study is flawed, and I intended for that to come across in my paper (note I explicitly said this was data-mining and not an experiment, nor was it peer-reviewed). Their own numbers don't agree with their conclusions, and they admit (subtly) that the numbers themselves are unreliable.

I disagree on the value of the sim studies quoted. Folks weren't allowed to pause or take breaks, the study (by psychologists and engineers) made it as realistic as possible. In the GA SVS study the sim was built into an actual Bonanza airframe, so it wasn't "comfy".

Thanks for your comments!

 

[ebetancourt]

Student pilots years ago tended to fixate on the panel too, though, and had to be reminded to look outside. This was when the most sophisticated video game was Pong.

It's possible that younger people, on average, or people who are used to dealing with computer technology, would be more more comfortable with the button-pushing required to program a GPS or FMS. However I've seen many instances, including my own, where someone's fingers get ahead of their brain. When something is misprogrammed can be difficult to catch the mistake or fix it in a timely manner before the airplane starts doing the unexpected.

Instrument covers probably work on TAA just as well. Slightly different shape is all.

TAA aircraft have no advantage in basic aircraft control as best I can tell. May be at a disadvantage in some cases because "information" clutter makes it harder to get trend information at a glance.

 

[TMetzinger]

Good article. I think the real problem with training is...
money.

So true. The sims like the redbird can help with this, but the bottom line is that you probably need 1.5-2 times the number of flight hours in non-flight instruction for classroom, task trainers, and sims. The cockpit is a lousy classroom for anything except the kinesthetic parts of flying.

But try to tell a student that their instrument curriculum will consist of 40 hours of flight training and an addtional 60 hours of ground instruction, and see what response you get.

 

[Kiloalphadriver]

So true. The sims like the redbird can help with this, but the bottom line is that you probably need 1.5-2 times the number of flight hours in non-flight instruction for classroom, task trainers, and sims. The cockpit is a lousy classroom for anything except the kinesthetic parts of flying.

But try to tell a student that their instrument curriculum will consist of 40 hours of flight training and an addtional 60 hours of ground instruction, and see what response you get.

Tim,

After reading your paper, AA Flt 965 comes to mind.

"Uh, where are we??"

 

[TMetzinger]

Good example. one of the advantages of having the map display with your FMS is to look at your route and be able to say WTF is there a leg halfway around the Earth, or into the mountains?

 

[Henning]

I didn't read the paper...but:


Training smaining. Yes training is important, I'll concede that. But it's not the end all be all of a pilots future. To say that training is what separates the great from the horrible misses the mark. Many pilots go through the exact same training and most come out fine and some come out bad. Is it the training? Is it the pilot?

I say it's the attitude. If anybody goes into new technology training with the right attitude then they will do well given a competent instructor. If the attitude is 'this new fangled box is stupid and crazy' then the training isn't going to go so well.

I fly glass with an FMS. It ain't rocket science, yet I see lots of guys affraid of the box and they do not do well. The only difference I see going in is attitude. Not intelligence or ability. Attitude either makes or breaks training on new technology, IMHO.

Many good points above. Great pilots will always be great pilots because understanding your energy on a sensory basis comes easily to them regardless of training. What training allows for is a system where those pilots and the design engineers can pass on a system of operations that allows for less naturally talented individuals to still provide safe and efficient service by following the numbers.

I was very lucky to have a great batch of high time, end of career started flying in WWII, pilots and instructors to fly with when I was first starting out. Working as a mechanic at the 'QB' shop on LGB had some great perks.

 

[Tracey]

I just read it. (I was going to do the whole "I didn't read it and I disagree" thing, but I see that's been done).

First off, I think it was very well written-- it flows easily and was a pleasure to read. Papers like this can often be very dry, this was not.

My personal take away (coming from a student's perspective) was that I wish I could be trained within a FITS framework. It sounds "real-world" and therefore very practical and helpful. Rather than doing 'steep turns' for 'steep turns' sake, but rather in an experience that you might actually find yourself needing to do them, and then it will make sense quicker (and you'll remember what you were taught since you'd be going from one real based scenario to another, as opposed to a training scenario to a real based one).

Excellent food for thought and I have a feeling that this will be the conclusion that "the powers that be" will come to with regard to advanced technologies in aviation.

Overall-- good job. You're a good writer, Tim. Have you ever thought about writing as a career? Maybe in conjunction with aviation?

 

[Henning]

Here's the first cut of my paper, which makes the argument that cockpit technology such as moving maps, autopilots, synthetic vision, CAN enhance GA flight safety, but it's highly dependent on the quality of the training received initially or in transition.

Excellent piece, pretty much echos my findings having done several years of BFRS and IPCs in Av Shilo's Comanche and sampling the wares along the development of GA retrofit glass (also flew the DA 40 steam and both ways of G-1000). The training findings also go along with what I have been saying all along, ''training happens best on trips"; it's much of how I was trained and gained my experience, along the way from here to there.

 

[TMetzinger]

I just read it. (I was going to do the whole "I didn't read it and I disagree" thing, but I see that's been done).

First off, I think it was very well written-- it flows easily and was a pleasure to read. Papers like this can often be very dry, this was not.

My personal take away (coming from a student's perspective) was that I wish I could be trained within a FITS framework. It sounds "real-world" and therefore very practical and helpful. Rather than doing 'steep turns' for 'steep turns' sake, but rather in an experience that you might actually find yourself needing to do them, and then it will make sense quicker (and you'll remember what you were taught since you'd be going from one real based scenario to another, as opposed to a training scenario to a real based one).

Excellent food for thought and I have a feeling that this will be the conclusion that "the powers that be" will come to with regard to advanced technologies in aviation.

Overall-- good job. You're a good writer, Tim. Have you ever thought about writing as a career? Maybe in conjunction with aviation?

Sure, but it's not as much fun as writing for Forum, which is how I made pizza money during college. I was channelling Henning at the time (but none of that felching stuff).

 

[Tracey]

Sure, but it's not as much fun as writing for Forum, which is how I made pizza money during college. I was channelling Henning at the time (but none of that felching stuff).

I've never heard of Forum. And I think I might like to keep it that way.

Run away!!!

 

[Alexb2000]

I agree that the AOPA study is flawed, and I intended for that to come across in my paper (note I explicitly said this was data-mining and not an experiment, nor was it peer-reviewed). Their own numbers don't agree with their conclusions, and they admit (subtly) that the numbers themselves are unreliable.

I disagree on the value of the sim studies quoted. Folks weren't allowed to pause or take breaks, the study (by psychologists and engineers) made it as realistic as possible. In the GA SVS study the sim was built into an actual Bonanza airframe, so it wasn't "comfy".

Thanks for your comments!

Any SIM study is interesting in the lengths they go to for realism. Sounds like you were impressed by the details. My comment was based on it being hard to reproduce 4 hours of turbulence, upset SO and passengers (complaining, asking questions, demanding to land immediately, etc), needing to take a leak real bad, and then replicating the personal emotions and pressure of something like a mountain approach to minimums. I wasn't talking about the technical aspects of flying in a SIM vs. real life.

 

[TMetzinger]

...upset SO and passengers (complaining, asking questions, demanding to land immediately, etc),...

ISO, baby, ISO

 

[jspilot]

I read this and learned a bunch- so thanks for that. I'm a very new private pilot with my license for only 3 months now and the closest I've come to flying a glass cockpit plane was having a gps on board so know that before reading my thoughts.

I would think that flying with all this information available to you( location, weather) would take some uncertainty out of each flight. I've flown with and without a gps but if I'm going on an xc I want that GPS. Why? Well I just have one less thing to worry about during the flight, as long as it works that is. I would imagine that most pilots would choose the same way because single pilot flying is task heavy enough as it is even with all the automation. Having access to as much info as possible is a good thing I think.

That being said, outer dependence on technology is a devastingly bad idea for pilots I think. I think that's where training comes in and probably needs to catch up. If this technology is going into more planes each year, I hope people are still being taught how to fly when they don't work. I teach school for a living and I had a kid recently say in class- " the computer's not working so I can't do my research or write my essay." It never even occurred to him to go to a library or hand write the essay until I suggested it. That's what I'd be affraid for pilots learning in these glass cockpit planes. You need to know how things were done before the tech in case the tech stops working.

 

[olasek]

But I can't tell if you're asserting that risk-taking pilots prefer TAA.

I am only hinting of a possibility.

This whole thing reminds me of the famous debacle with the famous Swedish medical journal paper that allegedly proved that power grids cause cancer in people. The authors were good doctor but poor mathematicians/statisticians. This paper later became a poster child how well meaning scientists need serious background in statistics to be able to interpret data otherwise they could be making fools of themselves.

I hope people are still being taught how to fly when they don't work.

I can assure you this is the case. Actually I would argue half-broken glass cockpit still has more relevant safety data for a pilot than fully functioning steam-gauge airplane.

 

[Henning]

I am only hinting of a possibility.

I can assure you this is the case. Actually I would argue half-broken glass cockpit still has more data for a pilot than fully functioning steam-gauge airplane.

No need to hint, it's not just a possibility, it's a reality, however completely irrelevant. These people will take whatever risk required to do what they are going to do. The technology does nothing but make them safer and better informed at what they would do anyway; I'm a perfect example. I fly the same profile whether NORDO or Glass, which way do you think I'm safer and more efficient?

 

[Gubbins]

Thank you, very interesting paper. I certainly am convinced a glass cockpit leads to a safer environment, ESPECIALLY with single pilot IFR in IMC conditions. I would not fly any other way with my family on board. It is enormously reassuring to have all that information at my finger tips and really good situational awareness. But as you and others have said training is key, and lots of practice. If you do not have sufficient training, it could be a huge distraction.

Have a look at this accident report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20081209X62205&key=1

It is interesting and relevant, because in this fatal crash the pilot had at his disposal a G1000 equipped plane, yet was unable to perform an ILS instrument approach. He claimed to not be able to receive the localizer portion, even though other planes had no problems. I've tried to understand how this could have happened, and it is possible he had the PFD CDI mode set to GPS instead of the localizer? He must have loaded the ILS approach if he was getting the glideslope. And he was also unable to fly the GPS approach which in the G1000 is a piece of cake. It is just speculation, but reading this report I was left with the distinct impression that if he had been flying a conventional plane with steam gauges, there may have been another outcome. Again just speculation but being confused or unable to properly load and activate the approach in the G1000 coupled with a false sense of security using the moving map to try to fly around and "find" the airport could have led to this accident. Thoughts? If I am reaching too much, just slap me down I don't mind.

 

[olasek]

This guy must have been a nut if he suggested an approach with glideslope only.
His medical condition was also way outside the 'norm'.
He refused to comply with ATC instructions.
Given the above I would say the glass had little to do with this accident.

 

[Alexb2000]

Thank you, very interesting paper. I certainly am convinced a glass cockpit leads to a safer environment, ESPECIALLY with single pilot IFR in IMC conditions. I would not fly any other way with my family on board. It is enormously reassuring to have all that information at my finger tips and really good situational awareness. But as you and others have said training is key, and lots of practice. If you do not have sufficient training, it could be a huge distraction.

Have a look at this accident report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20081209X62205&key=1

It is interesting and relevant, because in this fatal crash the pilot had at his disposal a G1000 equipped plane, yet was unable to perform an ILS instrument approach. He claimed to not be able to receive the localizer portion, even though other planes had no problems. I've tried to understand how this could have happened, and it is possible he had the PFD CDI mode set to GPS instead of the localizer? He must have loaded the ILS approach if he was getting the glideslope. And he was also unable to fly the GPS approach which in the G1000 is a piece of cake. It is just speculation, but reading this report I was left with the distinct impression that if he had been flying a conventional plane with steam gauges, there may have been another outcome. Again just speculation but being confused or unable to properly load and activate the approach in the G1000 coupled with a false sense of security using the moving map to try to fly around and "find" the airport could have led to this accident. Thoughts? If I am reaching too much, just slap me down I don't mind.

This kind of thing is so sad and unnecessary, the guy could have asked for help.

BTW-

I fly approaches all the time on the G1000 without loading the approach or using the FMS, basically it can be just the same as a "steam" bird. Tune the ILS, Hit the CDI key to Nav 1, turn the course knob to the inbound, look on your chart for the inbound altitude, fly. It doesn't get much fricken easier.

The beauty of this technology is you can use as much or as little as you want.

 

[olasek]

The beauty of this technology is you can use as much or as little as you want.

Very true.

 

[bluerooster]

Student pilots years ago tended to fixate on the panel too, though, and had to be reminded to look outside. This was when the most sophisticated video game was Pong.

It's possible that younger people, on average, or people who are used to dealing with computer technology, would be more more comfortable with the button-pushing required to program a GPS or FMS. However I've seen many instances, including my own, where someone's fingers get ahead of their brain. When something is misprogrammed can be difficult to catch the mistake or fix it in a timely manner before the airplane starts doing the unexpected.

Yep, happened to me some years ago when I punched the wrong info for a waypoint (destination) into the KNS80, for a VFR flight to OLV. As I neared OLV, I was keeping the needle centered. and thought I was on course, land marks were there but just a tad off. as I got closer I had to maneuver around the puffy white clouds to keep VFR. Luckilly I was with FF, and the MEM controller, caught me before I busted the classC. I told him that I'd been maneuvering to avoid clouds, and he gave me vectors to OLV. I still hadn't realized that I had entered the wrong info to the kns80. After landing, I checked my waypoints, and found it.

They will do exactly what you tell them to do. Just make certian that you tell them properly.

 

[bbchien]

Misses the real issue which is about judgement. The psychologists (Air Force pulbications) know how to evaluate this but do not know how to "teach" it; they only can describe how it is acquired. The evaluation is wayy to complex to use in clinical aviation medicine.

Interesting nonetheless .

 

[Gubbins]

This kind of thing is so sad and unnecessary, the guy could have asked for help.

BTW-

I fly approaches all the time on the G1000 without loading the approach or using the FMS, basically it can be just the same as a "steam" bird. Tune the ILS, Hit the CDI key to Nav 1, turn the course knob to the inbound, look on your chart for the inbound altitude, fly. It doesn't get much fricken easier.

The beauty of this technology is you can use as much or as little as you want.

Very good point, although I'm curious why you use it manually? I'm fundamentally lazy and manually setting up an ILS is:
1. Look up frequency.
2. Twist click twist click twist click twist click to set the frequency.
3. Press CDI to select LOC

It is so much easier to simply not look up anything, just press Proc, then twist click the ILS and voila... You don't have to enter in the minimums, just accept the approach as is.



I admit I'm lazy.

 

[Alexb2000]

Very good point, although I'm curious why you use it manually? I'm fundamentally lazy and manually setting up an ILS is:
1. Look up frequency.
2. Twist click twist click twist click twist click to set the frequency.
3. Press CDI to select LOC

It is so much easier to simply not look up anything, just press Proc, then twist click the ILS and voila... You don't have to enter in the minimums, just accept the approach as is.



I admit I'm lazy.

Just for something to do. When the ceilings are high and I just need to punch down through a layer, I sometimes do it that way, especially if I have all the approach info. memorized.

I mentioned it because so many people think the G1000 is full of crazy complex "buttonology" that requires you to fly with your head down trying to figure something out that would be so simple on a "steam" airplane.

Of course a real G1000 user would just do as you suggested, even though it is lazy.