I can't live without autopilot and FMC's. It's the only way I can fly and watch TV, eat dinner, and yell the the wife and kid all at the same time.

But if you flew without the autopilot you would lose weight as you would not be able to eat, and you could completely ignore the wife and kid and thus not have to yell. :( Worked for me!

I never fly with the autopilot in the sim (and hardly ever rw) so it is not a factor for me-works fine (I have a great autopilot in my plane-but to me that isn't flying-either in the sim or rw).

In the experimental/homebuilt market, we use our auto-pilots a lot. Afterall; we forked out the extra money for them, and installed them ourselves. We have to see if they work! :( L.Adamson

Now you really don't think I am going to answer that do you? :P Short answer is it is the difference between writing it from scratch and piggy backing off of something someone else has already done.If you write it yourself, you can control it, and you can modify it to do what you need it to do. Also, our WAAS approaches can be updated every 28 days (soon to be announced)If you can't use the vertical component, whats the point? It is glitter with no substance.Best,Jim

I happen to think rxp GNS430W/530W is one of the best flight sim add-ons to date. You get to fly with the actual garmin pc waas trainer in flight sim. That is 'top of the line' flight training for only a few dollars. I use 430W/530W in real aircraft, and rxp's is very close to the real thing. Not to mention all the other great products rxp has released over the years.I just think your statement was a little rude. Maybe I took it the wrong way. Jim, please don't take this the wrong way. I mean no offense.

But if you flew without the autopilot you would lose weight as you would not be able to eat, and you could completely ignore the wife and kid and thus not have to yell. :( Worked for me!

:( :( B)

I happen to think rxp GNS430W/530W is one of the best flight sim add-ons to date. You get to fly with the actual garmin pc waas trainer in flight sim. That is 'top of the line' flight training for only a few dollars. I use 430W/530W in real aircraft, and rxp's is very close to the real thing. Not to mention all the other great products rxp has released over the years.I just think your statement was a little rude. Maybe I took it the wrong way. Jim, please don't take this the wrong way. I mean no offense.

No problem. Sorry if it seemed a bit rudish... My point is that it is no secret that the RXP 430 / 530 does indeed piggy back off of the Garmin trainer so any limitations imposed by the decision to use it as a development platform will be incurred by the developer / user and in the end accepted or not by the end user. In this case the AP coupled to the WAAS vertical component. It isn't any kind of argument about a person preferring to hand fly or not. That is simply irrelevant. That also simply dismisses that a piece is missing and one that is used and encouraged to be used in modern TAA aircraft and the associated training that comes with these aircraft / systems. You either choose to accept that the component is missing and be OK with it or you are not. I reiterate that the only other dev I know right now that is making WAAS approaches available is us and not having the vertical component available to AP couple is one I was not willing to accept for "our" development. I felt is was important. We are able to control that particular aspect because we chose to develop the entire G1000 solution from scratch and that is no easy feat.JL should be commended for the clever development that hooks the Garmin trainer. I should know, I walked with him on it during the initial phases of that development as it was primarily developed for the Meridian back in 2002 and then expanded into his own product line. I think what I find puzzling is that some folks will pay as much if not more for a single solution and accept many things that may be lacking about it but will tear apart complete solutions (meaning entire aircrafts and systems) expecting perfection. This is not just my opinion, I see it happen to many developers. But then again, that keeps it all interesting now doesn't it? :( So once again... just making a few observations. Whether you agree or not is OK.Jim

Jim-re: "this isn't any kind of argument about a person preferring to hand fly or not. That is simply irrelevant. That also simply dismisses that a piece is missing and one that is used and encouraged to be used in modern TAA aircraft and the associated training that comes with these aircraft / systems."...... I would submit majority of GA flyers don't use modern TAA aircraft, and I would also suspect most that own or use the Garmin 430/530 don't even have the Waas upgrade.So therefore the one "piece that is missing" is "irrelevant" for those of us who will never see it or use it-myself included-making the argument relevant. :( In any case, I am very grateful for both products and thank both you and Jean Luc for making them available. For me, one is about dreaming, and the other is about proficiency. As for your last statement-I agree totally but find it more puzzling than interesting! :-)

I will never be able to afford to fly a Mustang, or have a g1000 in my Baron.....

Blasphemy Geof, almost as much as my poor ability to quote what you said :(

Blasphemy Geof, almost as much as my poor ability to quote what you said :(

Yeah Jeremy-with the way the economy is going I guess I can expect a g1000 or Mustang in my future (or maybe just drool a little over your bird) ! :-)

I would submit majority of GA flyers don't use modern TAA aircraft, and I would also suspect most that own or use the Garmin 430/530 don't even have the Waas upgrade.So therefore the one "piece that is missing" is "irrelevant" for those of us who will never see it or use it-myself included-making the argument relevant. :(

Hi Geofa,And I would submit that you are wrong. You cannot look at this from a personal perspective. You have to look at it from an industry perspective.From a personal perspective you are right. From an industry perspective including how and why WAAS was developed and implemented as well as the TAA training you are wrong.I am very active in FITS and TAA discussion / development and strategy and know where the industry is headed and how the industry is shifting towards standards and training.Now.... from my personal perspective.... I do have a 430W in my aircraft and it is indeed fully coupled to the AP. I also love to hand fly. But when it comes to IFR, I will use automation any chance I can and it is fact that the proficient use and training with automation or TAA aircraft produces safer pilots / aircraft.But hey... do what you prefer, the great thing is you get to choose. :( Best,Jim

Of course I am talking of a personal perspective-and what I believe is the majority situation of today. Will that change-perhaps-and with this economy perhaps not. I'd love to have a g1000-but with increasing gas prices, future user fees I would still expect that to be out of reach of the majority of Ga flyers for the forseable future."Now.... from my personal perspective.... I do have a 430W in my aircraft and it is indeed fully coupled to the AP. I also love to hand fly. But when it comes to IFR, I will use automation any chance I can and it is fact that the proficient use and training with automation or TAA aircraft produces safer pilots / aircraft."We just had a debate about that on my Beech board. Are there in fact stats yet that support this?I know I have had several near collisions with Cirrus pilots -one who was completely disoriented and reported his position on the other side of the airport as he went right in front of me at the faf. I assume he was so busy playing with the box he never noticed-till the tower started yelling at him. I know the Cirrus safety record isn't that great.

"Now.... from my personal perspective.... I do have a 430W in my aircraft and it is indeed fully coupled to the AP. I also love to hand fly. But when it comes to IFR, I will use automation any chance I can and it is fact that the proficient use and training with automation or TAA aircraft produces safer pilots / aircraft."We just had a debate about that on my Beech board. Are there in fact stats yet that support this?

One thing for sure; is that we still have pilots clobbering mountains in my part of the country. I could not believe it, when a fire fighting tanker did it a month ago nearby. This was scud running at it's deadliest, when TAA type systems or just a modern hand-held with terrain avoidance could and most likely would have made all the difference. I have no doubt in my mind, that moving map GPS when combined with synthetic vision....................is going to save many lives in the future. It's going to eliminate the problem of disoriented pilots or ATC that's not providing enough information ( in regards to rising terrain) when the pilot is already confused or not on top of it. I'm just one of those guys to seems to keep track of all past and present flight into terrain accidents. Happily, in the experiental/kitbuilt/homebuilt market; we get new innovation for less cost. L.Adamson

One thing for sure; is that we still have pilots clobbering mountains in my part of the country. I could not believe it, when a fire fighting tanker did it a month ago nearby. This was scud running at it's deadliest, when TAA type systems or just a modern hand-held with terrain avoidance could and most likely would have made all the difference. I have no doubt in my mind, that moving map GPS when combined with synthetic vision....................is going to save many lives in the future. It's going to eliminate the problem of disoriented pilots or ATC that's not providing enough information ( in regards to rising terrain) when the pilot is already confused or not on top of it. I'm just one of those guys to seems to keep track of all past and present flight into terrain accidents. Happily, in the experiental/kitbuilt/homebuilt market; we get new innovation for less cost. L.Adamson

I am the first one to agree-however I was just looking at the ntsb page on Cirrus's . Quite a few of the fatal accidents for this year alone were impacting terrain (some in vfr), and getting disoriented..The Cirrus has a slightly worse than average safety record-even with all its glass/safety systems. One would expect the record should be stunningly better.Of course there are many reasons (including the Dr. killer mentality)-but again-does all this technology necessarily equate to more safety when the pilot will always be the weak link? Logic would dictate so-but it doesn't seem to be happening. One might argue that all this technology might give an over confident, complacent, false sense of security and encourage some to take flights over the pilot's ability, thus having a 180 effect on safety. I know some of the old timer's that instruct on our local Cap g1000 plane complain that the pilot's they instruct spend way too much time with their heads down button twiddling, and since they fly mostly by autopilot lack basic skills. Of course they are the old timers-me- I am somewhere in the middle. I'd still like to know if other than aircraft specific, if there are specific statistics that show whether the new tech planes are actually flying safer statistically than the old steam ones.In the Cirrus's case it does not seem to have made a difference.

I work at KDLH, where Cirrus Design builds their aircraft. Being both a controller and a pilot I'd also guess that too many new Cirrus pilots are fiddling with the glass rather than flying the plane. (I'm talking about single piloted acft here). The test pilots in the Cirrus' are exceptional in general and they've helped us many times. It's the low-time PPLs taking up their new Cirrus' who we worry about. I'm not saying glass isn't the future (because it is) but I believe even the simplest glass cockpits are pulling people's eyes out of the sky. Granted, once you are proficient with the aircraft it is an awesome bird, but maybe they need to focus on better cockpit training, whether sim-based or more hours of flight training prior to signing them off.Automation is a great tool when learned properly.

I am the first one to agree-however I was just looking at the ntsb page on Cirrus's . Quite a few of the fatal accidents for this year alone were impacting terrain (some in vfr), and getting disoriented..The Cirrus has a slightly worse than average safety record-even with all its glass/safety systems. One would expect the record should be stunningly better.Of course there are many reasons (including the Dr. killer mentality)-but again-does all this technology necessarily equate to more safety when the pilot will always be the weak link? Logic would dictate so-but it doesn't seem to be happening. One might argue that all this technology might give an over confident, complacent, false sense of security and encourage some to take flights over the pilot's ability, thus having a 180 effect on safety. I know some of the old timer's that instruct on our local Cap g1000 plane complain that the pilot's they instruct spend way too much time with their heads down button twiddling, and since they fly mostly by autopilot lack basic skills. Of course they are the old timers-me- I am somewhere in the middle. I'd still like to know if other than aircraft specific, if there are specific statistics that show whether the new tech planes are actually flying safer statistically than the old steam ones.In the Cirrus's case it does not seem to have made a difference.

Using the Cirrus aircraft is a poor example of not trying to justify automation. It is just a ripe opportunity for someone such as what you are doing in this case and is used too much. There are a whole lot of other aircraft out there that are either TAA or equipped with advanced automation.The Cirrus aircraft is equipped and certified as a TAA aircraft to do exactly what it is supposed to do if understood and properly used. In almost all the cases of that particular aircrafts crashes, none of the owners (maybe that has changed now) were COPA members. COPA encourages and organizes many safety seminars for the aircraft. It all comes down to the pilot his / her understanding of the systems, how to use them and when to use them... period. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the aircraft is capable and much safer if used properly. The whole point of automation is to relieve the pilot of ridiculous multi-tasking when in critical phases of flight. So the head in the cockpit because of automation doesn't fly with me. Why do you think the airlines use automation? Look at their safety records compared to GA + they are constantly doing recurrent.You can argue as you may, but automation in the cockpit and fully understanding how to use it produces much, much safer pilots and aircraft. I don't care how good you think you are Geofa, you cannot out fly a properly working autopilot and related systems. Also, there is a huge difference between wanting to hand fly and using automation to assist you so please do not confuse the two. Like I said before, you get the ability to choose which is good, but do not discredit automation or TAA aircraft. Thats just silly. Either way Geofa, it is great to have choice. Jim

Using the Cirrus aircraft is a poor example of not trying to justify automation. It is just a ripe opportunity for someone such as what you are doing in this case and is used too much. There are a whole lot of other aircraft out there that are either TAA or equipped with advanced automation.The Cirrus aircraft is equipped and certified as a TAA aircraft to do exactly what it is supposed to do if understood and properly used. In almost all the cases of that particular aircrafts crashes, none of the owners (maybe that has changed now) were COPA members. COPA encourages and organizes many safety seminars for the aircraft. It all comes down to the pilot his / her understanding of the systems, how to use them and when to use them... period. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the aircraft is capable and much safer if used properly. The whole point of automation is to relieve the pilot of ridiculous multi-tasking when in critical phases of flight. So the head in the cockpit because of automation doesn't fly with me. Why do you think the airlines use automation? Look at their safety records compared to GA + they are constantly doing recurrent.You can argue as you may, but automation in the cockpit and fully understanding how to use it produces much, much safer pilots and aircraft. I don't care how good you think you are Geofa, you cannot out fly a properly working autopilot and related systems. Also, there is a huge difference between wanting to hand fly and using automation to assist you so please do not confuse the two. Like I said before, you get the ability to choose which is good, but do not discredit automation or TAA aircraft. Thats just silly.Jim

Jim-I don't disagree that a TAA aircraft "to do exactly what it is supposed to do if understood and properly used" . I did state there is nothing more satisfying than hand flying an approach-and that I don't feel like using an autopilot is really flying, and don't use mine much. I stand by that. I never said I could fly an approach better than an autopilot-and I didn't say anything about how good I think I am-really! I also think the Reality Xp gps is one of the most useful add ins for fs, and its lack of coupling does not disturb me in the least-which I think is how this thread started-and practicing with it on the sim has reduced my multitasking.As far as commercial airliners-funny you should mention that. The recent airliner crashes seem to be by pilots using-or mis using their automatic systems. I think your statement "a TAA aircraft to do exactly what it is supposed to do if understood pilot" is also the problem-the pilot will always end up being the variable, and as some of the accidents show-can encourage some to get in well above their limits due to their trust in the technology. I think the Cirrus is a perfect example of this-and I think everyone is shocked how the actual data has turned out.In a recent similar debate on my Beech board-an airline pilot had an interesting observation. He had 12,000 hours but he proposed that they didn't count for much-as most of them were on autopilot. He also proposed that experience should not be expressed in hours-but in varied experiences e.g. a person with 2000 hours flying only in the pattern of their airport in vfr conditions should not be counted the same as someone flying over the whole US in varied weather and conditions with half that time.I personally have my doubts that if we train the whole next generation to fly aircraft by autopilot when 200 ft. from the ground like the airliners what the results will be. Perhaps like the airliners there will be a period of safety, followed by what seems to be going on this year....and I think the Cirrus is a perfect example of what is likely to occur on a wider scale. I think everyone, including myself have been much surprised by the results.I think in the hands of a professional pilot who trains regularly there probably will be no safer a vehicle. For the others though it may be another story.