That would be nice if it was true. The transport aircraft I just moved from still used gyros.

 

Examples: The first, is on the high end cost wise. Cessna is now using these in the new line of Corvalis's.....to replace steam gauge backups.

The next one, is available for us "experimental" aircraft. Signifficantly cheaper. The Garmin 696 in the third link, is what I've used.

It's now been replaced with the new 796 touch screens. The 696 uses XM Satellite weather. It also brings up a Jeppeson airport diagram

with your aircrafts exact location on the runway. It's true.............that many commercial transport aircraft, do not yet have these features in

the cockpit.

 

http://sarasotaavionics.com/avionics/trilogy-esi_1000

 

http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D1_intro.html

 

http://www.sportys.com/PilotShop/product/9548/?gclid=CO2MvYWAhrICFSXhQgodLRAAAQ

Yes, I've flown with these but I've had them all fail more times then I have with an old vacuum system. You can keep trying to sell these to aviators with no skill to get themselves out of a wet bag.

 

 

 

Nothing replaces true skill.

Woah... You're saying flying with glass isn't skillful?

 

LOL

 

I'm an air traffic controller. I talk to numerous pilots per day. Many are "professional" pilots. Whether the plane has glass or not doesn't mean poop with regards to skillful pilotage. I see you're one of "those" pilots who can't accept change.... *sigh* Glass is here to stay, embrace it. I will agree some pilots become complacent on the technology - which is unfortunate. But glass is truly more powerful and efficient than a six pack. (And no I didn't get my license in a glass panel)

Woah... You're saying flying with glass isn't skillful?

 

LOL

 

I'm an air traffic controller. I talk to numerous pilots per day. Many are "professional" pilots. Whether the plane has glass or not doesn't mean poop with regards to skillful pilotage. I see you're one of "those" pilots who can't accept change.... *sigh* Glass is here to stay, embrace it. I will agree some pilots become complacent on the technology - which is unfortunate. But glass is truly more powerful and efficient than a six pack. (And no I didn't get my license in a glass panel)

Yes flying behind glass takes much less skill to interpret things because it is all laid out for you. Training the old paper and steam way gets you more in tune with what is happening with the aircraft.

 

I've flown nearly my whole professional career behind glass of all sorts and I know it is not this magical thing that people tout it to be. I've seen way to many people that have relied so heavily on glass that they haven't been able to pilot it with a simple systems reduction. I've had G1000's in Cessna's and the King Air fail numerous times with navigation, AHRS references and screen failures. I've heard people declare emergencies because they lost their GPS signals.

 

It's not that I don't accept change because I love flying with the glass and how smooth the aircraft flies with digital inputs. The thing I hate is pilots not having a solid base of airmanship and using the glass as a crutch.

Yes flying behind glass takes much less skill to interpret things because it is all laid out for you. Training the old paper and steam way gets you more in tune with what is happening with the aircraft.

 

Can't say I disagree. Ryan, Chris isn't talking stick and rudder skill. He's talking nitty, gritty instrument flying skill (correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm reading). When the manure hits the ventilation, glass sure lays it out nicely for easy comprehension and situational awareness (ie takes less skill to comprehend and apply).

Yes flying behind glass takes much less skill to interpret things because it is all laid out for you. Training the old paper and steam way gets you more in tune with what is happening with the aircraft.

 

And I've spent the last 30+ years, checking out all of the investigative reports of "fatal" CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents. And what did most have in common? No modern terrain data-base GPS or synthetic vision. Paper and "steam" is just what it is. And that's an inferior form of navigation, that preceeded an inferior form before it. The VOR system is over 60 years old now.

 

For quite a few years now, I've actually flown to various crash sites, to compare good moving map GPS readouts, to what these pilots "didn't" have. In every case, I could have easily changed course, to avoid terrain, thanks to the modern GPS. If you want to insinuate, that GPS failure, is common, then do so. However, I've often discussed this with airline pilots who fly with aircraft that use GPS as the principal navigation system out of three. Failure is few and far between. I have not had a failure on my Garmins in the last 18 years with five different handhelds, during that course of time.

 

I've also discussed this with some of the top avionic installers in this country. They'll have no problem telling you, that modern electronics are far more reliable, than our radio navigation systems of the past. On the otherhand, I've argued with a flight instructor here or there, who will tell you that their GPS fails weekly. What they don't tell you, is that the plane is moving between two buildings, where the signal is always cut..............or that somehow, they're just wanting to fly into one of those notamed GPS test zones, at weird hours of the night. All these guys want to do, is make some point, to their students.

 

As to GPS failure, it's usually the box itself, the antenna, or the antenna connection. By all means, do get it fixed, and have a backup. In the meantime, the paper & pencil pilot.............will never be as informed in flight, as one will with GPS, synthetic vision, and a weather service such as XM Satellite.

There will always be the few, who will stupidly just push the "direct" button, and follow the magenta line. Most modern navigation users, are not of this type. They just realize, that there is a much better way...........and that it has "nothing" to do with basic airmanship. Anytime some "old school" instructor tries to push "VOR" navigation, as a basics for flying,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I want to puke. And of course, they're still are those, who do just that.

 

L.Adamson

 

edit: Notice how I said "most", in the first paragraph. There will always be the CFI (or five)...........who will say "Oh yea, then what about those two high time CAP pilots who hit the mountain out of Las Vegas with a Garmin 1000 equipped airplane"? I did talk to the CAP about that one. Even talked to a person who helped implement new procedures. Now, both pilots must have passed a course, to even sit in either front seat, of a Garmin equipped aircraft.

I flew with this pilot on a wings of mercy flight a week before he flew his plane into the side of a mountain in Montana. He had a Garmin 430 and a 696 with xm, was an excellent by the books instrument pilot, and struck me as an extremely cautious and capable pilot.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100601X32457&ntsbno=WPR10FA273&akey=1

 

Perhaps it is less about the aircraft and how it is equipped and more about the pilot, decision making for that flight, and a little " fate is the hunter" thrown in....

Can't say I disagree. Ryan, Chris isn't talking stick and rudder skill. He's talking nitty, gritty instrument flying skill (correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm reading). When the manure hits the ventilation, glass sure lays it out nicely for easy comprehension and situational awareness (ie takes less skill to comprehend and apply).

 

And it does. Within our RV "experimental aircraft" forums, we have many builder pilots, who are also commercial airline, or military pilots. It's often stated, that their small homebuilt plane, has more capability, than the full systems of their airliner for true situational awareness. This includes weather, airport , terrain mapping, etc. That's means, that a good portion of todays commercial airliners, still don't have what a Cessna 172 trainer with a Garmin 1000 has. I have several airline pilot friends, who will also readily admit to that.

 

BTW--- Happily, aviation GPS designers, have finally accepted the idea, that many of these GPS/glass systems can be a handfull to use. It's been a system, of menus, more menus, and sub pages within a menu. In other words, simply confusing, if you don't use the system regularly. The new products are consumer oriented, instead of "engineer" oriented. That means, simple menus, in which it all goes back to the main page, instead of being hidden on a sub page somewhere.

 

I flew with this pilot on a wings of mercy flight a week before he flew his plane into the side of a mountain in Montana. He had a Garmin 430 and a 696 with xm, was an excellent by the books instrument pilot, and struck me as an extremely cautious and capable pilot.

http://www.ntsb.gov/...R10FA273&akey=1

 

Perhaps it is less about the aircraft and how it is equipped and more about the pilot, decision making for that flight, and a little " fate is the hunter" thrown in....

 

Seeing, how I've been in the Montana mountains numerous times with my Garmin 696 GPS...............I can tell you, that it certainly wasn't the GPS's fault. It worked every time, with those big red & yellow splotches to warn of terrain. And "I TRIED TO USE A PROFANITY HERE - AREN'T I STUPID!ing Betty" would also holler "terrain, terrain" through my headphones,. She even get's louder, and seems more annoyed, if you get to close,

 

edit: depends on the definition of profanity. How dumb....

I am not talking about what those systems can do for you to aid situational awareness. I am saying that pilots rely too much on those aids and when they are gone the pilots are usually SOL.

I read this report a few months back...twice...

 

https://www.google.c...j3X2BEA&cad=rja

 

Pretty interesting charts and information. Very relevant to the discussion. I'm a big believer in steam gauges and a GPS myself...never been a fan of the speed tape on glass...but I do like those backup systems mentioned above.

I am not talking about what those systems can do for you to aid situational awareness. I am saying that pilots rely too much on those aids and when they are gone the pilots are usually SOL.

 

If you can't use paper and VORs, I'm not sure you're mentally fit to be operating in the system sharing airspace with my precious @$$. :Thinking: More often than not, newly rated instrument guys that trained with those Aspen units or fancy smancy G1000s are ducks out of water when in a more conventionally equipped steam gauge a/c. The opposite scenario seems to be less true. ie steam with 430/530 guys transition nicely over to avionics like the G1000. Or so I think.

 

One thing is for sure: The days of good old fashioned pilotage (a word I often see misused in this forum--it means map and reference points, people) and dead reckoning are coming to an end abruptly. VORs and paper maps are, too. I even use my iPhone and Foreflight in the J-3 for navigation and music...

 

Chris. To clarify, I'm agreeing with your statement. LOL

If you can't use paper and VORs, I'm not sure you're mentally fit to be operating in the system sharing airspace with my precious @$$. :Thinking: More often than not, newly rated instrument guys that trained with those Aspen units or fancy smancy G1000s are ducks out of water when in a more conventionally equipped steam gauge a/c. The opposite scenario seems to be less true. ie steam with 430/530 guys transition nicely over to avionics like the G1000. Or so I think.

 

One thing is for sure: The days of good old fashioned pilotage (a word I often see misused in this forum--it means map and reference points, people) and dead reckoning are coming to an end abruptly. VORs and paper maps are, too. I even use my iPhone and Foreflight in the J-3 for navigation and music...

 

I was once told, on this forum I believe.............that if I wasn't setting my OBS's before every cross country flight, then I had no right to fly. Elsewhere, I was told to stay out of Wyoming............if I was using my moving map terrain based GPS instead of navigating with VORs. Problem is, my plane has no VOR nav radios. Just a handheld nav/com, that sit's in the back. I do make it a point to use current charts, when planning long distant cross country trips. It's usually mountain regions. In order for VORs to function, I'd have to fly higher to triangulate (line of sight) or just use low altitude VOR criss crossing routes (instead of more direct), which I usually prefer not to. In other words, since these flights are not IFR, there is no longer any point in wasting money to install expensive & inferior.......Nav/comm units, unless they are part of an expensive Garmin glass type panel.

 

There's also another side of the Aspen/Garmin story. Some pilots become very adept & proficient with their use; while some CFI's just don't use them enough to be skillfull with these units. Sometimes, it takes a lot to get a CFI to admit to that.

 

I previously mentioned those RV builder pilots who also fly commercial airliners. I know of many of them, who don't install VOR nav comms in the panel either. And if they do..............it might look somewhat like this...

 

But............there's more information to quickly scan, than a couple of moving needles...

I know of many of them, who don't install VOR nav comms in the panel either. And if they do..............it might look somewhat like this...

 

Then what is that GNS530 doing smack dab in the middle of the panel?

Then what is that GNS530 doing smack dab in the middle of the panel?

 

 

"I know of many of them, who don't install VOR nav comms in the panel either. And if they do..............it might look somewhat like this..."

I was once told, on this forum I believe.............that if I wasn't setting my OBS's before every cross country flight, then I had no right to fly. Elsewhere, I was told to stay out of Wyoming............if I was using my moving map terrain based GPS instead of navigating with VORs. Problem is, my plane has no VOR nav radios. Just a handheld nav/com, that sit's in the back. I do make it a point to use current charts, when planning long distant cross country trips. It's usually mountain regions. In order for VORs to function, I'd have to fly higher to triangulate (line of sight) or just use low altitude VOR criss crossing routes (instead of more direct), which I usually prefer not to. In other words, since these flights are not IFR, there is no longer any point in wasting money to install expensive & inferior.......Nav/comm units, unless they are part of an expensive Garmin glass type panel.

 

There's also another side of the Aspen/Garmin story. Some pilots become very adept & proficient with their use; while some CFI's just don't use them enough to be skillfull with these units. Sometimes, it takes a lot to get a CFI to admit to that.

 

I previously mentioned those RV builder pilots who also fly commercial airliners. I know of many of them, who don't install VOR nav comms in the panel either. And if they do..............it might look somewhat like this...

 

But............there's more information to quickly scan, than a couple of moving needles...

 

I'm not arguing one way or the other against glass (I'm a huge G1000 fan[namely the G36's suite]). What I'm saying is that if a pilot is incapable of orientation by using traditional maps, their knowledge, cognitive skills, training, or all of the above is in question as far as I'm concerned. It shows an obvious superficial understanding of the very serious environment they are in. This is even more true when in the IFR environment --more specifically IMC. What Chris and I have made perfectly clear is that those who show an obvious over reliance on a particular technology in the aircraft are probably not capable of using anything else. ie maps. plotter. dead reckoning. pilotage. I won't mention VORs

 

To put into perspective the above, remember that the bulk of GA is flight training (not RV builders). That includes the plane full of 18-20 something year olds building cross country time in whatever they can get their hands on. With that in mind, remember that flying a spectrum of different a/c with different equipment is typical. Being well rounded and knowing your stuff is desirable (and something that is becoming less and less common).

 

There really is a lot to cover with this discussion, and I've got to catch up LogbookPro tonight! :wacko: I leave you with my thoughts, for now!