Will the maintenance logs be tied to individual tail numbers?

 

Like I might want to have one plane that is well maintained and reflects a pride of ownership.  And then I might also want to have one that is a nightmare of airplane that no sane person in real life would go near or take to the skies in, and that every second of flight is one second closer to the grave.  Will it be possible to have both, or will all paints be tied to the same maintenance file?

Insta-buy for me.

The 172 is a rugged airplane designed to handle student abuse, things aren't just going to 'break'.  You might fly hundreds of hours before something actually wears out.  I've flown the A2A P-40 a lot, I have never had a major equipment failure, just occasional brake replacement along with a fuel filter now and then.  It is like real airplane that you the pilot can choose to be as preflight/checklist bound as you want.  You can choose not do preflight anything.  The plane will still fly fine.  It is kind of like a really long game of roulette :lol:

My only fear is, as someone else posted elsewhere, that I will grow tired of having to check everything... realism is great but sometimes it gets in the way of simple enjoyment.

 

I had the same problem with the Katana.  A2A usually makes it easy to bypass the complexity if you want to - for example, you can turn off Accu-Sim, or click "Autostart."  If I recall correctly, Scott said over at the A2A forums that the 172 will respond to CTL-E (it will invoke the whole Accu-Sim start sequence).  So if you're not in the mood to do everything, chances are you can work around the tasks you don't like, and just fly.  I sometimes do this in their other aircraft if I'm pressed for time.  And in the crewed aircraft, I'm happy to use the crew - I love the B-17 start sequence, but if I don't have the 10 or 15 minutes to spare, I'll select Autostart and let my very capable co-pilot handle it.  It's good for him to get the experience.

 

With the Katana, it's all or nothing - you can turn off the realism, but if you want any realism, then you have to do the whole preflight routine.  Also, I agree the timed maintenance features got old after a while ("OK, you've made your point!")  If A2A stays true to form, the 172 should be a lot more configuable.

Reviewing their first video shows that you can choose cold and dark, auto-start, damage on, etc...so it looks like you can configure it to be as detailed or casual as you like.  I'm another simmer who's never purchased from A2A, but I do think I'll buy this.  It will certainly force me to think a bit more, and it will educate me on the matters I've previously ignored.  I don't know how realistic it will be flying into national airport sceneries with a Cessna.  I don't think Cessna's have much access to large airports nowadays, maybe I'm wrong. 

Lewis or someone from A2A would have to answer that, but it's not a big deal if you have to buy it separately. Their web store has a button at the bottom of each aircraft page that says "bundle with accu-sim package" that saves 5 bucks, then you get a download link for the base package and a second link for the accu-sim upgrade. It's very simple really.

Not a big deal to you maybe, but an 'integrated' single product would likely be cheaper than buying the Plane plus AccuSim, or a Plane+Accusim Bundle price.

 

So it does figure for the price sensitive amongst us (which includes me!).

Hey, I'm price sensitive too, believe me 

 

I think what it boils down to is A2A have a set price in mind they want to charge for an Accu-sim product. If they sell it as integrated or seperately they're not going to change the price point. The benefit to the "price sensitive" among us comes from when they have separate packages. That way you can buy the base package and still enjoy the aircraft for $30 or so, but of course you don't get any of the Accu-sim features like persistent wear, maintenance hangar, etc.

If you were going to teach someone to drive, better yet, how to parallel park, would you teach them in a car that has one of these new parking cameras?  They will become dependent on that camera, and will most likely have problems when parking a car without those parking assist devices. 

 

Same thing with flying, if you introduce modern technology to beginners, they will always be reliant on that technology and they will have a much harder time learning fundamental skills.   After those skills have become instinctual, then the modern technology could be added in.  They can use a GPS all they want, provided that if the GPS fails (alternators fail), they can still read a sectional and find their way home. 

 

Multi engine training is the same thing.  The DA-42 is a fantastic airplane, I would certainly buy one if I were able.  Night flying over the Rockies, with all the glass cockpit gizmos would be excellent.  But when it comes to multi engine training, the DA-42's glass and simplistic throttle quadrant don't cut it.  A MEL student needs to deal with six levers (2 throttle, 2 prop, 2 mix) and learn to properly identify and secure a dead engine. 

 

A good pilot will ultimately learn how to balance things, and use the GPS when appropriate.  It is just like relying on the autopilot too much.  The 777 crash at SFO showed the results of that. 

 

Cheers

TJ

What happens when the cars rear view mirrors are iced up and cannot have the ice removed? The person would not understand how to use the parking cameras and would not be able to park the car.

 

It works both ways, you need to learn to use all tools available to you.

What happens when the cars rear view mirrors are iced up and cannot have the ice removed? The person would not understand how to use the parking cameras and would not be able to park the car.

 

It works both ways, you need to learn to use all tools available to you.

 

Yes, I agree with you there.   I understand the importance in learning real forms of navigation (and not be dependent on GPS) but it also makes sense to learn about all tools that could help you out, if you needed it.     A flight school here, puts a 'seal' on the 'ON' switch of the 296 in the glove box, during cross country flights and other qualifying flights  - it is there if the student needs it in an emergency, but can't be used without the CFI knowing about it! :lol:

True, learn how to use the camera after you have mastered the basics without technological help  What happens when the person who is used to a parking camera, drives a car that isn't equipped with one? 

 

Back to the GPS/Sectional scenario...you are flying along on a VFR solo cross country....your alternator conks out, requiring you to turn off all unnecessary electronics...that includes the GPS.  I don't know about you, but I would want my battery to last as long as possible.  

 

Anyway should you panic?  Declare an emergency? of course not.  all you have to is look at your sectional, find your last known position, then look outside look for some landmarks such as roads, rivers, tracks, towns, mountains...whatever.  locate your  current position on the sectional.  Then all you have to do, is look on the sectional for a nearby airport, then take a pen, lay it on the sectional, point from your position to the airport...move the pen to a VOR ring, you will get a heading.  Next line up the pen with the lat long grid marks, each 'grid' is 30nm, you can determine the distance.  Figuring your 172 covers roughly 2nm/min, you can figure an ETE.  If you have an E6B, you can use that ETE to figure how much fuel you will burn.  

 

So without the aid of GPS or navaid you can easily figure your position, heading, distance, ETE to another point.  That was something that was taught to all of us student pilots going through our student training then.   This is just basic stuff for student pilots to learn.    We are talking about students here too.  If you are already a pilot, you have already demonstrated that you can do these things, so if you want to Glass it up, by all means.  You and Ryan are right, it is up to the pilot to learn to use these technologies as well.  

 

Cheers

TJ

IMO, G1000 is too complex for inexperienced pilots. Amount of data is overwhelming and distracting, not to mention 100 buttons and knobs. Beside that, new pilots tend to forget basics, relying on calculated track to compensate the wind (while cannot find it manually), forget to maintain a nav log because computer does that automatically, cannot calculate TOD because computer already calculated vertical profile, they feel false safety with ECL and forget memory items and most important, they forget to look outside (it's VFR after all).

 

I would not recommend anyone to begin to fly in G1000 equipped aircraft.

 

This is an interesting debate I think. I've been flying for 18 years and started flying G1000 equipped Cessnas about 2 years ago. Since then it's become my definite preference, I rarely if ever fly steam gauge by choice.

 

I think an ab initio student should be able to use the PFD element of a Garmin setup from the very start. More so if they're unlikely to ever get into a steam gauge cockpit because their school/future employer/aeroclub is all-glass. It makes for a more efficient scan than steam gauges, which translates to more time 'eyes-outside', and teaching ab initios to avoid fixating on the intruments is going to be required regardless of what format those intruments are presented in. You don't have to understand all the elements of the PFD straight away, an instructor would gradually introduce them as approriate to the training.

 

To me, letting new pilots loose in an autopilot-equipped airplane is the real risk. When I did my G1000 checkout, the instructor only cleared me to use the autopilot after I disengaged it because it was about to fly us into high ground. The trick being to know when NOT to use it, rather than when to use it.

 

Since then I've had two situations where the autopilot 'tried to kill' me, and my instinctive reaction wasn't to program my way out of the mess, but to press the A/P DISC switch and FLY myself out of it.

 

As for the navigational element of the G1000, I think there is a place for the G1000 to be introduced in the latter stages of a PPL. I'd want to see a student demonstrate good airmanship, spatial awareness and planning on a cross-country or two before I let them use the G1000, and I'd then want to see them use it appropriately.

 

 

Isn't that kind of like saying, you don't need to learn to drive a stick shift because most modern cars are automatic?  Yeah you might go through life never needing to drive a stick, but that lack of skill will keep you from driving a % of cars.  Its not really a big deal, and I am actually glad a large % of people don't know how drive a stick these days.  That means a certain % of would be car thieves won't be able to steal my car because they don't know how to drive a stick :lol:

I tried G1000 after 70 hours at classic, it's really great, I like it, but I think it's not worth the higher price, so I continued with classic.

 

I was completely prepared, studied manual, but still, I was amazed with amount of data G1000 presents to me. I don't know if I would be able to fly it from the day one.

You DON'T need to learn to drive a stick because most modern cars are automatic.  Then again I ride a motorcycle, doesn't really count as "stick" or automatic...  :ph34r:

 

I don't know if I am going to get this or the 777 first.  I am leaning towards the 172, if only because it'll be a bit cheaper.  It pains me that they are coming out so close to each other.  I could fly either one for months.

You DON'T need to learn to drive a stick because most modern cars are automatic. Then again I ride a motorcycle, doesn't really count as "stick" or automatic...

 

I haven't owned an automatic in years (my car, wife's car and motorcycle - and yes counts as "stick" to me, as the issue for most people is actually the clutch - are all stick).  I'm with TJ - it's an advantage that most "modern" drivers can't drive them.  In addition to the theft issue he mentions, few friends seem to want to borrow my cars either.  :-)  Funny thing too - all three of my boys were required to master a manual transmission - its what they all used as their primary driving trainer.  All three thought I was being a hard-@#* at the time, but all three have thanked me many times since.

 

Hmm... think we're getting a bit far afield here.  Bottom line is, it sounds like A2A are catering to "all of the above" so if you want stick - no GPS that is - in your plane, you can have it.  If you want your RXP 530, you can have that too.   I know how to drive airplane stick (pilotage, dead-reckoning, NDBs, VOR) and still do so all the time because I enjoy it, but I'll still take my planes wit!

 

Scott