I'm a dinosaur and I'm always amazed at the technology that pilot's have available to them these days.
While complex to learn, having huge glass navigation systems sitting in front of you in a single engine plane seems so foreign to me.
I did my instrument ride in a C-172 and my commercial in a PA-44.
During both of those checkrides, I ended up having to shoot ILS approaches to minimums, in turbulent IFR conditions, with nothing but "steam gauges". The fanciest thing in the plane was probably the HSI.
On the instrument ride, I had to shoot an NDB approach to minimums in actual. That was a good time.
I assume planes don't even come with NDBs anymore. I used to tune into AM radio on them just to have something to listen to to pass the time.
I used the latest Microsoft Flight Simulator recently and loaded up the C-172. It just stared at the screen for a minute, realizing I don't know how to use a G1000 so I couldn't fly it. I mean, I could start it up and get it off the ground, but for IFR navigation? No clue. Lots of buttons and fancy graphics.
Honestly - as someone who did their primary and instrument using steam gauges, and now mostly flies a Cirrus Perspective+ system (G1000 with some extra's), you'll get up to speed in less than a few hours of digging through the manual and playing in the SIM.
After about 10 or so hours, you'll start finding so many small things that make life infinitely easier for single-pilot ops that it's ridiculous we can do x or y with so little effort.
Running lean of peak, having a TOD, programming in our steps, hitting the approach button and just letting the plane fly is black magic at times. There's no going back for me at this rate, especially when I just want to go places. I've got a single-seat Yak for when I truly want to "fly"!
G1000s are great, but it's disappointing that just about everything else has remained basically unchanged on GA aircraft for the last 30+ years. I hope that we will see some actual innovation in GA engines, airframes, and fuels soon. Fuels might be the most promising for the near-term.
The innovation/future exists, but is not evenly distributed. For example Diamond planes [1] have:
- The same G1000 (NXi)
- A composite body
- Jet-fuel burning engines adapted from recent Mercedes diesels
- Computer control of that engine through one knob instead of managing the throttle/mixture/prop separately like cavemen
- Crash testing, like impact absorbing seat structure and separately enclosed fuel tank modules that are unlikely to rupture instead of just filling the wing.
And a new one costs about the same as a new Cessna 172 that's been essentially unchanged since the 60's except for the G1000 like you said.
But "the same" is a pretty nice house in most of the country (~$600k) so everything is hand-built, so costs are high, demand is kept low. Commercial students trying to get their 1500hrs mostly just need the lowest cost, not the nicest or safest.
Another big area of innovation and also lower costs is in experimentals and/or light-sport. LSAs should be getting a lot more capable soon with MOSAIC [2]
Yes a new DA40NG is around $600k, as is a new Cessna 172. A new DA62 is well into $1.5m with the options you'd want if spending that kind of money, and a 2-year wait last I heard.
Meanwhile you could build something like a Velocity V-Twin well-equipped for under half a million. Paying for certified lawyering is expensive.
Nearly all the innovation in general aviation, particularly regarding situational awareness and safety, is happening in the Experimental category. Moving maps, synthetic vision/terrain alerts, ADS-B in and out, engine monitoring, airspeed-aware electronic trim control, fuel injection, electronic ignition, FADEC systems... yes, all are available on newer certificated planes for $,$$$,$$$, but much more affordable and accessible in the Experimental world. And, the builder/owner can install and configure everything himself. Garmin's latest G3X update includes the ability to use rudimentary set/clear logic signals to do if-this-and-that type CAS alerts, and configure your gauges to behave differently during different phases of flight. All owner-configurable.
Reminds me of my (pretty recent) sailing course :) I went on a few short sailing trips after and other people on the boat only trained on the boat we were on, which was much fancier than the one I first had to deal with. The original one had:
- tiller instead of wheel (my brain could not)
- no bathroom (bucket available)
- no furling foresail (got to change to a storm jib in strong winds)
- no auto locking winch
- no auto pilot
- no depth sensor
- no gps/screen
- no fuel gauge
- no clutches (only a couple of jam cleats that didn't work really well)
- retractable engine (so we had to lower it/pull it up manually, was fun to use it to stabilize the boat a bit when winds were strong)
Boat was also a bit smaller 31' vs 34'. I'd still take my course on that boat if I had to redo it, it was a deeper learning experience.
> The fanciest thing in the plane was probably the HSI.
The HSI is probably the most intuitive navigation instrument for me. You point the picture of the plane to the heading you want to fly into or away from the radio beacon, and it tells you whether you need to fly left or right in order to intercept the correct course.
For fun, I fly the Lockheed Super Constellation^1 in my flight simulator (FlightGear; it's FOSS) in CAT2 or even CAT3 weather mode, and try to fly from one airport to another using only the 'steam gauge' instruments and my memory of the radio navigation frequencies. Recently I've been hand-flying without the autopilot as well. I'm the pilot, navigator, radio man and flight engineer for the quad R-3350 engines all in one seat. There's something amazingly satisfying about seeing the ALSF lights appear through the jet-black haze seconds before a smooth touchdown, and I'm proud to say that I've only crashed into hills a few times!
^1: ...which predates glass cockpit instruments in airliners by about half a century
I'd have to agree (with the little experience I have). My school is the cheapest on the block and we have the oldest planes, the other day I sat in another's schools C172 and saw the G1000 and.. "damn.. look at all those colours and uh what does this button do" was just about all I could say
I think in regards to safety, screens have the upper hand 99% of the time however...
a) the 1:1 of screen X to screen Y doesn't exist, I (think) you have to pretty much learn the new system
b) there's a certain je ne se quais to instruments
c) the school that has the G1000 needs a G1000 trainer as well as an IFR trainer (though I guess that's fine because then you have experience in both)
d) too much screens may not be the best - the G600 has touchscreens now
Guessing you meant 6-pack/steam-gauge trainer, since anything with a G1000 put in is virtually guaranteed to be IFR-capable.
There's no hard requirement to learn one versus the other. If you're a new student today and looking to go to one of the big-boy airlines you'll probably never need to fly a 6-pack if the school you pick has G1000's.
Maybe my point was rubbish, just wanted to highlight that the learning curve is --> this is an IFR instrument + how it's represented/actioned thru our avionics suite
For sure, something bigboys might be happy to hear you covered in your ATP
It's hard to find NDB approaches at all anymore. Did you do IR in the US? The FAA from what I've read doesn't even encourage an instrument checkride in IMC. That's crazy you did it twice.
I went to colllege to become an airline pilot, and I was shocked that I ended up having to fly an NDB approach in actual conditions to minimums. You just don't see that anymore.
And the tolerances on the checkride is that you can only deviate from the course by a certain number of degrees.
I vividly remember staring at the ADF with the needle swinging wildly left to right as we were tossed around thinking "surely I can't get failed for turbulence"?
I also did my IFR in the 90ies on steam gauges. Our ADFs didn't even have the rotating dial, so you had to keep them synchronized with the direction indicator manually. What a pain. Moving maps in the cockpit must be the greatest safety feature ever invented.
Thanks so much for sharing. I wrapped up instrument earlier this year entirely in a TAA. Went out with my CFII a few times in steam gauge because I felt like I was missing out
It can vary greatly across the country. My instructor loved to use LORAN which one of the planes was equipped with (and was shut down shortly afterwards).
Same! My checkride was in 2001 in a 1979 Cessna 150.
My check pilot was a 5'2" WWII vet that needed a booster seat and was notorious for opening his damn door on final approach (which he did to me, luckily I was prepared).
You just have to be prepared to crab slightly for a second as a result, but it's not that big of an aerodynamic impact.
It's more to see if you can stay calm and focused on your task when something loud and chaotic and unexpected happens. You're basically supposed to evaluate it, ask for him to close it and then continue monitoring the VASI/PAPI and your instruments.
While complex to learn, having huge glass navigation systems sitting in front of you in a single engine plane seems so foreign to me.
I did my instrument ride in a C-172 and my commercial in a PA-44.
During both of those checkrides, I ended up having to shoot ILS approaches to minimums, in turbulent IFR conditions, with nothing but "steam gauges". The fanciest thing in the plane was probably the HSI.
On the instrument ride, I had to shoot an NDB approach to minimums in actual. That was a good time.
I assume planes don't even come with NDBs anymore. I used to tune into AM radio on them just to have something to listen to to pass the time.
I used the latest Microsoft Flight Simulator recently and loaded up the C-172. It just stared at the screen for a minute, realizing I don't know how to use a G1000 so I couldn't fly it. I mean, I could start it up and get it off the ground, but for IFR navigation? No clue. Lots of buttons and fancy graphics.
The march of progress.