Simply put, you don’t fly the airplane and monitor the gauges, but fly the system and monitor the airplane
Yes, but that is true for all flight on autopilot – to the extent that in the piston world one is usually so severely performance limited (one can’t just dial up +1000fpm and FL300) that one is only a small step from flying the plane manually, and one may be monitoring the engine parameters more than monitoring the navigation parameters.
And “we” have had autopilots for… how long… 1970s? Really GA avionics did not change much until about 10 years ago, in terms of what the average IFR panel looks like.
So what has really changed?
you don’t fly the airplane and monitor the gauges, but fly the system and monitor the airplane
Hey, I thought you and Jude were monitoring the airplane? 
My instructor said: Learn to use your gadgets in clear weather before you use them in anger in IMC.
But let’s say you didn’t know, would it affect safety of the flight?
In a controlled flight, no, but if one was already behind the system or in conditions they didn’t like or actually couldn’t handle, then one gets into an overload situation and were too far behind to transfer onto basic piloting skills. A lot of people do demonstrate an intimate knowledge of their systems, which is good, and how it should be, but I fear for people who haven’t taken the training or been given bad training and haven’t had to prove their competency. I could potentially fly Peter’s plane tomorrow without any formal qualification, but I could get behind the flow quite easily in a more complex environment.
It’s difficult, on the one hand I would hate to see people to be forced to do a 5 hour course at £200 an hour or something each time they got a new piece of avionics, but on the other I do worry that GA pilots aren’t given the opportunities to learn properly and be safe. As one said, he wasn’t even taught how to use an A/P on an IR.
Hey, I thought you and Jude were monitoring the airplane?
Nah – I just enjoyed watching the TV screens
Yes, that’s what I’ve heard too. I have also seen (and photographed) the plane in RGV’s hanagr in Gloucestershire, and Stuart Vincent of RGV told me that the owner/pilot ordered a new Cirrus the next day :-)
For your bedtime reading
GLASS COCKPIT TRANSITION TRAINING….by Cathrine E. Smith
NTSB’s Safety Study – Introduction of Glass Cockpit Avionics into Light Aircraft
Findings & Recommendations from this NTSB study
Findings
1. Study analyses of aircraft accident and activity data showed a decrease in total accident rates but an increase in fatal accident rates for the selected group of glass cockpit aircraft when compared to similar conventionally equipped aircraft during the study period. Overall, study analyses did not show a significant improvement in safety for the glass cockpit study group.
2. Pilots must be able to demonstrate a minimum knowledge of primary aircraft flight instruments and displays in order to be prepared to safely operate aircraft equipped with those systems, which is necessary for all aircraft but is not currently addressed by Federal Aviation Administration knowledge tests for glass cockpit displays.
3. Pilots are not always provided all of the information necessary to adequately understand the unique operational and functional details of the primary flight instruments in their airplanes.
4. Generalized guidance and training are no longer sufficient to prepare pilots to safely operate glass cockpit avionics; effective pilot instruction and evaluation must be tailored to specific equipment.
5. Simulators or procedural trainers are the most practical alternative means of training pilots to identify and respond to glass cockpit avionics failures and malfunctions that cannot be easily or safely replicated in light aircraft.
6. Identification and tracking of service difficulties, equipment malfunctions or failures, abnormal operations, and other safety issues will be increasingly important as light aircraft avionics systems and equipment continue to increase in complexity and variation of design, and current reporting to the Federal Aviation Administration’s service difficulty reporting system does not adequately capture this information for 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 certified aircraft used in general aviation operations.
7. The Federal Aviation Administration’s current review of the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 certification process provides an opportunity to improve upon deficiencies in the reporting of equipment malfunctions and defects identified by the Federal Aviation Administration and aviation industry representatives in the July 2009 Part 23 – Small Airplane Certification Process Study.
8. Some glass cockpit displays include recording capabilities that have significantly benefited accident investigations and provide the general aviation community with the ability to improve equipment reliability and the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations through data analyses.
Recommendations
As a result of this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration:
Revise airman knowledge tests to include questions regarding electronic flight and navigation displays, including normal operations, limitations, and the interpretation of malfunctions and aircraft attitudes. (A-10-36)
Require all manufacturers of certified electronic primary flight displays to include information in their approved aircraft flight manual and pilot’s operating handbook supplements regarding abnormal equipment operation or malfunction due to subsystem and input malfunctions, including but not limited to pitot and/or static system blockages, magnetic sensor malfunctions, and attitude-heading reference system alignment failures. (A-10-37)
Incorporate training elements regarding electronic primary flight displays into your training materials and aeronautical knowledge requirements for all pilots. (A-10-38)
Incorporate training elements regarding electronic primary flight displays into your initial and recurrent flight proficiency requirements for pilots of 14 Code of Regulations Part 23 certified aircraft equipped with those systems that address variations in equipment design and operation of such displays. (A-10-39)
Develop and publish guidance for the use of equipment-specific electronic avionics display simulators and procedural trainers that do not meet the definition of flight simulation training devices prescribed in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60 to support equipment-specific pilot training requirements. (A-10-40)
Inform aircraft and avionics maintenance technicians about the critical role of voluntary service difficulty reporting system reports involving malfunctions or defects associated with electronic primary flight, navigation, and control systems in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 certified aircraft used in general aviation operations. (A-10-41)
A lot of people do demonstrate an intimate knowledge of their systems, which is good, and how it should be, but I fear for people who haven’t taken the training or been given bad training and haven’t had to prove their competency.
I see your point but I guess my point is that the training and information is out there. If they take on a complex airplane and are too cheap or lazy or overconfident to make use of those resources then I am not sympathetic.
You know you shouldn’t just jump into Peter’s plane. Why do some people not use commonsense like that? I could fly the Meridian with no formal requirement vs the Mirage. I was worried about engine and G1000 so paid for a transition course. But I still had to work a lot out for myself over time as no course can teach you every subtlety.
I suppose what I am getting at is pilots should take responsibility for themselves and be self critical. No one made that guy use all the advanced systems on the cirrus. You can fly it like a PA-28 and it will do fine.
No one made that guy use all the advanced systems on the cirrus. You can fly it like a PA-28 and it will do fine.
I get your drift but I don’t think that’s actually practically true. For a start, the average pilot will not find where the transponder code is set. It’s there, labelled, but it will take a little while…
I would not even dream of getting into a plane on my own unless I fully understood the autopilot, because if there is any rapid workload increment the autopilot goes ON immediately so you can deal with the situation properly.
This guy must have had some type specific training but it looks like somebody made a decision on how far to take it, and they didn’t take it very far.
Peter my point wasn’t that you should get in a new plane like that but more that if you find you are not coping, slow the plane down, disable the stuff that is confusing you. Fly back to Oxford where you were in VMC. Why he didn’t just level the wings and take a break is beyond me.
We all make mistakes but it is how you handle them that matters.
No training can cover all of these systems. As a well known PA46 engineer said, you can’t make anything foolproof because fools are so resourceful….
