It’s really difficult to find instructors who know this stuff – even today, a decade after these boxes started to appear.
When I got my TB20 in 2002 I could not find an instructor who knew how the HSI (a 1982 instrument, in this case) worked, and learning how to fly a GPS approach with the KLN94 was totally out of the question (especially as there weren’t any GPS approaches in Europe, probably).
There are a few freelancers who specialise in advanced training but they charge quite a lot of money, they often don’t travel to you, and you find out about them only by joining type specific forums so you have to actively seek out advanced training which is against human nature 
In the UK, you could count them on your fingers. Obviously, most “G1000-type” pilots will never get anywhere near one. They use the box as a very simple GPS navigator.
follow STARSs flying DCT RNAV fixes on arrival
I’ve never heard of anybody doing that, nooooo, not ever 
But really airports have themselves to blame for publishing arcane “RNAV” or “PRNAV” procedures which are almost never flown except maybe for the very first segment. Nowadays there are airports that publish maybe 30 PRNAV SIDs/STARs and you can bet nobody flies them because the whole lot is radar vectored. Even “old pilots” will need their brain reprogrammed if these procedures (the drafting of which created a lot of nice jobs somewhere) actually start being used as published. Also most planes+crews are not PRNAV certified so it’s a case of “don’t ask the question so no lies need be told”. Somebody told me that if the procedures published for the London airports were to be actually used, instead of radar vectoring, the system capacity would fall to 20% of present.
Some of the touch screen stuff from Garmin is getting more intuitive, but the G1000 and things of similar vintage are still hopelessly reliant on reading the manual and training a lot if you are using the more advanced functions IMHO. As a non IFR flyer, but working as an ATCO, there are some hints that pilots sometimes struggle to use their avionics properly.
Ex: You fly a complex single like a PA46, EA50 or some such, which often have all the bells and whistles in the avionics, when you cannot fly to and follow STARSs flying DCT RNAV fixes on arrival, req vectors etc I sometimes wonder if the avionics are a bit too complicated.
(There will hopefully be a AIBN report over here on a close call in Oslo last year, with this as likely contributing factor)
It would also be interesting to note what has not changed.
For example the user interface design on most avionics doesn’t seem to be much good. Too many layers of functionality and a lot of non-obvious stuff which could easily be made obvious.
Silvaire
The problem with the 150 is that it wasn’t that easy to select thirty or forty flap setting with the old toggle switch. The 152 has a gate from twenty to thirty.
I’ve tried to track down a safety study, as at one point there was a much higher incidence of stall/spin events in the 150 vs the 152. Pilot DAR you may know whether one was ever completed?
At the end of the day safety is improved by reducing the risk of stall spin accidents, hence the safety record of the taper wing Warrior. This can be in the form of benign stall characteristics (wing twist, stall strips inboard, limiting stabilator travel, effective warning). The Warrior is not a very effective trainer in this regard, but for the average PPL it is self evidently a safer aircraft.
With respect to the benefits of forty degree flaps in a 150. You have a higher rate of descent in a flapless slip than with full flaps (due to less rudder effectiveness with flaps), and you will land in a field from which you can’t take off.
If what you want is 30 degrees of flaps, not 40, then use 30 degrees of flaps… My flapped plane, not a Cessna, which DAR has seen with his own eyes has too much flap for most landings – unless VTOL is your goal. The CS prop behaves much like an anchor. Best to choose what you need for flaps, and use it to best effect.
All the light Cessnas are so easy to land it almost defies description. I hadn’t flown one for ten years and then had the opportunity to land one at Friedrichshafen last week. Greased it on, and that made me smile because I’m easily amused.
The gated switch and preselection is a good thing: better controls versus restricted aerodynamics.
The improvement in safety from the Cessna 150 to the 152 – reduce flaps to 30 degrees max.Quote
I would not agree that a 152 is more safe than a 150 at all, they are slightly different flying aircraft, whose characteristics should be properly trained, as would be the case for any aircraft. It would be understandable to say that a pure training aircraft does not need the additional capability provided by 40 flap over 30, that can be reserved for the more utility aircraft like the 180/185. The 30 flap of the 152 is probably more a result of the lesser ability to meet the balked landing climb requirement, which the 150 meets adequately. The simple reality is that 152’s require more takeoff distance that the 150 did, if the 150 is configured with a climb prop.
If the capability to perform a landing with 40 flap is a reduction in safety, I’m a little worried about the pilot training, not the plane…..
Every landing I do is a full flap landing, that’s what they are there for!
The Wright Brothers original Flyer was dynamically unstable – in fact when they pitched for a defence contract they managed to kill the procurement officer in an accident.
Curtiss designed the first practical aircraft that was positively stable. Anderson’s Introduction to Flight has some good background on safety design improvements over time.
The improvement in safety from the Cessna 150 to the 152 – reduce flaps to 30 degrees max, and introduce a gated switch – which I believe was mentioned on this forum, shows how simple changes have quite large effects.
The problem with sorting out better ultrasonic emitters is that you still have to find the general area to start with, and quite accurately.
If AF447 did not emit those ~20 ACARS messages, they would have probably never found it and it would have been a total mystery.
The likely solution? You don’t need a PhD to work that out
that’s the link to the scientist
Link
Here his statement (abbreviated and only in German) that came via a press agency:
Olaf Boebel, Leiter Ozeanakustik am Alfred-Wegener-Institut (AWI), hält es für wahrscheinlicher, dass die Signale von einer Gruppe von Schnabelwalen stammen. «Der Frequenzbereich ist sehr ähnlich.» Außerdem passe die Wiederholungsrate und das charakteristische «Klick»-Geräusch, das dem «Ping» einer Blackbox ähnele. Von den Schnabelwalen gebe es Hunderttausende – deshalb sei es durchaus denkbar, dass sie den Suchteams in die Quere kämen.
another interesting article Link
As the search for flight MH370 persists, Europe’s aviation safety authority has, ironically, been assessing the costs of reinforcing the underwater locator features on aircraft and their flight recorders.
This assessment is part of a proposal drawn up after the similar loss of Air France flight AF447 aimed at avoiding frustrating and expensive efforts to trace aircraft missing over oceans.
European Aviation Safety Agency regulators are seeking to raise, from 30 days to 90 days, the minimum transmission duration of acoustic 37.5kHz underwater locator beacons installed on the cockpit-voice and flight-data recorders.
The measures also call for installation of 8.8kHz beacons on aircraft performing long-range overwater flights.
Both were put forwards as part of a broader package to make flight recorders more robust and easier to locate.
The other day I saw an interview with a scientist of an oceanographic institute in Kiel on German TV who told the audience that beaked whales communicate with the same “pings”.
I can see the headline: “MH370 confirmed to be still flying underwater at low speeds”
