Flyer59 wrote:
The best way to learn something new and complicated like EFIS is to get qualified instruction.
Maybe for you. I went to school almost 20 years, I by now know how to learn stuff most efficiently, I neither need nor want nanny state to tell me that.
Qualified instruction has nothing to do with a “nanny”. For the average pilot (and most are not average…) the trial and error method is too dangerous.
When i bought the SR22 i already had some glass cockpit experience. And although i had Bosco as a qualified instructor i barely managed to avoid potentially dangerous situations on my first solo flights.
Example: Before t.o. you dial in a first altitude for the autopilot. With the Entegra system the altitude window stays active for a couple of seconds, then the HDG window becomes active. But if you turn the dial on the PFD before it jumps back to the HDG window you will change the altitude without noticing.
There’s other similar mistakes you can easily make here if you are not aware of the danger. Some of those mistakes are not obvious to the beginner and you can easily miss it.
This is a trap dozens of Cirrus pilots stepped into. The next thing is you activate the A/P in 500 ft and the plane starts a dive and you have no idea why.
This one mistake can easily kill you, even in VMC if you panic, let alone in IMC.
One or two hours of good instruction does not hurt my pride much. It is the safer way, that’s why i recommend it.
I agree with you Flyer59 but I suspect there are factors which work against that -
The more fundamental point IMHO is that making this type of instruction mandatory in view of the instructor shortage could be regarded as a restrictive practice, driving training business to a very few specialised organisations. Here in the UK, I reckon you could count the options on the fingers of one hand. To deal with it, instructor training would need to be delivered and suitable aircraft would need to be made available, which is not easy since these types don’t really exist on the training scene in Europe. It’s a bit like the argument re mandatory carriage of printed maps. But this could be argued both ways since there is already mandatory training elsewhere which drives business to a very few expensive businesses (e.g. jet Type Ratings).
While i understand your points, Peter, i don’t buy them. Think a LH captain loves to go to the simulator for weeks for switching from the A320 to the 330?
What do we want? Fly as safe as possible? Or be too lazy to do these things as professional as possible? I know what i wanted.
Who cares if the right instructor is “hard to find”? It’s possible, and that’s what counts.
I think ‘regulations written as a guide for life’ is entirely the wrong philosophy. Regulations are a waste of time and effort unless current limits on behavior have in some fashion caused a problem, and particularly a problem to the uninvolved. If you think glass panel training or aerobatic training is a good idea, then get it, many people would agree. However telling you how to get it, with whom, for how long, then processing the paperwork and debating/updating the rule every time somebody thinks they have a better idea wastes everybody’s time unless there is an actual reason to limit people’s behavior based on people creating a problem under the current limits.
I am not talking about bureaucracy, rules, paperwork … i am talking about safety, intelligent behaviour, responsibility twds your passengers. Not everybody is a technical person who can easily learn these things, and definitely there’s many untalented pilots who have a hard time understanding these systems.
I go so far to say that even a short checkout is not enough if you really want to stay on top of things in critical situations. Look at a modern SR22 or Cessna Ttx and it’s highly integrated avionics. If you wan to fly these planes safely you have to have a throurough understanding of the systems. What does it mean if there’s a “AHRS MISCOMPARE” message on the PFD? What do you do if the AHRS fails? How can you reset it in flight?
All of this is non-critical to the Saturday afternoon VFR pilot. But find yourself in serious IMC when all the nice TV screens go black and you will immediately know why training and know-how are importat for flying these hightech toys.
All of this is non-critical to the Saturday afternoon VFR pilot.
Then why should a Saturday afternoon VFR pilot have to do it?
There are EFIS and then there are EFIS. Some are incredibly complicated systems and some are little more than steam guages with a different layout.
If someone handed me the keys of an SR22 and said “Off you go” there is no way that I’d fly it without getting some training on the systems. If I’d flown a steam guage SR22 and was happy with the aircraft handling, I’d still want training on the system.
But I might be happy to do that on a PC simulator (assuming that there is such a thing for an SR22) with an experienced SR22 pilot who isn’t an instructor, followed up by some time in the aircraft while on the ground.
Then why should a Saturday afternoon VFR pilot have to do it?
Because it’s safer? For me that is enough reason.
But I might be happy to do that on a PC simulator (assuming that there is such a thing for an SR22) with an experienced SR22 pilot who isn’t an instructor, followed up by some time in the aircraft while on the ground.
The only simulator that can be used to really learn the avionics of an SR22 is “Flythissim”. They are rare in Europe and to buy one … you can get many hours of instruction for its price.
Flyer59 wrote:
Because it’s safer? For me that is enough reason
The key word is “for me”. You do what you believe is best for you, I do what I think is best for me. Unless I endanger anybody else, kindly get out of my way.
If there is a safety problem, there are much better answers than regulation.
Example:
More people got killed in the SR22 than should have been. People noticed, listened up, improved training, and now it is safer than other aircraft.
European knee-jerk – <<>shrill voice<>>mandatory type rating for SR22 because it is SAFER!</shrill voice>. Legislation ensues, and three years later there is a new regulation, problem solved.
American pragmatism – hm, looks like there is something wrong, let’s fix it. Better education and training ensues, and three years later, problem solved.
However, Europeans need checks, sign-offs, logbooks with regulated columns, etc forever, in aircraft where it is not relevant, and have to learn about the differences between non-high-performance complex and high-performance non-complex aeroplanes, because of non-performance overly-complex regulations.
Who is better off?
