NTSB - Introduction of Glass Cockpit Avionics into Light Aircraft

Well, I guess it’s just a matter of time before EASA will invent the glass cockpit rating (GCR) with prescribed syllabus, expiry dates etc. and do away with the current EFIS differences training.

A bit like the thing going on with the GPS approach training and endorsement…

That is definitely right. I am making an interesting experience at the moment and therefore have a good feeling for the topic.

After a 17 years pause in flying I reactivated my PPL in early 2013 on an Aquila A210 with Aspen Evolution PFD and MFD and Garmin GNS430. Then I started to use a Cirrus SR20 with Avidyne R6 and GNS430 on which I also started my IFR training. The switch from Aspen to Avidyne for VFR flying was very simple. The larger display helped and the brain was the same GNS430 anyway.

Then in the US I continued with Avidyne (slightly newer release) and GNS430 until we had ice and went up in a FIKI SR22 with Perspective (Garmin G1000). On the first flight I was almost back to zero but after 30 minutes started to see the light. A bit later I got more comfortable and then continued the training on SR20 with Perspective. I did my IFR checkride with Perspective also. The examiner just watched what that thing can do and had me hand-fly 90% of the time, which was fine.

Now back in Germany, yesterday I had an opportunity to fly a SR22 with Avidyne R9. That’s basically the equivalent to the G1000. There are many, many subtle little differences. As humans we are creatures of habit and it is that that will bite us under pressure.

At the moment I am happy to be able to compare both systems to further educate myself and later use that to make a good choice when I actually make my purchase decision. But I can already tell that switching frequently between these systems isn’t such a good idea.

Earlier I has started another thread about the user experience modern avionics provide. I believe there are two fundamentally different design philosophies.

One goes for the human as the operator of the system and in that case you will find eg. type ratings for highly trained operators of a specific system.

The other is more about those systems as assistants. Building a good assistant is much harder than just to build a good system and train people on how to use it.

One more thing. Yesterday during my introduction to Avidyne R9 we were vectored onto a RNAV (GPS) LPV approach. Two times the controller vectored us to a point on the approach BEHIND the FAF. The first time we were unable to activate the APPR mode on the GFC100. The second time it worked, as the distance was a bit less. We cheated and “fixed” the controller’s mistake. It appears that it is not only the system and the pilot, but also the actions of a controller that are part of the logic these systems are build upon/around.

Behind (I guess you mean “inside”) the FAF? I can hardly believe that…

Yes. Inside, beyond the FAF. It is true. I was with an instructor and he did explain to me that the controller did a mistake and it were actually forbidden for a good reason, etc. Shattered a bit my belief system :-}

I guess the only correct behavior at that point is to abort the approach and start over again – correct?

correct?

Sure. But why did he then do it two times?

@boscomantico I don’t know why the controller did it two times. Maybe a student controller?

My take-away is to be vigilant and – especially in IMC – follow what Peter just said.

I rarely accept vectors to final when flying an RNAV procedure. They were designed to be accomplished with minimum interference from the controller. Here in the US, controllers are not likely to mess up by intercepting the final approach course inside the FAF as they are required to intercept on an RNAV procedure at least 3 NM outside the FAF. But they often don’t know the definition of a vector to final and end up clearing the aircraft direct to a fix other than the IAF. There are rules they are supposed to follow, but they don’t. This is a training issue as they don’t understand the difference between flying a ground based Navaid procedure verses an RNAV procedure. With the latter they just don’t realize that the path needs to be programmed and this takes time and the equipment needs to meet certain criteria to switch from terminal mode to an appropriate approach mode.

I am more assertive in that I specify exactly what I want and usually get it and, if I don’t get what I ask for, then the controller has to be precise in his wording or we end up with questions. Examples include whether or not to fly a procedure turn or not (these are Holds in the US) and exactly what fix I want to join the procedure at. In a few cases, I was given instructions to follow that the equipment refused to permit or where the assigned course or altitude did not match the charted procedure. In these cases, “Unable” or “I am going missed approach”. After flying RNAV approaches for about a dozen years, I generally don’t want vectors.

The long standing preference among pilots for radar-vectored approaches stems mostly from the good old days of classic radio nav. Vectored approaches were often a bit shorter than the “full procedures”; also, vectors are often more straightforward for pilots, saving them from having to play with various radials, NDB bearings, lead radials, DME arcs, etc.

With the advent of RNAV and GPS, this changed a lot. T-shaped approaches are usually much the same (track-wise) as the vectored approach variant. At the same time, the workload is even lower than a vectored approach – just load the procedure and hook up the autopilot.

I agree that there is sometimes a bit of confusion and misinformation among controllers regarding GPS (err, sorry… RNAV) approaches, also in Germany. Many such approaches here incorporate a turn at the FAF for noise abatement or airspace structure. Vectors to final (i.e. to the extended final approach course) is thus not possible since the pilot has no way to know when he will be on final; however, ATC once did vector me on such a “final approach”.

What ATC sometimes does is issue a direct to the IF, which is fine. What I don’t know though is whether they do that also when this would result in a substantial turn at the IF (no hold is usually published at the IF…)