Glass Panel Training

[Gezellig]

In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"

Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak) would appear to be an issue. My
expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look forward to
curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be Cessna (std
gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared..

Comments appreciated.

[BT]

This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.
The bigger issue appeared to be teaching them to land cessna's and pipers.
The Diamonds land "flat" with long glider wings and have a low instrument
panel. Their transition to cessna's found that they were not getting the
nose high enough to keep the nose wheel off the ground.

BT

Post by Gezellig
In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.
http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html
I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"
Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak) would appear to be an issue. My
expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look forward to
curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be Cessna (std
gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared..
Comments appreciated.

[Gezellig]

Post by BT
This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?

Post by BT
The bigger issue appeared to be teaching them to land cessna's and pipers.
The Diamonds land "flat" with long glider wings and have a low instrument
panel. Their transition to cessna's found that they were not getting the
nose high enough to keep the nose wheel off the ground.

Yeah, I found this out the reverse having trained on the Cessnas.

Would you agree that

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

who claims once glass trained, then go get "typed" on the Cessnas makes
better sense than going Cessna training from the get-go? Consider what
the cost is of rentals of the two and the availability of rentals.

[BT]

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT
This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?

Most (ok some) that have always flown "steam" but have dealt with Garmin
430/530 Comm/Nav/GPS units will find the transition to glass easier. If
you've never used a Garmin then it is a little more to learn the "all glass"
G1000.
I found that IFR cross checks in the G1000 much simpler, just need to get
used to tapes instead of round dials.
Maybe it's just me for the easy transition but I've flown "tapes" and
computer systems in my lifetime before the advent of G1000 and Avidyne
systems.

The big issue of the transition to "all glass" is to learn the software and
know what pages on the MFD to find certain items or to be able to input
certain items. Most schools will have a 5 hour academic course and then
flying, flying to the proficiency of your rating. If Private Pilot, not as
much detailed as full IFR Approaches with and without the auto pilot
interface.

Not knowing the software means too much head down in the cockpit and not
eyes outside looking for traffic.
JMHO
BT

[Gezellig]

Post by BT
Most (ok some) that have always flown "steam" but have dealt with Garmin
430/530 Comm/Nav/GPS units will find the transition to glass easier. If
you've never used a Garmin then it is a little more to learn the "all glass"
G1000.

Most training for PPL doesn't require or have Garmin as part of the
schema.

Post by BT
I found that IFR cross checks in the G1000 much simpler, just need to get
used to tapes instead of round dials.
Maybe it's just me for the easy transition but I've flown "tapes" and
computer systems in my lifetime before the advent of G1000 and Avidyne
systems.

I think it is, you're an experienced guy. Think about what it is like
when you are somewhat overwhelmed in the PPL training process. That's
the point I am trying to make central to this question regarding the
PPLK training under glass when the transition to "steam" is most
probably inevitable when newbies go to rent GA.

Post by BT
The big issue of the transition to "all glass" is to learn the software and
know what pages on the MFD to find certain items or to be able to input
certain items. Most schools will have a 5 hour academic course and then
flying, flying to the proficiency of your rating. If Private Pilot, not as
much detailed as full IFR Approaches with and without the auto pilot
interface.
Not knowing the software means too much head down in the cockpit and not
eyes outside looking for traffic.

The training institute I mentioned has several follow on courses with
stationery "simulators", videos and other training to sell. It seems to
me, imo, opinion, bassackwards.

Most newbie PPLs will rent Cessnas, think about how that will be when
their first rental solos are in steam gauges.

[vaughn]

Post by Gezellig
when the transition to "steam" is most
probably inevitable when newbies go to rent GA.

My situation is quite different. At my local FBO/flight school the "steam
guage" rental Cessnas have been disappearing in favor of much newer planes
with glass. For insurance reasons I don't fly anything worth that kind of
money, so the pool of planes available to me has been shrinking.

Secondary question: Why do folks rent $250,000 planes when the most renter's
insurance you can buy is usually $100,000?

Post by Gezellig
Most newbie PPLs will rent Cessnas, think about how that will be when
their first rental solos are in steam gauges.

Don't most newbie PPLs train at their local FBO? The same place where
they will be renting?

Vaughn

[Gezellig]

Post by vaughn

Post by Gezellig
when the transition to "steam" is most
probably inevitable when newbies go to rent GA.

My situation is quite different. At my local FBO/flight school the "steam
guage" rental Cessnas have been disappearing in favor of much newer planes
with glass. For insurance reasons I don't fly anything worth that kind of
money, so the pool of planes available to me has been shrinking.
Secondary question: Why do folks rent $250,000 planes when the most renter's
insurance you can buy is usually $100,000?

Prolly for the same reason they buy medical insurance with $35K limits,
the rest they say "sue me" over :)

Post by vaughn

Post by Gezellig
Most newbie PPLs will rent Cessnas, think about how that will be when
their first rental solos are in steam gauges.

Don't most newbie PPLs train at their local FBO? The same place where
they will be renting?
Vaughn

Here we have six training and four of them rent, two other rents only,
mostly Cessnas.

[vaughn]

Post by Gezellig

Post by vaughn
Secondary question: Why do folks rent $250,000 planes when the most renter's
insurance you can buy is usually $100,000?

Prolly for the same reason they buy medical insurance with $35K limits,
the rest they say "sue me" over :)

That is a great strategy if you have no attachable assets. Otherwise...

Vaughn

[BT]

Transition "From Glass" is not the issue.. it is easy to learn to read
steam.
The issue would be Diamond Star or Cirrus to Cessna or Piper which is no
more than an aircraft check out to learn how a different design handles,
operates and how the information is displayed.

Your comment that most training for PPL does not require to have Garmin is
true. You are required to be able to use the equipment in the aircraft that
you present for the examiner during your flight test.

Where are you?
I have been answering based on USA considerations.

Right now in the US, the "insurance drives the boat".
Any pilot transitioning into the Cirrus currently requires 10 hrs dual in
Cirrus for coverage under most rental concerns. Some of that is the "glass
software", the other is the "slick wing performance" issues.

As to the question of why most people do not carry "renters insurance" for
the full hull value?
It's what the person renting the aircraft want you to carry. Also in the US,
"renters" insurance provide coverage if the pilot renter was at fault in the
accident. If the accident is the result of a mechanical issue that the
renter would have not control over, then the renters insurance would not pay
out.

As a renter, if I loose control on landing and clip a runway light or run
off the side of the runway and damage the aircraft, or if I fail to put the
gear down. The renters insurance will cover, rarely does this result in the
aircraft being totaled. But, lets say the gear fails to extend when
commanded. Fire/Rescue crews are alerted, communication with the ground on
"what to try" for emergency extend, and even with the published emergency
extend procedures, the gear is not down. Then the renter is no longer at
fault and the renters policy would not pay for damage during the subsequent
landing. That responsibility falls back to the owner.

BT

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT
Most (ok some) that have always flown "steam" but have dealt with Garmin
430/530 Comm/Nav/GPS units will find the transition to glass easier. If
you've never used a Garmin then it is a little more to learn the "all glass"
G1000.

Most training for PPL doesn't require or have Garmin as part of the
schema.

Post by BT
I found that IFR cross checks in the G1000 much simpler, just need to get
used to tapes instead of round dials.
Maybe it's just me for the easy transition but I've flown "tapes" and
computer systems in my lifetime before the advent of G1000 and Avidyne
systems.

I think it is, you're an experienced guy. Think about what it is like
when you are somewhat overwhelmed in the PPL training process. That's
the point I am trying to make central to this question regarding the
PPLK training under glass when the transition to "steam" is most
probably inevitable when newbies go to rent GA.

Post by BT
The big issue of the transition to "all glass" is to learn the software and
know what pages on the MFD to find certain items or to be able to input
certain items. Most schools will have a 5 hour academic course and then
flying, flying to the proficiency of your rating. If Private Pilot, not as
much detailed as full IFR Approaches with and without the auto pilot
interface.
Not knowing the software means too much head down in the cockpit and not
eyes outside looking for traffic.

The training institute I mentioned has several follow on courses with
stationery "simulators", videos and other training to sell. It seems to
me, imo, opinion, bassackwards.
Most newbie PPLs will rent Cessnas, think about how that will be when
their first rental solos are in steam gauges.

[Gezellig]

Post by BT
Transition "From Glass" is not the issue.. it is easy to learn to read
steam.
The issue would be Diamond Star or Cirrus to Cessna or Piper which is no
more than an aircraft check out to learn how a different design handles,
operates and how the information is displayed.
Your comment that most training for PPL does not require to have Garmin is
true. You are required to be able to use the equipment in the aircraft that
you present for the examiner during your flight test.
Where are you?
I have been answering based on USA considerations.

SW FL Naples, Marco Island, Ft. Myer's and Tampa

Post by BT
Right now in the US, the "insurance drives the boat".
Any pilot transitioning into the Cirrus currently requires 10 hrs dual in
Cirrus for coverage under most rental concerns. Some of that is the "glass
software", the other is the "slick wing performance" issues.

Oooh, no one mentioned that at the FBOs, thanks!

[BT]

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT
Where are you?
I have been answering based on USA considerations.

SW FL Naples, Marco Island, Ft. Myer's and Tampa

Post by BT
Right now in the US, the "insurance drives the boat".
Any pilot transitioning into the Cirrus currently requires 10 hrs dual in
Cirrus for coverage under most rental concerns. Some of that is the "glass
software", the other is the "slick wing performance" issues.

Oooh, no one mentioned that at the FBOs, thanks!

The Cirrus is more of a "machine" than a Diamond Star DA40 and would require
a higher checkout.
A primary student learning in a DA40 would (*should) meet all Insurance
requirements at the time of solo, or the FBO/Instructor is not doing his
job. Yes, it would be good to get renters insurance to at least cover the
deductible that you as a student would be responsible for if the accident is
your screw-up. It would be very difficult to get "Renters Insurance" to
cover the full hull value and lose of use of the aircraft.

BT

[Gezellig]

Post by BT
It would be very difficult to get "Renters Insurance" to
cover the full hull value and lose of use of the aircraft.

"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

[BT]

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT
It would be very difficult to get "Renters Insurance" to
cover the full hull value and lose of use of the aircraft.

"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

Loss of income.. yes

[Gezellig]

Post by BT

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT
It would be very difficult to get "Renters Insurance" to
cover the full hull value and lose of use of the aircraft.

"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

Loss of income.. yes

BT, how is that proven to the adjustor? Past records?

[vaughn]

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT

Post by Gezellig
"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

Loss of income.. yes

BT, how is that proven to the adjustor? Past records?

It does not have to be proven to any adjuster. All they need to do is be
willing to sue the renter pilot. Then the renter has to choose between
paying up, or handing the same (or more) money to a lawyer to defend against
the claim.

Vaughn

[Gezellig]

Post by vaughn

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT

Post by Gezellig
"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

Loss of income.. yes

BT, how is that proven to the adjustor? Past records?

It does not have to be proven to any adjuster. All they need to do is be
willing to sue the renter pilot. Then the renter has to choose between
paying up, or handing the same (or more) money to a lawyer to defend against
the claim.
Vaughn

What I meant was how is the amount of the loss of income determined?

[Robert M. Gary]

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT
This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?

I teach G1000 transition using the Cessna FITs syllabus. The short
answer is that it really depends on the pilot. Some pilots take to the
glass as if were nothing; others never really get it. Sadly, there
appears to be a strong correlation between the ability to learn this
stuff and age. In almost 1/4 of the cases we find ourselves having to
sign pilots off as "VFR only" in the G1000 even though they are highly
experienced instrument pilots. It isn't too big of a deal for a VFR
pilot to stumble around with the buttonology but it could be very
dangerous for a pilot to do the same in IMC trying to set up an
approach.

-Robert

[Mark Hansen]

Post by Robert M. Gary

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT
This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?

I teach G1000 transition using the Cessna FITs syllabus. The short
answer is that it really depends on the pilot. Some pilots take to the
glass as if were nothing; others never really get it. Sadly, there
appears to be a strong correlation between the ability to learn this
stuff and age. In almost 1/4 of the cases we find ourselves having to
sign pilots off as "VFR only" in the G1000 even though they are highly
experienced instrument pilots. It isn't too big of a deal for a VFR
pilot to stumble around with the buttonology but it could be very
dangerous for a pilot to do the same in IMC trying to set up an
approach.
-Robert

Really a sad state, considering the glass was supposed to reduce
cockpit workload and increase situational awareness :-(

[Robert M. Gary]

Post by Mark Hansen
Really a sad state, considering the glass was supposed to reduce
cockpit workload and increase situational awareness :-(

Its a lot like using a PC vs a typewriter. If you've never used a PC
or aren't comfortable using a PC its much faster to type your letter
using the typewriter. You don't have to search for the "Print" icon,
figure out the printer drivers, etc. However, once you know how to set
up a coupled approach in the G1000 its pretty cool to watch it
intercept the loc, then capture the GS and fly itself right down to
the runway.

-Robert

[Gezellig]

Post by Robert M. Gary

Post by Gezellig

Post by BT
This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?

I teach G1000 transition using the Cessna FITs syllabus. The short
answer is that it really depends on the pilot. Some pilots take to the
glass as if were nothing; others never really get it. Sadly, there
appears to be a strong correlation between the ability to learn this
stuff and age. In almost 1/4 of the cases we find ourselves having to
sign pilots off as "VFR only" in the G1000 even though they are highly
experienced instrument pilots. It isn't too big of a deal for a VFR
pilot to stumble around with the buttonology but it could be very
dangerous for a pilot to do the same in IMC trying to set up an
approach.
-Robert

The age issue is what slants me to what I perceive as a bigger issue in
the steam-glass transition since I am older. I also have a technology
background and find this helps in (planning) the transition.

[VOR-DME]

Post by BT
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

How do you justify this statement?
I'm not being argumentative, but I wonder if you have specific instructing
experience or published results from those who do to support this statement.

Also, are you referring to IFR or to ab initio VFR training?

[Gezellig]

Post by VOR-DME

Post by BT
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

How do you justify this statement?
I'm not being argumentative, but I wonder if you have specific instructing
experience or published results from those who do to support this statement.
Also, are you referring to IFR or to ab initio VFR training?

The thread is about PPL training glass v.s. steam, I believe he means
that transition for the newbie pilot.

[Robert M. Gary]

Post by Gezellig

Post by VOR-DME

Post by BT
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

How do you justify this statement?
I'm not being argumentative, but I wonder if you have specific instructing
experience or published results from those who do to support this statement.
Also, are you referring to IFR or to ab initio VFR training?

The thread is about PPL training glass v.s. steam, I believe he means
that transition for the newbie pilot.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a newbie pilot needs to
transition from anything? I've never transitioned a pilot from glass
to steam (doesn't happen very often) but I would imagine that it woudl
be difficult. The glass takes a lot of the "scan and interpret" away
from the flying duties. Going back to steam means that you need to
look at several instruments and develop a mental picture of what is
happening.

-Robert, CFII

[VOR-DME]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a newbie pilot need to
transition from anything? I've never transitioned a pilot from glass
to steam (doesn't happen very often) but I would imagine that it would
be difficult. The glass takes a lot of the "scan and interpret" away
from the flying duties. Going back to steam means that you need to
look at several instruments and develop a mental picture of what is
happening.
-Robert, CFII

My thoughts exactly.
Without supporting documentation from the original author, we have to take this
as a flippant affirmation. . .

[Gezellig]

Post by VOR-DME

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a newbie pilot need to
transition from anything? I've never transitioned a pilot from glass
to steam (doesn't happen very often) but I would imagine that it would
be difficult. The glass takes a lot of the "scan and interpret" away
from the flying duties. Going back to steam means that you need to
look at several instruments and develop a mental picture of what is
happening.
-Robert, CFII

My thoughts exactly.
Without supporting documentation from the original author, we have to take this
as a flippant affirmation. . .

I'm the OP, here's the opening post.

==============================================================

In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard, "steam"
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"

Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak to glass) would appear to be an
issue.

My expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look
forward to curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be
Cessna (std gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared.

Comments appreciated.

[Peter Dohm]

Post by Gezellig
In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.
http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html
I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard, "steam"
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"
Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak to glass) would appear to be an
issue.
My expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look
forward to curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be
Cessna (std gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared.
Comments appreciated.

My best guess is that the new designs will haul about the same payload as a
Cessna 152 at about the same speed as a Cessna 172 for a lower cost per mile
than either of the other two. That will probably work out for both hobbs
time and tach time in the very near future--assuming that it is not already
the case.

That does not mean that I am in the least bit pleased. Based upon my belief
that the LSA standard will form the basis of the next new training fleet,
and I remain disgusted by those standards! I believe that the weight limit
should have been at least 750Kg instead of 600Kg, the maximum cruising speed
should have been at least 130Kts instead of 120Kts, and that the standards
should have amended as needed to include the maximum number of type
certificates already owned by US manufacturers for w seat aircraft.

Peter
Comment as requested

[VOR-DME]

In article <Al4gl.2850$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, ***@bellsouth.net
says...

Post by Peter Dohm
My best guess is that the new designs will haul about the same payload as a
Cessna 152 at about the same speed as a Cessna 172 for a lower cost per mile
than either of the other two. That will probably work out for both hobbs
time and tach time in the very near future--assuming that it is not already
the case.
That does not mean that I am in the least bit pleased. Based upon my belief
that the LSA standard will form the basis of the next new training fleet,
and I remain disgusted by those standards! I believe that the weight limit
should have been at least 750Kg instead of 600Kg, the maximum cruising speed
should have been at least 130Kts instead of 120Kts, and that the standards
should have amended as needed to include the maximum number of type
certificates already owned by US manufacturers for w seat aircraft.
Peter
Comment as requested

In light of your chosen adjectives, I cannot doubt the sincerity of your
opinion on the matter, however in purely objective terms I would have
difficulty imagining a more off-topic post. . .

Perhaps you intended to respond to a different thread ? ? ? ?

[Gezellig]

Post by Peter Dohm
Based upon my belief
that the LSA standard will form the basis of the next new training fleet,
and I remain disgusted by those standards! I believe that the weight limit
should have been at least 750Kg instead of 600Kg, the maximum cruising speed
should have been at least 130Kts instead of 120Kts, and that the standards
should have amended as needed to include the maximum number of type
certificates already owned by US manufacturers for w seat aircraft.
Peter
Comment as requested

Peter, why those numbers? I agree but would appreciate your additional
comments.

[Peter Dohm]

Post by Gezellig

Post by Peter Dohm
Based upon my belief
that the LSA standard will form the basis of the next new training fleet,
and I remain disgusted by those standards! I believe that the weight limit
should have been at least 750Kg instead of 600Kg, the maximum cruising speed
should have been at least 130Kts instead of 120Kts, and that the standards
should have amended as needed to include the maximum number of type
certificates already owned by US manufacturers for w seat aircraft.
Peter
Comment as requested

Peter, why those numbers? I agree but would appreciate your additional
comments.

Actually, part of it is because I goofed. I should have said 800Kg for the
weight--because I wanted my weight to include the common existing basic
trainers, such as the 152 and Tomahawk which actually weigh about 760Kg.
The other big problem with the weight is that it still seems to press the
limits of the available materials, so that many of the LSA aircraft are
forced to use a lot of carbon fiber in an effort to give a practical usefull
load--and even then it is not enough because so many of the pilots who have
a problem medical certification are overweight. Therefore, I strongly
suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are simply operated over
gross.

I also have two problems with the speed range allowed. First, I fail to see
any good reason that an entry level aircraft should not deliver a practical
speed for travel. The second is safety--the slower an aircraft lands and
takes off, the less crosswind it can usually tolerate.

In addition to my personal belief in nationalism, it would have been so much
simpler to just create the Light Sport Pilot classification to cover 2 seat
aircraft that are neither complex nor high performance. That would have
allowed the development of a far more capable class of LSA--and one free
from the poor initial accident record tat we have experienced.

Peter

[vaughn]

Therefore, I strongly suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are
simply operated over gross.

I suspect (and this could lead to a dangerous safety culture) that many
LSA's really have two gross weights. One gross weight that satisfies the
Light Sport regulation, and a "whisper" gross weight at which they really
are operated. The actual engineering of the plane may (or may not) actually
support that "whisper" figure. Of course if you guess wrong and die, it is
on you.

Just look at the useful load of the Cessna 162 with a full fuel payload of
346 #. That means that if you have full tanks and a 200# student you have
146 pounds left over for the instructor and the flight bags etc.. I call
that a 1 passenger airplane!

Vaughn

[Peter Dohm]

Post by vaughn

Therefore, I strongly suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are
simply operated over gross.

I suspect (and this could lead to a dangerous safety culture) that many
LSA's really have two gross weights. One gross weight that satisfies the
Light Sport regulation, and a "whisper" gross weight at which they really
are operated. The actual engineering of the plane may (or may not)
actually support that "whisper" figure. Of course if you guess wrong and
die, it is on you.
Just look at the useful load of the Cessna 162 with a full fuel payload
of 346 #. That means that if you have full tanks and a 200# student you
have 146 pounds left over for the instructor and the flight bags etc.. I
call that a 1 passenger airplane!
Vaughn

I agree.

Peter

[Gezellig]

Post by vaughn
I suspect (and this could lead to a dangerous safety culture) that many
LSA's really have two gross weights. One gross weight that satisfies the
Light Sport regulation, and a "whisper" gross weight at which they really
are operated. The actual engineering of the plane may (or may not) actually
support that "whisper" figure. Of course if you guess wrong and die, it is
on you.
Just look at the useful load of the Cessna 162 with a full fuel payload of
346 #. That means that if you have full tanks and a 200# student you have
146 pounds left over for the instructor and the flight bags etc.. I call
that a 1 passenger airplane!

Absolutely.

[Maxwell]

Post by Peter Dohm
Actually, part of it is because I goofed. I should have said 800Kg for
the weight--because I wanted my weight to include the common existing
basic trainers, such as the 152 and Tomahawk which actually weigh about
760Kg. The other big problem with the weight is that it still seems to
press the limits of the available materials, so that many of the LSA
aircraft are forced to use a lot of carbon fiber in an effort to give a
practical usefull load--and even then it is not enough because so many of
the pilots who have a problem medical certification are overweight.
Therefore, I strongly suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are
simply operated over gross.
I also have two problems with the speed range allowed. First, I fail to
see any good reason that an entry level aircraft should not deliver a
practical speed for travel. The second is safety--the slower an aircraft
lands and takes off, the less crosswind it can usually tolerate.
In addition to my personal belief in nationalism, it would have been so
much simpler to just create the Light Sport Pilot classification to cover
2 seat aircraft that are neither complex nor high performance. That would
have allowed the development of a far more capable class of LSA--and one
free from the poor initial accident record tat we have experienced.
Peter

Splendid outline, I couldn't agree more. But it seems to me the deliberately
intended to limit all LSA pilots to the fat ultralights that had grown out
of control.

I don't think they were trying to do anyone a favor, just pencil whip a
problem that had grown beyond there desire to control it.

[Gezellig]

Post by Maxwell

Post by Peter Dohm
Actually, part of it is because I goofed. I should have said 800Kg for
the weight--because I wanted my weight to include the common existing
basic trainers, such as the 152 and Tomahawk which actually weigh about
760Kg. The other big problem with the weight is that it still seems to
press the limits of the available materials, so that many of the LSA
aircraft are forced to use a lot of carbon fiber in an effort to give a
practical usefull load--and even then it is not enough because so many of
the pilots who have a problem medical certification are overweight.
Therefore, I strongly suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are
simply operated over gross.
I also have two problems with the speed range allowed. First, I fail to
see any good reason that an entry level aircraft should not deliver a
practical speed for travel. The second is safety--the slower an aircraft
lands and takes off, the less crosswind it can usually tolerate.
In addition to my personal belief in nationalism, it would have been so
much simpler to just create the Light Sport Pilot classification to cover
2 seat aircraft that are neither complex nor high performance. That would
have allowed the development of a far more capable class of LSA--and one
free from the poor initial accident record tat we have experienced.
Peter

Splendid outline, I couldn't agree more. But it seems to me the deliberately
intended to limit all LSA pilots to the fat ultralights that had grown out
of control.
I don't think they were trying to do anyone a favor, just pencil whip a
problem that had grown beyond there desire to control it.

Golly Maxwell, welcome the world of sane discussions. You're not a
complete asshole after all.

[Maxwell]

Post by Gezellig

Post by Maxwell
Splendid outline, I couldn't agree more. But it seems to me the deliberately
intended to limit all LSA pilots to the fat ultralights that had grown out
of control.
I don't think they were trying to do anyone a favor, just pencil whip a
problem that had grown beyond there desire to control it.

Golly Maxwell, welcome the world of sane discussions. You're not a
complete asshole after all.

Thanks. I don't swing at anyone that doesn't hit me first. Never have, at
least not intentionally.

[Gezellig]

Post by Peter Dohm

Post by Gezellig

Post by Peter Dohm
Peter
Comment as requested

Peter, why those numbers? I agree but would appreciate your additional
comments.

Actually, part of it is because I goofed. I should have said 800Kg for the
weight--because I wanted my weight to include the common existing basic
trainers, such as the 152 and Tomahawk which actually weigh about 760Kg.
The other big problem with the weight is that it still seems to press the
limits of the available materials, so that many of the LSA aircraft are
forced to use a lot of carbon fiber in an effort to give a practical usefull
load--and even then it is not enough because so many of the pilots who have
a problem medical certification are overweight. Therefore, I strongly
suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are simply operated over
gross.

I attended Sebring and got to talk to a lot of LSA manufacturers. Nearly
everyone of them had to admit that working under the wgt limits was a
"challenge". Carbon was everywhere but the long term integrity
discussions about it weren't. Translation: Gorilla in the room.

Then to highlight, we had the LSA crash and ""Unfortunately accidents
happen"

<http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/RemosLSACrashesAtExpo_199651-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS>

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26982

[D***@yahoo.com]

Post by Gezellig
In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.
http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html
I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"
Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak) would appear to be an issue. My
expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look forward to
curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be Cessna (std
gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared..
Comments appreciated.

We just added a glass 172 to the fleet. There's a learning
curve for us older guys but the young will get it easily. The airplane
still flies like a 172, the PFD is no harder to read than the steam
gauges after a few minutes, and anyone with a few hours solo in a 172
could fly it safely. The bigger learning involves the multiple pages
and functions of the MFD and the procedures taken if an electrical
problem arises. Most 172s have one electrical bus, maybe two if it has
an avionics master. The glass airplane has SIX buses and you need to
know their management.
There was a similar steam-gauge versus digital argument when
digital watches and clocks and calculators came out. Expensive they
were, but actually cheaper to build since much of the assembly is
easily automated as opposed to the old units with tiny gears and
levers and sensitive and fragile bits, just like an airplane's
instruments. Whether we like it or not, glass is going to become the
norm on newer airplanes, not just because of its capabilities nor its
selling power, but because it's cheaper to make. And many older
aircraft will get retrofitted once the competition builds and the
glass makers have to take less profit and find new markets.
So find a school with glass and get with it. Or fool with a
simulator that has it.

Dan

[Gezellig]

Post by D***@yahoo.com
We just added a glass 172 to the fleet. There's a learning
curve for us older guys but the young will get it easily. The airplane
still flies like a 172, the PFD is no harder to read than the steam
gauges after a few minutes, and anyone with a few hours solo in a 172
could fly it safely. The bigger learning involves the multiple pages
and functions of the MFD and the procedures taken if an electrical
problem arises. Most 172s have one electrical bus, maybe two if it has
an avionics master. The glass airplane has SIX buses and you need to
know their management.

I don't thinl, in the PPL, that the aforementioned flight training
school teaches those things. Even if they did, what value does that have
to a newbie pilot who finds that Cessnas dominate the rental
marketplace?

Post by D***@yahoo.com
There was a similar steam-gauge versus digital argument when
digital watches and clocks and calculators came out. Expensive they
were, but actually cheaper to build since much of the assembly is
easily automated as opposed to the old units with tiny gears and
levers and sensitive and fragile bits, just like an airplane's
instruments. Whether we like it or not, glass is going to become the
norm on newer airplanes, not just because of its capabilities nor its
selling power, but because it's cheaper to make. And many older
aircraft will get retrofitted once the competition builds and the
glass makers have to take less profit and find new markets.

This is a valid argument and is the one that EAA flight training makes.
But in this time when the next few years, money is tighter and newbies
fewer, I am not sure this makes initial sense in the training regimen.

Post by D***@yahoo.com
So find a school with glass and get with it. Or fool with a
simulator that has it.

When I walk out to rent a plane, 4 of 5 have steam gauges. The remaining
are more expensive. It's not getting with it, it's practicality
especially in today's ever increasing demands on new GA pilots, Dan.

Glass is a superior system in many ways, that I have no argument with.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Post by Gezellig
In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.
http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html
I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"
Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak) would appear to be an issue. My
expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look forward to
curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be Cessna (std
gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared..
Comments appreciated.

Learn to fly in a cub. Then learn to use the toys as an iad rather than a
beast that has to be fed.





Bertie

[Gezellig]

Post by Bertie the Bunyip
Learn to fly in a cub. Then learn to use the toys as an iad rather than a
beast that has to be fed.

yeah, go back to your booze bottle.

[F. Baum]

Post by Gezellig
I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"
Comments appreciated.

I think glass IS the standard instrumentation anymore . I dont think
you can buy a new plane with round dials (Exept for a few specialty
airplanes like the American Champion . Even most LSA's come with at
least a MFD . In order to answer your question you need to ask what
type of flying you will do . If you plan to fly an old Cub then dont
worry about a modern panel . I think it would be cheaper to train in a
modern plane for the IR because of the ease of use you will get done
faster .
FB

[Tauno Voipio]

Post by F. Baum

Post by Gezellig
I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"
Comments appreciated.

I think glass IS the standard instrumentation anymore . I dont think
you can buy a new plane with round dials (Exept for a few specialty
airplanes like the American Champion . Even most LSA's come with at
least a MFD . In order to answer your question you need to ask what
type of flying you will do . If you plan to fly an old Cub then dont
worry about a modern panel . I think it would be cheaper to train in a
modern plane for the IR because of the ease of use you will get done
faster .
FB

There are pretty good technical grouds why the instrument
panels are going to glass: If you have ever looked inside
a conventional instrument, it is pretty obvious that the
change is of the same cause as the common watches. An analog
instrument is a two to twelwe inch long box filled with
watchwork mechanics. It is far more expensive to produce and
maintain than a digital instrument.

Agreed - even the glass panel components are very complex
inside, but the parts are automatically mass-produced to all
data processing, and this is where the economics come in.

[Robert M. Gary]

I'm sure its much easier for the factory to just plug in a glass panel
than to route power, data, static, and pitot through the back of the
panel. Just a couple data cables and you're ready to go.

-Robert

Post by Tauno Voipio
There are pretty good technical grouds why the instrument
panels are going to glass: If you have ever looked inside
a conventional instrument, it is pretty obvious that the
change is of the same cause as the common watches. An analog
instrument is a two to twelwe inch long box filled with
watchwork mechanics. It is far more expensive to produce and
maintain than a digital instrument.
Agreed - even the glass panel components are very complex
inside, but the parts are automatically mass-produced to all
data processing, and this is where the economics come in.
--
Tauno Voipio, Avionics engineer, CPL(A)
tauno voipio (at) iki fi- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Gezellig]

Post by Tauno Voipio
There are pretty good technical grouds why the instrument
panels are going to glass: If you have ever looked inside
a conventional instrument, it is pretty obvious that the
change is of the same cause as the common watches. An analog
instrument is a two to twelwe inch long box filled with
watchwork mechanics. It is far more expensive to produce and
maintain than a digital instrument.
Agreed - even the glass panel components are very complex
inside, but the parts are automatically mass-produced to all
data processing, and this is where the economics come in.

And the profits especially as the mfg numbers go up and the cost/unit
goes down.

[Gezellig]

Post by F. Baum

Post by Gezellig
I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"
Comments appreciated.

I think glass IS the standard instrumentation anymore . I dont think
you can buy a new plane with round dials (Exept for a few specialty
airplanes like the American Champion . Even most LSA's come with at
least a MFD .

Are most purchases from new pilots of new airplanes? My guess is No. Are
most planes that are bought steam gauged? Yes. Do most new pilots buy or
rent? Rent. What do they rent? Cessnas for the most part, steam gauged;
which leads us back to the original post.

"In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"

Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak) would appear to be an issue. My
expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look forward to
curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be Cessna (std
gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared."

Post by F. Baum
In order to answer your question you need to ask what
type of flying you will do. If you plan to fly an old Cub then dont
worry about a modern panel.

The question is problematic, I don't know the %s but how many new pilots
know what they ultimately will end up doing? I didn't and I spent a
great deal of time researching, talking and I did not see the need for
multi or glass or traveling over water and rougher terrains (where a
multi might/would be preferable).

Others who have better defined limitations (budget, job considerations,
sport piloting) you can apply your "type of flying" directly and
accurately.

Post by F. Baum
I think it would be cheaper to train in a
modern plane for the IR because of the ease of use you will get done
faster .
FB

Agree with that.