Is the RV7 a suitable IFR platform? By that I mean, even though it's a hotrod, is it stable enough to be trustworthy/comfortable in IFR conditions? I'm trying to choose between RV models as well as other manufacturers. I definitely want a plane that I can trust in IFR conditions. I know course deviations happen really fast in quick little planes like this, but I haven't been able to fly a -7 yet to know just how "nervous" of a plane it is in the sky. I'll have an autopilot, regardless of the plane. Just looking for thoughts from current -7 pilots. Thanks.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV7 for IFR?
- Thread starter skelrad
- Start date
I am a 1400+ hour IFR rated pilot and prior owner of three C-182's, C-177, and Bellanca Super Viking. When I bought an RV-6A (I got a really high priced "free" ride in an RV) it did not have an autopilot and I found that IFR work in the -6A a little tough. After putting in TruTrak's DigiTrak and AlTrak (two axis autopilot) I did quite a bit of IFR work in the -6A.
I have since started building an RV-10 and have the Grand Rapids EFIS (three glass panel version) along with the Digiflight II VSGV two axis autopilot system, and will have a hard IFR setup in the RV-10. I would personally have no hesitation in flying IFR in any of the RV's if the panel is designed around an IFR platform. I currently have a 1/3 interest in a C-182 which I never fly IFR because the panel is not adequate for what I consider good IFR minimums, even thought the C-182 has an IFR certification. While the stability of the C-182 in IFR conditions might be better if any airplane does not have a good panel for IFR work it is in my opinion not worth the risk.
Having said all that, I consider a good two axis autopilot an absolute necessity for safe IFR work. The second thing I consider a real valuable tool for IFR work is a moving map system. I used an IPAQ running the control vision moving map in my RV-6A.
I helped a RV-6 buildder design his panel around a basic IFR panel and he went with a Grand Rapids graphics engine monitor and GPS moving map display and as a second screen went with the Grand Rapids Sport. For an autopilot he went with the two axis TruTrak Pictorial Pilot which has a built in attitude indicator and digital heading indicator.
I have since started building an RV-10 and have the Grand Rapids EFIS (three glass panel version) along with the Digiflight II VSGV two axis autopilot system, and will have a hard IFR setup in the RV-10. I would personally have no hesitation in flying IFR in any of the RV's if the panel is designed around an IFR platform. I currently have a 1/3 interest in a C-182 which I never fly IFR because the panel is not adequate for what I consider good IFR minimums, even thought the C-182 has an IFR certification. While the stability of the C-182 in IFR conditions might be better if any airplane does not have a good panel for IFR work it is in my opinion not worth the risk.
Having said all that, I consider a good two axis autopilot an absolute necessity for safe IFR work. The second thing I consider a real valuable tool for IFR work is a moving map system. I used an IPAQ running the control vision moving map in my RV-6A.
I helped a RV-6 buildder design his panel around a basic IFR panel and he went with a Grand Rapids graphics engine monitor and GPS moving map display and as a second screen went with the Grand Rapids Sport. For an autopilot he went with the two axis TruTrak Pictorial Pilot which has a built in attitude indicator and digital heading indicator.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
One will do
I agree with dac1111, except a single axis (wing leveler) is adequate. Hand flying a RV in clouds can be (too) interesting. With that said it is a single engine airplane with a single pilot and has limits, and Van never designed his RV?s for IFR work. "Total Performance" means sport flying, reasonable STOL characteristic, good x-c abilites and the ability to do gentleman?s aerobatics with great feel. Low drag and natural roll stability can get you into trouble fast IMC, if you get it in an unusual attitude. Pitch stability is good so that is why I say you don?t need a pitch autopilot, however if you are flying a RV (especially a tandem) with aft CG, pitch stability decays very fast. Bottom line IFR is OK but it is not C182. G
I agree with dac1111, except a single axis (wing leveler) is adequate. Hand flying a RV in clouds can be (too) interesting. With that said it is a single engine airplane with a single pilot and has limits, and Van never designed his RV?s for IFR work. "Total Performance" means sport flying, reasonable STOL characteristic, good x-c abilites and the ability to do gentleman?s aerobatics with great feel. Low drag and natural roll stability can get you into trouble fast IMC, if you get it in an unusual attitude. Pitch stability is good so that is why I say you don?t need a pitch autopilot, however if you are flying a RV (especially a tandem) with aft CG, pitch stability decays very fast. Bottom line IFR is OK but it is not C182. G
IFR in an RV7
The RV7 isn't "nervous" as an IFR platform, just responsive, like having rack and pinion steering in yaw, pitch and roll. I have about 2.5 hours of actual IFR in my -7A so far (out of about 165 TTAE), including some hardball IFR--IMC with turbulence and rain heavy enough to chip some paint off the fuselage, and a couple of ILSs close to minimums. For enroute IFR I just let the TruTrack (Digiflight II with altitude hold) fly the plane. For approaches I either hand fly it or let the AP take the heading and I manage the altitude. Recently put the TruTrack solid state ADI in place of the attitude indicator, and find it really helps to have the GPS digital course displayed just below the artificial horizon on approach (see http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsinstruments.html ).
An interesting aspect of IFR work in the RV7 is that the faster you go, the more stable it is -- ailerons firm up and the rudder takes more pressure. Pitch remains relatively light but not distractingly so, and if you diverge from an altitude you can sure get back to it in a hurry. I usually fly approaches at about 150kts until within a mile and a half or so of the airport by GPS, then start bleeding off speed using the CS prop and pulling back power. (Yes, I am familiar with the notion of a stabilized approach at a suitably slow approach speed and did hundreds of them in my C-182 over the years. It's just 150kts is a good stabilized approach speed in my -7A.)
As others have noted, a good IFR panel helps quite a bit:
If you are accustomed to flying with precision, flying the -7A with precision in IFR conditions is pretty straightforward. It's a 'two fingers on the stick' plane in VFR conditions and also IMC. Seldom if ever is there a reason to grab a handful of stick, unlike landing the C-182 which was like doing curls with 50 pound weights in the flare to touchdown.
-Dan Masys
N747DL
The RV7 isn't "nervous" as an IFR platform, just responsive, like having rack and pinion steering in yaw, pitch and roll. I have about 2.5 hours of actual IFR in my -7A so far (out of about 165 TTAE), including some hardball IFR--IMC with turbulence and rain heavy enough to chip some paint off the fuselage, and a couple of ILSs close to minimums. For enroute IFR I just let the TruTrack (Digiflight II with altitude hold) fly the plane. For approaches I either hand fly it or let the AP take the heading and I manage the altitude. Recently put the TruTrack solid state ADI in place of the attitude indicator, and find it really helps to have the GPS digital course displayed just below the artificial horizon on approach (see http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsinstruments.html ).
An interesting aspect of IFR work in the RV7 is that the faster you go, the more stable it is -- ailerons firm up and the rudder takes more pressure. Pitch remains relatively light but not distractingly so, and if you diverge from an altitude you can sure get back to it in a hurry. I usually fly approaches at about 150kts until within a mile and a half or so of the airport by GPS, then start bleeding off speed using the CS prop and pulling back power. (Yes, I am familiar with the notion of a stabilized approach at a suitably slow approach speed and did hundreds of them in my C-182 over the years. It's just 150kts is a good stabilized approach speed in my -7A.)
As others have noted, a good IFR panel helps quite a bit:
If you are accustomed to flying with precision, flying the -7A with precision in IFR conditions is pretty straightforward. It's a 'two fingers on the stick' plane in VFR conditions and also IMC. Seldom if ever is there a reason to grab a handful of stick, unlike landing the C-182 which was like doing curls with 50 pound weights in the flare to touchdown.
-Dan Masys
N747DL
dan
Well Known Member
IFR is IFR
Dan Masys described the characteristics well. The only things I have to add are:
1. How much IFR are you really going to fly? I personally have 16.3 hours instrument time in my -7, out of 605 hours. That's a meager 2.7%. Be realistic about how much IFR flying you truly intend to do. And I'm aiming this comment more at how you equip the plane, and less about any flying characteristics. Is it worth big $$$ for fancy toys you'll use 2.7% of the time? Hard question to answer.
2. Now that I questioned the validity of having expensive equipment, I'm going to turn the table for one exception... An autopilot is more or less essential for any real IFR cross countries. I don't have many long legs in IMC logged in my -7 (i.e. nothing longer than a couple of hours in actual). But I can say that it's less enjoyable and more stressful flying long IMC legs in the -7 than it was in the old Mooney 201 -- that is, with no autopilot. As Dan M. mentioned, the stability at speed is good, but it's nothing like how stable hand-flying the Mooney used to be. I am very glad I now have the TruTrak autopilot to pick up where my skills leave off -- when looking at charts, folding a map, tuning the radio, etc. IFR in an RV without an autopilot can be very demanding.
I also want to express agreement with gmcjetpilot on a single axis autopilot being sufficient. If the wings are level and the plane is trimmed, it's unlikely that your altitude will wander. Not saying an altitude hold wouldn't be nice to have, just saying it's not a "necessity" imho.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Dan Masys described the characteristics well. The only things I have to add are:
1. How much IFR are you really going to fly? I personally have 16.3 hours instrument time in my -7, out of 605 hours. That's a meager 2.7%. Be realistic about how much IFR flying you truly intend to do. And I'm aiming this comment more at how you equip the plane, and less about any flying characteristics. Is it worth big $$$ for fancy toys you'll use 2.7% of the time? Hard question to answer.
2. Now that I questioned the validity of having expensive equipment, I'm going to turn the table for one exception... An autopilot is more or less essential for any real IFR cross countries. I don't have many long legs in IMC logged in my -7 (i.e. nothing longer than a couple of hours in actual). But I can say that it's less enjoyable and more stressful flying long IMC legs in the -7 than it was in the old Mooney 201 -- that is, with no autopilot. As Dan M. mentioned, the stability at speed is good, but it's nothing like how stable hand-flying the Mooney used to be. I am very glad I now have the TruTrak autopilot to pick up where my skills leave off -- when looking at charts, folding a map, tuning the radio, etc. IFR in an RV without an autopilot can be very demanding.
I also want to express agreement with gmcjetpilot on a single axis autopilot being sufficient. If the wings are level and the plane is trimmed, it's unlikely that your altitude will wander. Not saying an altitude hold wouldn't be nice to have, just saying it's not a "necessity" imho.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Don't Bite Off More Than You Can Chew
...Or eat more than you can lift.
1. Really consider the sort of IFR you will likely fly. Where I live, serious IFR occurs in winter, MEAs to go anywhere are 10K+ and ice is a certainty. I stay on the ground, not just because of equipment limitations, mainly because my IFR is so infrequent that a P210 wouldn't compensate for my always creaky skills.
My IFR is punching stratus west of the Sierras/Cascades for a few minutes, fatigue doesn't set in, and the cross country legs are enjoyable.
A no-gyro RV-7 in more capable hands than mine could accomplish my missions. How good are you?
2. The plane is stable but touchy. A single-axis autopilot lets you fumble with charts, etc., two-axis is nice, but not necessary as long as you're paying attention; bandwidth is 300 ft before ATC takes an interest. At RV speeds, that can happen in seconds. Once you learn approach speeds, keeping the cross wires centered on the ILS is easy enough in my -7.
It all really comes down to the pilot. A fancy panel could make IFR easier, but only if you have and maintain the skills to use it.
John Siebold
Boise, ID
...Or eat more than you can lift.
1. Really consider the sort of IFR you will likely fly. Where I live, serious IFR occurs in winter, MEAs to go anywhere are 10K+ and ice is a certainty. I stay on the ground, not just because of equipment limitations, mainly because my IFR is so infrequent that a P210 wouldn't compensate for my always creaky skills.
My IFR is punching stratus west of the Sierras/Cascades for a few minutes, fatigue doesn't set in, and the cross country legs are enjoyable.
A no-gyro RV-7 in more capable hands than mine could accomplish my missions. How good are you?
2. The plane is stable but touchy. A single-axis autopilot lets you fumble with charts, etc., two-axis is nice, but not necessary as long as you're paying attention; bandwidth is 300 ft before ATC takes an interest. At RV speeds, that can happen in seconds. Once you learn approach speeds, keeping the cross wires centered on the ILS is easy enough in my -7.
It all really comes down to the pilot. A fancy panel could make IFR easier, but only if you have and maintain the skills to use it.
John Siebold
Boise, ID
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
I see a few statements regarding auto-pilots, and the second axis for pitch. And yes, I agree it's not "essential".
However, after flying about 40 hours of long cross country's in a friends RV9A last year (400-500 mile legs each direction), I found the device to be extremely worthwhile & put it next on the list behind the new GPS & wing-leveler A/P.
For as "cheap" as they are compared to some certified units, I see little reason, NOT to have one, if you have an interest in flying a lot of cross country trips. Works great for transitioning 20 miles or so of Class B, too!
L.Adamson
RV6A - paint
However, after flying about 40 hours of long cross country's in a friends RV9A last year (400-500 mile legs each direction), I found the device to be extremely worthwhile & put it next on the list behind the new GPS & wing-leveler A/P.
For as "cheap" as they are compared to some certified units, I see little reason, NOT to have one, if you have an interest in flying a lot of cross country trips. Works great for transitioning 20 miles or so of Class B, too!
L.Adamson
RV6A - paint
IFR around TFRs
I sure agree an auto-pilot is helpful for single-pilot IFR. I have a TruTrak 2-axis that I can set a climb/descend rate. Sure, at $4,600, it may seem expensive. But if it saves your bacon just once, it is worth every penny. I flew to Ft. Worth last week in IMC over the Crawford TFR area while President Bush was there. With the 430 coupled to the GRT EFIS and auto-pilot, it was fairly easy...as easy as flying the V-tail Bonanza or Cessna Turbo 210 in hours of IMC on long cross countries like I used to do. I have only 90 hours on the 7A and have enjoyed every one. It is stable; and I have found it will climb through 6,000 feet of clouds to get on top without using the auto-pilot if you pay close attention to attitude and airspeed and make no sudden movements.
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5064/panel1rw.jpg
Chuck Imken
N735RV
Lockhart,TX
I sure agree an auto-pilot is helpful for single-pilot IFR. I have a TruTrak 2-axis that I can set a climb/descend rate. Sure, at $4,600, it may seem expensive. But if it saves your bacon just once, it is worth every penny. I flew to Ft. Worth last week in IMC over the Crawford TFR area while President Bush was there. With the 430 coupled to the GRT EFIS and auto-pilot, it was fairly easy...as easy as flying the V-tail Bonanza or Cessna Turbo 210 in hours of IMC on long cross countries like I used to do. I have only 90 hours on the 7A and have enjoyed every one. It is stable; and I have found it will climb through 6,000 feet of clouds to get on top without using the auto-pilot if you pay close attention to attitude and airspeed and make no sudden movements.
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5064/panel1rw.jpg
Chuck Imken
N735RV
Lockhart,TX
Last edited by a moderator:
tomcostanza
Well Known Member
Training?
I'm very interested in this thread, and thanks to all for their advice. I'd like to ask for a bit more.
I planned to use the 7A I'm building as an instrument trainer. I also planned to start with a minimum of avionics, because, as I understand it, an examiner can only ask you to do approaches that the plane is equipped for. A single nav-com with a glide slope will enable 4 different approaches. A VOR approach, a localizer approach, ILS precision approach and a back-course approach. A hand held GPS would be used as a back-up, and for situational awareness. I don't envision any sustained VMC flight, but a few minutes to get on-top, or a x-country on an IFR flight plan in marginal VFR would be welcome.
What are your thoughts about using the RV as an instrument trainer?
Regards,
Tom Costanza
I'm very interested in this thread, and thanks to all for their advice. I'd like to ask for a bit more.
I planned to use the 7A I'm building as an instrument trainer. I also planned to start with a minimum of avionics, because, as I understand it, an examiner can only ask you to do approaches that the plane is equipped for. A single nav-com with a glide slope will enable 4 different approaches. A VOR approach, a localizer approach, ILS precision approach and a back-course approach. A hand held GPS would be used as a back-up, and for situational awareness. I don't envision any sustained VMC flight, but a few minutes to get on-top, or a x-country on an IFR flight plan in marginal VFR would be welcome.
What are your thoughts about using the RV as an instrument trainer?
Regards,
Tom Costanza
Ben Beaird
Active Member
tomcostanza said:
Tom,
It's a handfull. But when you do get your ticket in the -7, you'll cerainly be sharp!
My advice: put in a 2 axis autopilot. The examiner will let you engage it when loading approaches, entering holds and doing other high work load tasks during the checkride (at least mine did). And you will want it for sure when you start flying in IMC.
Ben Beaird
-6A 90hrs
7a as instrument trainer
i agree with ben's comments on the autopilot and the stick'n'rudder proficiency, but i'd encourage you to think a little more about the reasoning for the initial minimal equipment. my advice would be that if you ever plan on shooting a gps approach in actual, you should go ahead and install it and get trained on it. so what if it adds 5-10 hours of training onto your rating (i doubt it would be more than 4-6)? is your objective to get the piece of paper or to be proficient at instruments?
coupla months ago i gave a bfr to a multi-commercial-instrument rated pilot. we were to fly a mooney with an approach certified gps. i asked the pilot what she would like to concentrate on during the bfr (i hate to just do the standard 'stalls and falls', which is generally repetitious and not very productive to an advanced pilot.) she suggested landings. i asked her if she were comfortable with gps approaches, since the plane was equipped for it (and she had been flying the plane for a coupla years.) she responded that she had never done one. here was a highly competent pilot that could nail an ils, grease a landing, handle single-engine emergencies in a twin, and had never flown a gps approach even though the plane she had been flying for awhile was equipped to do so. i suspect it was because she had never trained on them. [btw, we did 3 gps approaches, and she was pretty comfortable with them at the conclusion.]
do you want your first gps approach to be in actual imc when you _have_ to "get it right the first time"? or do you want to limit yourself to non-gps approaches? [after an ils, i'd take a gps approach over any other.] or are you going to "self-train" later? maybe, maybe not. think it over.
i agree with ben's comments on the autopilot and the stick'n'rudder proficiency, but i'd encourage you to think a little more about the reasoning for the initial minimal equipment. my advice would be that if you ever plan on shooting a gps approach in actual, you should go ahead and install it and get trained on it. so what if it adds 5-10 hours of training onto your rating (i doubt it would be more than 4-6)? is your objective to get the piece of paper or to be proficient at instruments?
coupla months ago i gave a bfr to a multi-commercial-instrument rated pilot. we were to fly a mooney with an approach certified gps. i asked the pilot what she would like to concentrate on during the bfr (i hate to just do the standard 'stalls and falls', which is generally repetitious and not very productive to an advanced pilot.) she suggested landings. i asked her if she were comfortable with gps approaches, since the plane was equipped for it (and she had been flying the plane for a coupla years.) she responded that she had never done one. here was a highly competent pilot that could nail an ils, grease a landing, handle single-engine emergencies in a twin, and had never flown a gps approach even though the plane she had been flying for awhile was equipped to do so. i suspect it was because she had never trained on them. [btw, we did 3 gps approaches, and she was pretty comfortable with them at the conclusion.]
do you want your first gps approach to be in actual imc when you _have_ to "get it right the first time"? or do you want to limit yourself to non-gps approaches? [after an ils, i'd take a gps approach over any other.] or are you going to "self-train" later? maybe, maybe not. think it over.
Value
Money has not been mentioned yet, now it has!
ILS still is the lowest minimums for the buck. Fact is, GPS without WAAS doesn't come close, more like VOR or LOC minimums. Then there's the cost of keeping the data base up-to-date on a GPS box. All told, GPS is expensive if you have to set spending priorities. Approach plates can be printed off the web for free, and paper charts are dirt cheap if you can read the wretched government publications.
I would pay for two axis autopilot capability before adding legal GPS approach capability. That can be enjoyed the entire flight with or without GPS coupling.
And just how hard is it so set up for an ILS? Dial in the frequency. Same technique works in every airplane. No special training required for an arcane system. That takes bucks, too.
Someday GPS will overrun ILS minimums, and it will be into nearly every podunk airport with sufficent terrain clearance, but until then some of us have to meter the dollars. An ILS-able ship can go lower when the ceiling is down.
Now, if your home airport has none but a GPS approach, well....
John Siebold
Boise, ID
Money has not been mentioned yet, now it has!
ILS still is the lowest minimums for the buck. Fact is, GPS without WAAS doesn't come close, more like VOR or LOC minimums. Then there's the cost of keeping the data base up-to-date on a GPS box. All told, GPS is expensive if you have to set spending priorities. Approach plates can be printed off the web for free, and paper charts are dirt cheap if you can read the wretched government publications.
I would pay for two axis autopilot capability before adding legal GPS approach capability. That can be enjoyed the entire flight with or without GPS coupling.
And just how hard is it so set up for an ILS? Dial in the frequency. Same technique works in every airplane. No special training required for an arcane system. That takes bucks, too.
Someday GPS will overrun ILS minimums, and it will be into nearly every podunk airport with sufficent terrain clearance, but until then some of us have to meter the dollars. An ILS-able ship can go lower when the ceiling is down.
Now, if your home airport has none but a GPS approach, well....
John Siebold
Boise, ID
RV as instrument trainer
I would second the observation than an RV would be a real handful as an instrument trainer, and would predict that it will prolong instrument training since IFR work is close to or beyond mental overload when you're first into it in any airplane, as it seems like a jumble of rules and procedures and very precise flying requirements. Then at some point you get the Eureka effect and the whole thing gels in your mind and at that point you can go back to just concentrating on pointing the airplane where it is supposed to go as you 'fly the mental cartoon' of where you are in the enroute or approach sequence.
Even in a slow, stable airplane like a C172 (I bought a 172 as my first plane specifically to do IFR training) or a Cherokee, there are times you want everything to just slow down so your brain can catch up. An RV's requirement to keep your attention on pitch attitude, airspeed and course will leave fewer brain cycles for listening to ATC and/or your instructor, and changes of plan like an amended clearance or a vector off the published approach will probably have you yelling 'uncle' at least mentally.
But it is also the case that if you use the RV as an IFR trainer you will be a very sharp pilot by the time you get the ticket.
-Dan Masys
RV7A N747DL
tomcostanza said:
I would second the observation than an RV would be a real handful as an instrument trainer, and would predict that it will prolong instrument training since IFR work is close to or beyond mental overload when you're first into it in any airplane, as it seems like a jumble of rules and procedures and very precise flying requirements. Then at some point you get the Eureka effect and the whole thing gels in your mind and at that point you can go back to just concentrating on pointing the airplane where it is supposed to go as you 'fly the mental cartoon' of where you are in the enroute or approach sequence.
Even in a slow, stable airplane like a C172 (I bought a 172 as my first plane specifically to do IFR training) or a Cherokee, there are times you want everything to just slow down so your brain can catch up. An RV's requirement to keep your attention on pitch attitude, airspeed and course will leave fewer brain cycles for listening to ATC and/or your instructor, and changes of plan like an amended clearance or a vector off the published approach will probably have you yelling 'uncle' at least mentally.
But it is also the case that if you use the RV as an IFR trainer you will be a very sharp pilot by the time you get the ticket.
-Dan Masys
RV7A N747DL
tomcostanza
Well Known Member
RV7 as IFR trainer
Thanks to all for their advice.
John (Prickett), it isn't the 10 hours of instruction that will keep me from adding an approach certified GPS at the beginning, it's the $6,000+ it will add to the cost of the plane. I've been spending money like a drunken sailor and I'm just finishing the empenage!! For the record, I would *NEVER* attempt in IMC (or VMC for that matter), that which I hadn't done to the satisfaction of an instructor.
John (Siebold), thanks for understanding. At the outset, I'm just looking to get some training, eventually a rating, and finally a clearance to go VFR-on-top (and then back down
). I won't be shooting approaches anywhere near minimums, and I thought a nav/com with a glideslope would give me the most bang for the buck. Especially if I buy an older, used model. Also, it's my understanding that a VOR receiver is mandatory for IFR, so I'll need one no matter what.
Dan, your advice has been echoed by everyone I have asked. I don't own an airplane, and rental costs are through the roof in the northeast. The only way I'm going to be able to fly more than an hour a month is if I own my own plane. And the only way that will happen is if I build it myself. I suppose I could have built a slower, more stable plane, but I paid my money and made my choice. When I got my private license (the entry point when I decided to be a pilot), my instructor told me I should buy a C-150/152. I could get all my ratings in it, and then sell it for what I paid for it. I'm still kicking myself for not following THAT advice. I neglected to say that I have had some instrument training, but it's so long between flights that I can't maintain any proficiency. So I'm not really starting from scratch. btw, nice panel. Very well equipped, yet not cluttered.
To all who recommended an autopilot, that was always the plan. The non-TSO'd units are cheap enough that it doesn't make sense NOT to have one. Especially for IFR work.
I'm encouraged that nobody said, "ARE YOU NUTS??" So maybe I'll be successful, and if not, I'll stay home on cloudy days and fly my Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Thanks again. I value all your opinions.
Best,
Tom Costanza
Thanks to all for their advice.
John (Prickett), it isn't the 10 hours of instruction that will keep me from adding an approach certified GPS at the beginning, it's the $6,000+ it will add to the cost of the plane. I've been spending money like a drunken sailor and I'm just finishing the empenage!! For the record, I would *NEVER* attempt in IMC (or VMC for that matter), that which I hadn't done to the satisfaction of an instructor.
John (Siebold), thanks for understanding. At the outset, I'm just looking to get some training, eventually a rating, and finally a clearance to go VFR-on-top (and then back down
). I won't be shooting approaches anywhere near minimums, and I thought a nav/com with a glideslope would give me the most bang for the buck. Especially if I buy an older, used model. Also, it's my understanding that a VOR receiver is mandatory for IFR, so I'll need one no matter what. Dan, your advice has been echoed by everyone I have asked. I don't own an airplane, and rental costs are through the roof in the northeast. The only way I'm going to be able to fly more than an hour a month is if I own my own plane. And the only way that will happen is if I build it myself. I suppose I could have built a slower, more stable plane, but I paid my money and made my choice. When I got my private license (the entry point when I decided to be a pilot), my instructor told me I should buy a C-150/152. I could get all my ratings in it, and then sell it for what I paid for it. I'm still kicking myself for not following THAT advice. I neglected to say that I have had some instrument training, but it's so long between flights that I can't maintain any proficiency. So I'm not really starting from scratch. btw, nice panel. Very well equipped, yet not cluttered.
To all who recommended an autopilot, that was always the plan. The non-TSO'd units are cheap enough that it doesn't make sense NOT to have one. Especially for IFR work.
I'm encouraged that nobody said, "ARE YOU NUTS??" So maybe I'll be successful, and if not, I'll stay home on cloudy days and fly my Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Thanks again. I value all your opinions.
Best,
Tom Costanza
minimal panel
well, if the reason is financial, then that's different. i was only responding to your stated reason:
we can all understand the "creeping elegance" syndrome as it applies to our projects -- i've redesigned my panel about 8 times and it has gone from ~$10K to ~$27K, and i haven't really started the panel yet. So, if it's financial then, yeah, i can get behind that. but if it's to avoid being tested on certain things, well, i've already indicated that i think that's less than wise. no offense intended.
well, if the reason is financial, then that's different. i was only responding to your stated reason:
we can all understand the "creeping elegance" syndrome as it applies to our projects -- i've redesigned my panel about 8 times and it has gone from ~$10K to ~$27K, and i haven't really started the panel yet. So, if it's financial then, yeah, i can get behind that. but if it's to avoid being tested on certain things, well, i've already indicated that i think that's less than wise. no offense intended.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Panel Maintenance
This is a bit off topic but is relevant to the discussion.
For those of you who plan on upgrading their panel later on, I HIGHLY recommend you plan for that now, while you are building.
My RV-9 will be a simple day/night VFR panel (Dynon EFIS, w/ backup compass, airspeed, altimeter, and slip ball) but all of that will be mounted in an Affordable Panels panel. The way the sections come out, it should make future maintenance easier. (At least that?s what I told myself when I wrote the check. )
I did like the tip out panel in the last RVator, now if I could combine the two...
This is a bit off topic but is relevant to the discussion.
For those of you who plan on upgrading their panel later on, I HIGHLY recommend you plan for that now, while you are building.
My RV-9 will be a simple day/night VFR panel (Dynon EFIS, w/ backup compass, airspeed, altimeter, and slip ball) but all of that will be mounted in an Affordable Panels panel. The way the sections come out, it should make future maintenance easier. (At least that?s what I told myself when I wrote the check.
)I did like the tip out panel in the last RVator, now if I could combine the two...
tomcostanza
Well Known Member
IFR Minimalist
Hey John (Prickett),
Thanks again. No offense taken. It sounds like you are a CFI(I) and I certainly value any advice YOU have! And your point was well taken. My thought was that an examiner couldn't insist that I do NDB approaches if I didn't have an ADF in the plane. And I wasn't about to install one just for an exam. I also think it's important to train in the plane you will eventually fly into IMC, rare as that might be.
Project creep is something that I constantly battle. I figure I have another 2.5 years before this thing is airworthy. Things change so quickly in the computer/electronics industry that a GPS receiver could be obsolete by then. Likewise, with fuel prices going the way they are, I might not be able to afford the fuel to fly, much less afford a $20k panel. But I'm having a ball building, so I'm trying not to think too much about that. I could end up with a $60,000 lawn ornament though. Maybe someone will come up with a bio-diesel conversion for an O-360 by then
Best,
Tom
Hey John (Prickett),
Thanks again. No offense taken. It sounds like you are a CFI(I) and I certainly value any advice YOU have! And your point was well taken. My thought was that an examiner couldn't insist that I do NDB approaches if I didn't have an ADF in the plane. And I wasn't about to install one just for an exam. I also think it's important to train in the plane you will eventually fly into IMC, rare as that might be.
Project creep is something that I constantly battle. I figure I have another 2.5 years before this thing is airworthy. Things change so quickly in the computer/electronics industry that a GPS receiver could be obsolete by then. Likewise, with fuel prices going the way they are, I might not be able to afford the fuel to fly, much less afford a $20k panel. But I'm having a ball building, so I'm trying not to think too much about that. I could end up with a $60,000 lawn ornament though. Maybe someone will come up with a bio-diesel conversion for an O-360 by then
Best,
Tom
minimal ifr
yeah, i gotta admit i sort of jumped to the conclusion that you were putting off installing the gps so you wouldn't have to do gps approaches on your checkride. in my defense, i had just had that conversation with another builder, and in addition, the 3 planes i've owned since '98 have all had approach-certified gps's in them. (all different, of course). the only one that came with an approach-certified gps was the c-310, which had a kln-89b -- i though "ugh, i've only heard negative things about the user interface on them", but once i started learning it, i found it to be more intuitive than the apollo 2001 nms. i installed a gx-50 on the c-150 i bought in '98 (to do training in), that cost about 1/3 what i paid for the whole plane. but i'd probably do it again -- i flew a few gps approaches in actual in that plane, and was able to use it for ifr training as well as vfr. (i sold it to pay for my 7a airframe kit. -- also sold my interest in the c310 to pay for my engine/prop.)
i wouldn't bother putting an adf in a newer plane either. not that i think adf's are without value, it's just that their value is less than it was in years past. i used to start out new instrument students on the adf (after basic attitude flying, of course). some people thought i was a sadist, but the point was that the adf was "useless" without the d.g., and it taught the new instrument pilots to fly headings. you can sort of fly a vor radial or a localizer without paying too much attention to the d.g. -- just slight turns to make the needle respond (it's how you do partial panel approaches-- at least before gps's), but with an adf, the best you can do without the d.g. is to "home", which doesn't cut it ifr. so, by the time the student could track a decent mag bearing, the vor/ils's were a piece of cake (and they flew them correctly by flying headings, not chasing needles.) still, with the phase out of ndb's looming on the horizon, it makes little sense to install one in a new plane. gps can sub for adf for all but the primary navaid in ndb approaches, so most people are going there (including me.)
best of luck in your project, and whatever ifr navigation system(s) you use, learn it/them well.
john
yeah, i gotta admit i sort of jumped to the conclusion that you were putting off installing the gps so you wouldn't have to do gps approaches on your checkride. in my defense, i had just had that conversation with another builder, and in addition, the 3 planes i've owned since '98 have all had approach-certified gps's in them. (all different, of course). the only one that came with an approach-certified gps was the c-310, which had a kln-89b -- i though "ugh, i've only heard negative things about the user interface on them", but once i started learning it, i found it to be more intuitive than the apollo 2001 nms. i installed a gx-50 on the c-150 i bought in '98 (to do training in), that cost about 1/3 what i paid for the whole plane. but i'd probably do it again -- i flew a few gps approaches in actual in that plane, and was able to use it for ifr training as well as vfr. (i sold it to pay for my 7a airframe kit. -- also sold my interest in the c310 to pay for my engine/prop.)
i wouldn't bother putting an adf in a newer plane either. not that i think adf's are without value, it's just that their value is less than it was in years past. i used to start out new instrument students on the adf (after basic attitude flying, of course). some people thought i was a sadist, but the point was that the adf was "useless" without the d.g., and it taught the new instrument pilots to fly headings. you can sort of fly a vor radial or a localizer without paying too much attention to the d.g. -- just slight turns to make the needle respond (it's how you do partial panel approaches-- at least before gps's), but with an adf, the best you can do without the d.g. is to "home", which doesn't cut it ifr. so, by the time the student could track a decent mag bearing, the vor/ils's were a piece of cake (and they flew them correctly by flying headings, not chasing needles.) still, with the phase out of ndb's looming on the horizon, it makes little sense to install one in a new plane. gps can sub for adf for all but the primary navaid in ndb approaches, so most people are going there (including me.)
best of luck in your project, and whatever ifr navigation system(s) you use, learn it/them well.
john
tomcostanza
Well Known Member
IFR trainer (reply to John Prickett)
John,
I never thought of using NDB approaches to learn good DG technique, but it makes perfect sense. While I won't put one in the plane, MS Flight Sim has one. What do you think of using the cheapie software to practice? While you don't get the feel of the plane, and with Flight Sim there aren't any rudder pedals, I think it's good for learning to scan. The other advantage (for me) is that I can pause the simulation anytime and see what I screwed up. Another advantage is I can practice until my knuckles turn blue (without paying eleven-dy thousand dollars for fuel).
Whadda you think? I don't want to practice something that's going to cause me problems later.
Thanks again,
Tom
John,
I never thought of using NDB approaches to learn good DG technique, but it makes perfect sense. While I won't put one in the plane, MS Flight Sim has one. What do you think of using the cheapie software to practice? While you don't get the feel of the plane, and with Flight Sim there aren't any rudder pedals, I think it's good for learning to scan. The other advantage (for me) is that I can pause the simulation anytime and see what I screwed up. Another advantage is I can practice until my knuckles turn blue (without paying eleven-dy thousand dollars for fuel).
Whadda you think? I don't want to practice something that's going to cause me problems later.
Thanks again,
Tom
ADF For Training
If you have opportunity to use an ADF (aircraft or sim), certainly learn from it. There's no better way to train your brain to understand tracking, especially in crosswinds, and intercepts, holds, and orientation. You'll develop great situational awareness skills and actually have to think about what you're doing rather than let a microprocessor lead you around by the spinner.
Perhaps I'm masochistic, but I suggest NDB approaches and holds to the BRF instructor rather than the same old boring ILS. Then I ask him if he'd like to do one.
I love GPS, but there's much to learn from the humble ADF.
John Siebold
If you have opportunity to use an ADF (aircraft or sim), certainly learn from it. There's no better way to train your brain to understand tracking, especially in crosswinds, and intercepts, holds, and orientation. You'll develop great situational awareness skills and actually have to think about what you're doing rather than let a microprocessor lead you around by the spinner.
Perhaps I'm masochistic, but I suggest NDB approaches and holds to the BRF instructor rather than the same old boring ILS. Then I ask him if he'd like to do one.
I love GPS, but there's much to learn from the humble ADF.
John Siebold
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
RV7ator said:If you have opportunity to use an ADF (aircraft or sim), certainly learn from it. There's no better way to train your brain to understand tracking, especially in crosswinds, and intercepts, holds, and orientation. You'll develop great situational awareness skills and actually have to think about what you're doing rather than let a microprocessor lead you around by the spinner.
Perhaps I'm masochistic, but I suggest NDB approaches and holds to the BRF instructor rather than the same old boring ILS. Then I ask him if he'd like to do one.
I love GPS, but there's much to learn from the humble ADF.
John Siebold
For years, I kept track of flight into terrain accidents, including military , commercial, and GA. In SO many cases, a good moving map GPS could have provided "instant" situational awareness, where a few seconds could have made all the difference. A review board also made this recommendation regarding two particular airliner crashes, where the GPS could have shown the "big picture", when both pilots were actually lost.
Does it bug me to see the words "let a microprocessor lead you around by the spinner." as a descripition of a GPS?
Certainly does, because I WANT to see GPS be the future & not revert to a lesser form of primitive navigation.
When I see instrument rated pilots flying into rising terrain during darkness, whiteouts, and missed approaches thanks to a few seconds of lost situational awarness, I can guarantee that an ADF will do little to help! Macho or not, an ADF is of little value, compared to a new & up to date, moving map GPS. I'd never waste the money or panel space on one.
L.Adamson
sprucemoose
Well Known Member
L.Adamson said:
Actually, I think that maybe the best description of GPS I've ever read. GPS is clearly not only the future, but the present, of navigation, and overall we are all better off for it. But consider this: many pilots are becoming more and more complacent about situational awareness because they do have GPS, and when the magic box fails, they are in a world of hurt.
No dount that there are some pilots who were trained after the GPS revolution, and were never trained, or given cursory instruction in, pilotage, dead reconning and more conventional navigation. Likewise, many instrument pilots were not trained, or given cursory instruction in things like NDB holds and approaches. I agree with John Siebold completely. Use of NDBs is kind of like turns-around-a-point. Not terribly useful in and of themselves, but mastery of them gives you a better understanding of how this IFR thing works. If you are a pilot who understands and can fly NDB, then I submit that you are in a better situation when the GPS goes fritz, regardless of whether you've got an ADF on board.
As someone who learned to fly, and instructed, before GPS was around, I'm a firm believer in learning the (non GPS) fundamentals of both VFR and IFR flying. I also believe in spin training prior to solo, but maybe I'm just old fashioned.
As a final thought- how many runway incursions, mid airs and CFITs are caused, at least in part, by being head down looking at the TV screen and not looking outside where you should be looking?
Jeff Point
RV-6 (with GPS moving map, but no ADF)
Milwaukee
tomcostanza
Well Known Member
Pandora's GPS Box
It seems I have opened a can of worms here. Since the damage is already done, I will put in another $0.02. I'm not yet instrument rated, so this is all philosophical.
When I was trained in x-country flying, my instructor wouldn't let me use any nav radios. Had to do it all by pilotage & dead reckoning. Good thing too, since on my solo x-country, unforcast weather caused me to fly lower than planned and VOR reception was unreliable. Had I not had that training, I might have panicked. I was also trained in a tail dragger first (again, worst case).
I think there is a difference between how you train, and how you fly. Of course you want to take advantage of every bit of technology. Technology makes difficult things easier. But do you want all that high-tech stuff to be your minimum equipment list vis-a-vis training? I'm a believer in, "Plan for the worst, expect the best." With a moving map GPS, flying is like a video game. But if ALL you're trained for in an airplane is playing a video game, please don't fly over my house.
I submit that this discussion is analogous to one I had about not teaching long division or multiplication tables, because hand-held calculators are a dime a dozen. Teaching basic arithmetic skills shows how the number system works and how they form patterns. They are the foundation of higher math. When pilots abandon training in basic skills early, they abandon them forever. So while I am unlikely to ever do an NDB approach in IMC, if it makes me a better pilot, I'll practice them often.
Tom Costanza
RV-7 (A?)
waiting for wing kit
It seems I have opened a can of worms here. Since the damage is already done, I will put in another $0.02. I'm not yet instrument rated, so this is all philosophical.
When I was trained in x-country flying, my instructor wouldn't let me use any nav radios. Had to do it all by pilotage & dead reckoning. Good thing too, since on my solo x-country, unforcast weather caused me to fly lower than planned and VOR reception was unreliable. Had I not had that training, I might have panicked. I was also trained in a tail dragger first (again, worst case).
I think there is a difference between how you train, and how you fly. Of course you want to take advantage of every bit of technology. Technology makes difficult things easier. But do you want all that high-tech stuff to be your minimum equipment list vis-a-vis training? I'm a believer in, "Plan for the worst, expect the best." With a moving map GPS, flying is like a video game. But if ALL you're trained for in an airplane is playing a video game, please don't fly over my house.
I submit that this discussion is analogous to one I had about not teaching long division or multiplication tables, because hand-held calculators are a dime a dozen. Teaching basic arithmetic skills shows how the number system works and how they form patterns. They are the foundation of higher math. When pilots abandon training in basic skills early, they abandon them forever. So while I am unlikely to ever do an NDB approach in IMC, if it makes me a better pilot, I'll practice them often.
Tom Costanza
RV-7 (A?)
waiting for wing kit
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
tomcostanza said:
You just made my point
You've got about a "second" to make a life or death decision in regards to rising terrain & the safest direction to remain among the living.
Would you prefer multiplying by hand (NDB, VOR, paper charts & crosschecks), or the availability of instant situational awareness of the GPS which you could compare to the hand-held calculator?
If someone can't see the advantages of GPS moving maps, when there isn't a second to loose, then I give up. If it wasn't for two or three "flight into terrain" accidents around here every year, then I suppose I wouldn't care either...
L.Adamson KSLC
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
sprucemoose said:
I believe we are generalizing too much, in regards to how much time the pilot spends looking at the screen versus out the window. With GPS & two axis A/P's, I've had "much" more time to look out the window!
However, when it comes to traffic & mid-airs, I must say that I was quite impressed with a new Cirrus & the traffic
alerts which were overlayed on the GPS screen. With audio alerts as well as the ability to see them on screen in relation to your airplane, you knew other aircraft were there, much before you could actually see them!
L.Adamson
sprucemoose
Well Known Member
L.Adamson said:
Uh, to coin a phrase, You just made my point
The TV screen does not show you where the other aircraft are. It shows you where the other transponders are. Just a couple hours ago, I was #2 in a flight and we crossed paths with a Cub and a T-craft in loose formation. None of us have TCAS, but I can pretty well guarantee that neither of them would have shown up on the TV screen. TCAS, like GPS, leads to complacency and a loss of basic skills, be they instrument flyng or see-and-avoid.Jeff Point
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
sprucemoose said:
Are you an instructor?
Little tidbits of info I collect from here & there. This one is from an NTSB symposium, with Dick Collins/Flying magazine- moderator, and this particular quote is from Martha King- King Schools.
One of the things that does happen in general aviation is that in many of the training programs that we put pilots through, we don't train them adequately to use some of the major resources that we in general aviation do have, such as, for instance, the auto-pilot and the GPS.
A lot of flight instructors out there seem to have the attitude that to use these is a sissy thing to do or they have the attitude, well, it could fail, which clearly it could. So, don't use it, don't rely on it, don't worry about learning it.
Clearly, without question, any pilot who is instrument-rated must, has to be able to fly instruments without depending on the auto-pilot and without depending on a GPS.
On the other hand, if those resources are available to them in the airplane, in a life-threatening emergency, there are cases where those could save their life, and, so, we are really failing pilots if we don't give them the training, the resources, the background and the mindset to make use of these when those resources are available, and they have a significant problem in the aircraft.
This is about 1/3rd down on day one.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2000/gaaps/Transcript_2.htm
edited to get rid of italics, where not applicable
edit again ---- reading back, I see that you have instructed...
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Hey leave the CFII's out of it, know thy self
Autopilots and IFR are great and can make a huge difference in safety and operational efficency. The down side is it could decay your pilot skills unless you make an effort to stay current. The bare mins to stay IFR current is marginal at best. Add to that you are doing your required approaches on autopilot coupled is cheating yourself.
As far as equipment, Pilot know thy equipment. It is up to you to learn how it works. I can't tell you haw many hours I have sitting in an airplane on the ramp with the manual learning the "stack" or the LORAN or GPS. I know Garmin has procedure trainer software that allows you to practice using their equipment on your home computer.
So even if you got the whiz-bang autopilot, during your daily flying it is wise to "challenge" your self and turn the autopilot off and fly the plane on arrival and approach, on occasion. To illustrate this loss of skill there are two classic cases where airline pilots lost control of the aircraft near the ground; one resulted in a crash and the other near miss. In both cases they got into huge pitch and altitude oscillations. The bottom line was the pilots were not real instrument current and relied on automation too much. In one case the autopilot disconnected and the plane was way out of trim.
I can see some pilots in general aviation relying on their autopilot too much and loosing the skill they have. Also autopilot can cut loose on their own, with out warning. There is a min altitude that autopilots should be used, which I am not sure the experimental autopilots specify, but you should have your own min autopilot altitude. G
I was a full time CFI, CFII, MEI and have a few thousand hours dual given, much in solid IFR (Seattle, WA). I don't know any instructor pilot that says an autopilot is not useful or sissy. However when you are teaching attitude instrument flying (scan) you need to hand fly. Autopilots are universally know to be a safety plus; however the major portion of the GA IFR fleet have no autopilots, at least single engine aircraft. Most Part 135 single pilot IFR operations require an autopilot. So even the Feds understand that an autopilot is a safety item, especially for single pilot operations. However my first airline job was in a two pilot, 19 seat turboprop with NO autopilot. The jets I fly now are designed to be flown on autopilot and you are expected to get the autopilot engaged as soon as you can under normal conditions and after an emergency presents itself, if the autopilot is not already engaged. Flying cruise at high altitudes, without an autopilot would be a pain in the back. However during check rides you are asked to disconnect the autopilot and hand fly an approach or two (usually single engine approach to mins with a single engine go-around). Of course there is "auto land", it works beautifully BTW, but to date there is NO auto take-off on any commercial jet in service today. Usually the min altitude to engage an autopilot is around 400 feet, but most pilots wait till the plane is cleaned up and well above 1000 feet agl.L.Adamson said:Are you an instructor?
A lot of flight instructors out there seem to have the attitude that to use these is a sissy thing to do or they have the attitude, well, it could fail, which clearly it could. So, don't use it, don't rely on it, don't worry about learning it.
Autopilots and IFR are great and can make a huge difference in safety and operational efficency. The down side is it could decay your pilot skills unless you make an effort to stay current. The bare mins to stay IFR current is marginal at best. Add to that you are doing your required approaches on autopilot coupled is cheating yourself.
As far as equipment, Pilot know thy equipment. It is up to you to learn how it works. I can't tell you haw many hours I have sitting in an airplane on the ramp with the manual learning the "stack" or the LORAN or GPS. I know Garmin has procedure trainer software that allows you to practice using their equipment on your home computer.
So even if you got the whiz-bang autopilot, during your daily flying it is wise to "challenge" your self and turn the autopilot off and fly the plane on arrival and approach, on occasion. To illustrate this loss of skill there are two classic cases where airline pilots lost control of the aircraft near the ground; one resulted in a crash and the other near miss. In both cases they got into huge pitch and altitude oscillations. The bottom line was the pilots were not real instrument current and relied on automation too much. In one case the autopilot disconnected and the plane was way out of trim.
I can see some pilots in general aviation relying on their autopilot too much and loosing the skill they have. Also autopilot can cut loose on their own, with out warning. There is a min altitude that autopilots should be used, which I am not sure the experimental autopilots specify, but you should have your own min autopilot altitude. G
Last edited:
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
I guess I need to get back to what "irked" me in the first place, and the direction this thread was taking.
It seems that "some" would diminish the usefulness of a GPS in favor of an ancient ADF; or at least praise the ADF as being the more "macho" way...............or something to that effect.
Out here, in the Mtn. West , we have pilots & passengers still flying a perfectly good airplane directly into mountain ranges much too often. This includes instrument rated, instrument instructor/students, as well as VFR pilots.
In my ten year experience of using moving map GPS, along with current charts that provide finer detail of mountain topography, I find it almost impossible to fly into rising terrain because you DON'T know it's there.
Should a sudden IMC situation occur, you're situational awareness factor with a good detailed moving map, has to be infinately better than a VOR or ADF, when not knowing exactly what's between you & the navigation device, let alone having the time to review a chart or make a cross-check for location.
Just short of two years ago, an IFR instructor & PPL rated student flew directly into the trees of a mountain peak, while flying direct to a VOR on a pitch black evening. The plan was to activate an IFR flight plan at the VOR; except pre-planning ( or lack of) neglected the small mountain range in the direct path. Luckily, both lived with minor injuries, and their cell phones worked, considering it was winter & snow covered.
And then of course, a friend & I, flew this exact route (daytime) along with the too low & "wrong" altitude, but carrying a moving map GPS with terrain features & terrain warning.
Let me tell you, the terrain feature of these new GPS's work well, and are worth their weight in gold!!!!......if you're going to unknowingly crash otherwise! The Garmin not only shows the rising terrain, but flashes warnings that change from yellow to red as you get to close. You'd have to be blind, not to notice a problem!
And then for "someone" to compare these SAFETY features to a "video game", and "don't fly over my house" while using one, while inferring that ADF practice will make you a better pilot, while using a GPS will make you a "dumber" one----------------just completely pisses me off!
Fact is, perfectly good aircraft, loaded with people have been flying into mountains for nearly a hundred years. These new GPS's provide situational awareness that can't be approached with ADF's & VOR's. Since we have this technology, then it's time to buy it and use it, instead of acting like it's being a button pusher instead of a macho hand flyer!
It's also a fact, that "some" CFI's actually DO diminish it's usefulness. Luckily, I had a CFI during instrument training (didn't complete) that was astonished with the capabilities of the old Garmin 195MAP and it's instrument approach overlays.
These days, my former CFII fly's 737's and is surprised how well a hand-held Garmin 396 will show weather patterns for hundreds of miles compared to their onboard systems. Just as terrain & terrain warning is much more valuable than a needle pointing to an ADF, this onboard weather reporting for general aviation can be a true lifesaver.
As to some that say, the pilot is sticking his/her head into the cockpit too often to look at the glass versus looking out the window, well, it's "true" in a few cases where the pilot really doesn't know how to operate the electronics, and should learn beforehand. But in reality, there is "more" time to look out the window, thanks to not having charts constantly spread across your lap while performing navigation cross-checks to make sure where you really are. Using a moving map & the finer detail of a sectional chart, I ALWAYS know where I am, nearly to the second, should something fail. With an ADF, at least I'll suppose I'll know.............it's that way...
L.Adamson --- Garmin 296
It seems that "some" would diminish the usefulness of a GPS in favor of an ancient ADF; or at least praise the ADF as being the more "macho" way...............or something to that effect.
Out here, in the Mtn. West , we have pilots & passengers still flying a perfectly good airplane directly into mountain ranges much too often. This includes instrument rated, instrument instructor/students, as well as VFR pilots.
In my ten year experience of using moving map GPS, along with current charts that provide finer detail of mountain topography, I find it almost impossible to fly into rising terrain because you DON'T know it's there.
Should a sudden IMC situation occur, you're situational awareness factor with a good detailed moving map, has to be infinately better than a VOR or ADF, when not knowing exactly what's between you & the navigation device, let alone having the time to review a chart or make a cross-check for location.
Just short of two years ago, an IFR instructor & PPL rated student flew directly into the trees of a mountain peak, while flying direct to a VOR on a pitch black evening. The plan was to activate an IFR flight plan at the VOR; except pre-planning ( or lack of) neglected the small mountain range in the direct path. Luckily, both lived with minor injuries, and their cell phones worked, considering it was winter & snow covered.
And then of course, a friend & I, flew this exact route (daytime) along with the too low & "wrong" altitude, but carrying a moving map GPS with terrain features & terrain warning.
Let me tell you, the terrain feature of these new GPS's work well, and are worth their weight in gold!!!!......if you're going to unknowingly crash otherwise! The Garmin not only shows the rising terrain, but flashes warnings that change from yellow to red as you get to close. You'd have to be blind, not to notice a problem!
And then for "someone" to compare these SAFETY features to a "video game", and "don't fly over my house" while using one, while inferring that ADF practice will make you a better pilot, while using a GPS will make you a "dumber" one----------------just completely pisses me off!
Fact is, perfectly good aircraft, loaded with people have been flying into mountains for nearly a hundred years. These new GPS's provide situational awareness that can't be approached with ADF's & VOR's. Since we have this technology, then it's time to buy it and use it, instead of acting like it's being a button pusher instead of a macho hand flyer!
It's also a fact, that "some" CFI's actually DO diminish it's usefulness. Luckily, I had a CFI during instrument training (didn't complete) that was astonished with the capabilities of the old Garmin 195MAP and it's instrument approach overlays.
These days, my former CFII fly's 737's and is surprised how well a hand-held Garmin 396 will show weather patterns for hundreds of miles compared to their onboard systems. Just as terrain & terrain warning is much more valuable than a needle pointing to an ADF, this onboard weather reporting for general aviation can be a true lifesaver.
As to some that say, the pilot is sticking his/her head into the cockpit too often to look at the glass versus looking out the window, well, it's "true" in a few cases where the pilot really doesn't know how to operate the electronics, and should learn beforehand. But in reality, there is "more" time to look out the window, thanks to not having charts constantly spread across your lap while performing navigation cross-checks to make sure where you really are. Using a moving map & the finer detail of a sectional chart, I ALWAYS know where I am, nearly to the second, should something fail. With an ADF, at least I'll suppose I'll know.............it's that way...
L.Adamson --- Garmin 296
Gps
Where I fly there are a million tiny towns, very close together, but large mountains, valleys, and lakes. I always know where I am in relation to major landmarks and airports, without a GPS or even a chart. However, the ATC people seem to often want to know which microsopic town you are over, or, even worse, they want you to fly over one, direct to another. Sure, I can find these villages on the chart, but it takes a lot of time. They jump out at you on the GPS.
Not to mention airspace. If you want to do a little "100 dollar hamburger" run (well, here it will be about 200 dollars, and they don't have hamburgers except at McDonalds ) I typically need to cross or dodge 3 - 4 different controlled airspace areas. Having the GPS hold my hand here just makes the whole flight a lot more fun, since I can look out the window rather than trying to constantly plot my location on the chart. Flying in a straight line is boring, anyway.
I totally agree. Clearly pilotage is easier depending on where you fly.L.Adamson said:
Where I fly there are a million tiny towns, very close together, but large mountains, valleys, and lakes. I always know where I am in relation to major landmarks and airports, without a GPS or even a chart. However, the ATC people seem to often want to know which microsopic town you are over, or, even worse, they want you to fly over one, direct to another. Sure, I can find these villages on the chart, but it takes a lot of time. They jump out at you on the GPS.
Not to mention airspace. If you want to do a little "100 dollar hamburger" run (well, here it will be about 200 dollars, and they don't have hamburgers except at McDonalds
) I typically need to cross or dodge 3 - 4 different controlled airspace areas. Having the GPS hold my hand here just makes the whole flight a lot more fun, since I can look out the window rather than trying to constantly plot my location on the chart. Flying in a straight line is boring, anyway.
sprucemoose
Well Known Member
L.Adamson said:
The fact that it "pisses you off" makes it no less true
But seriously, I think it's time to let this one die. We seem to be talking right past each other. I will grant you- for IFR flying, intentional or otherwise, in the mountains, I'd trade my ADF for a 396 in half a heartbeat. And for the other 99.999% of flying, a GPS moving map certainly is nice to have. So nice, in fact that I put one in my panel. (Garmin 196)
And I will grant you that there are some grizzled old CFIs who pooh-pooh such new technology and don't teach it (mostly out of fear and ignorance) and this is bad.
However, you must grant me that there are at least as many CFIs who gloss over the basics of VFR and IFR navaigation, figuring you don't need to learn that old stuff, in favor of using all GPS, all the time. These bad instructors are found at both ends of the spectrum, and both are doing their students a diservice.
However, I will not back down one inch from my point about being head down in the cockpit. Everyone who thinks that having a panel of goodies "frees up" your time to look out the window, raise your hands. When I flew a '46 Champ with 6 gauges, 4 of which didn't work, there was plenty of time to look out the window (to watch cars on the freeway pass you.) When I equiped it with a portable GPS (295) my looking out time decreased by a ton. I certainly don't put myself above this, and I work hard to keep my head outside.
I do, and we all should, periodically go out and practice stalls, steep turns, lazy -8s, etc. to maintain a level of proficiency. Another good excercise- plan a flight to an airport a couple hundred miles away, and fly there with the GPS off. If this intimidates you, that ought to tell you something.
Jeff Point
PS Yes I was an instructor in the early 90s, but no longer actively instruct.
PPS Can we go back to arguing nose v. tailwheel now? FWIW, I find that the tailwheel spring is a handy place to mount the ADF sense antenna
Highflight
Well Known Member
sprucemoose said:However, you must grant me that there are at least as many CFIs who gloss over the basics of VFR and IFR navaigation, figuring you don't need to learn that old stuff, in favor of using all GPS, all the time. These bad instructors are found at both ends of the spectrum, and both are doing their students a diservice.
However, I will not back down one inch from my point about being head down in the cockpit. Everyone who thinks that having a panel of goodies "frees up" your time to look out the window, raise your hands. When I flew a '46 Champ with 6 gauges, 4 of which didn't work, there was plenty of time to look out the window (to watch cars on the freeway pass you.)
PPS Can we go back to arguing nose v. tailwheel now? FWIW, I find that the tailwheel spring is a handy place to mount the ADF sense antenna
Naw, let's keep arguing this one.
Just to add a couple of points:
I don't disagree with the idea of teaching basics while incorporating new technology, but teaching ADF approaches when GPS is so widely available and becoming a "standard" is like a teacher for Student Drivers of autos teaching his students that you put your arm straight out the window for a left turn, and your arm up for a right turn.
Even if that IS still taught to budding teenage drivers (is it?), I'll bet not one of those kids ever sticks their arm out the window to indicate a turn for the rest of their lives.
And I do think you're cheating when you reminisce how you had plenty of time to look out the window of your '46 Champ.... jeez, like you going maybe 55mph? Things are a little different at 200mph.
Not arguin'.. just thinkin'
sprucemoose
Well Known Member
Highflight said:Naw, let's keep arguing this one.
If you insist...
You are kind of making my point about student drivers. Though they may never have to use it, if their turn signals crap out, they'll still have the skills to function. BTW those signals are used all the time, by bicycles and motorcycles, so they must still be taught somewhere.
How is an RV at 200 MPH that different than a low and slow airplane? If anything, looking outside is more important when you are doing 75 MPH (not 55, gimme a break!) at 500 feet than in your RV at 10K.
Jeff
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
sprucemoose said:
If you have not read the following link, you should. It's a first test phase of comparing new students beginning the private pilot course through the instrument rating, using "traditional" teaching methods,*** versus*** starting with the Garmin 1000 glass panel system, such as new 172's are equipped with.
The glass panel group beat the traditional group by an average of 45 hours, with much fewer setbacks. The glass panel group started with navigation proceedures on day one, instead of just being taught how to hand fly.
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/ab-initio_training_in_the_glass_cockpit_era.pdf
L.Adamson
Martorious
Member
Prospective Pilots Perspective.
From someone on the outside looking in, I have to agree with Jeff and the others who spoke of the advantage to training in the old ways (ADF, etc). When I go looking for an instructor, I'd prefer one who will put my keister through the wringer doing everything by technique instead of technology. Once I have technique down pat, then technology is the polish on the top, an attractive alternative, not the only way I'll be able to do it.
When I build my 8A (yes a nosewheeler!) will it have a moving map? If my budget allows it, absolutely it will. Will it have an ADF, no. But will I benefit from training on one even if I don't have it? If others more knowledgeable than me believe so, I won't argue. I sure won't turn my nose up at the training.
I want anything it takes to make me a sharper pilot, starting with technique and adding technology. As long as I have the one so that I don't have to depend on the other if it craps out.
From someone on the outside looking in, I have to agree with Jeff and the others who spoke of the advantage to training in the old ways (ADF, etc). When I go looking for an instructor, I'd prefer one who will put my keister through the wringer doing everything by technique instead of technology. Once I have technique down pat, then technology is the polish on the top, an attractive alternative, not the only way I'll be able to do it.
When I build my 8A (yes a nosewheeler!) will it have a moving map? If my budget allows it, absolutely it will. Will it have an ADF, no. But will I benefit from training on one even if I don't have it? If others more knowledgeable than me believe so, I won't argue. I sure won't turn my nose up at the training.
I want anything it takes to make me a sharper pilot, starting with technique and adding technology. As long as I have the one so that I don't have to depend on the other if it craps out.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Martorious said:
If you don't have an ADF, training won't amount to much. Most new aircraft no longer come with ADF's. Much to costly for what they do, and many NDB's (which the ADF points to) are being decommissioned. ADF's also work for AM radio broadcasts, but at $3000+ for a new one, or $1500-$2500 for a re-furbished unit, it's awful expensive radio!
You can practice ADF or VOR navigation just as easily with Microsofts Flight Simulator, as in a real plane; and it's a whole lot cheaper. Instructions are easily obtainable on the internet.
L.Adamson
Small Change
What a gas! I go away for three days and come back to two breezy pages subsequent to my last post that was not read very carefully. Somewhere along the ensuing rabbit trail student drivers were dragged into the fray.
To expand on my last post, I won't put an ADF into a new airplane. GPS (not IFR certified) would be installed because it is wonderfully informative, but the ship would be pretty much VFR only without VOR/LOC/GS.
My contention is that ADF orienteering is excellent for training, not operational reliance.
I shall hunker down for a period of time.
John Siebold
What a gas! I go away for three days and come back to two breezy pages subsequent to my last post that was not read very carefully. Somewhere along the ensuing rabbit trail student drivers were dragged into the fray.
To expand on my last post, I won't put an ADF into a new airplane. GPS (not IFR certified) would be installed because it is wonderfully informative, but the ship would be pretty much VFR only without VOR/LOC/GS.
My contention is that ADF orienteering is excellent for training, not operational reliance.
I shall hunker down for a period of time.
John Siebold
sprucemoose
Well Known Member
RV7ator said:Somewhere along the ensuing rabbit trail student drivers were dragged into the fray.
I can assure you that no student drivers were injured during the creation of this thread. So don't worry.
Jeff
