![]() |
Looking for IFR retract instruction
Been weighing my options and am looking for suggestions. I am looking for a full immersion IFR program or instruction. Not interested in doing a couple of days a month. Here is the tricky part, would highly prefer it behind a glass panel, G3X (or G900X/G1000) with a GTN 750 would be my first choice since our upcoming project will have that. Dynon would be great also since I currently fly behind that.
High performance, retractable would be a HUGE plus, since I have no retract time and will need that also. We are based at CXP on the west coast but willing to travel for the right combination. Suggestions anyone?? |
I'm a forty-something, old school type guy buy I'd personally push you towards a mixed concept of less technology upfront(only VOR/DME with HSI?) then finishing with all glass. When sh*t goes wrong the ability to put your finger on the approach plate and know where you are without all the gee whiz stuff is priceless. JMHO.
What are guys doing for partial panel training with the G3X? |
You might find the perfect combo, but IMHO you have too many variables.
Concentrate on the easiest, least costly fixed price path to an IFR ticket via an accelerated program first, the rest will be easier to figure out. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
GATTS is probably the best option to meet what you're looking for. I got my IR behind a G1000 so I say the steam vs glass debate isn't really that much of an issue, especially if you plan to fly glass in the future. Either panel will get the job done.
|
Doesen't answer your questions, but I am sure you have already seen this thread http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=152041
|
Glass Cockpit Aviation
Look up Cammie Patch. She's in Boise. I trained and took the checkride in the old Archer, but the web page is showing other options, including a retract option.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There are also benefits to learning in your plane if you are building a 4,6,7, or 8. The pitch and roll excursions happen real fast in these planes and I was very glad that I established the right disciplines during my early attitude flight training. Best of luck in your pursuits. I thought the Instrument training was a very satisfying challenge. Larry Larry |
Quote:
Dial the clock back 20 years, and I am sure instructors were saying the same thing about HSI's, telling students to use a separate heading indicator and CDI / ADF to better prepare them. A parallel would be forcing all new drivers to learn on manual transmission based cars. Today, one can become a very competent driver without ever knowing what gear they are in. In my intial training I did partial panel with and ASI, ALT and ADI - with GPS approaches (CDI on GPS screen). Later in my training I added a second EFIS and put in battery backups for them. Glass is my primary and my backup. Larry |
Well, I was instructing 20 years ago, and I never objected to an HSI. But I did love NDB approaches! When a student could do them well, I knew that he had mastered visualizing his position and orientation - without a moving map. The auto parallel would be a 16 year old learning to drive in a car with a gps moving map. Turn it off, and he can't figure out how to get home! Don't get me wrong, I love the avionics we have now. But I do a fair number of IPCs, and I can always tell the pilots who have never flown without moving maps. If I 'fail' the map, the pilot gets mentally lost.
|
We're Getting Old
IIRC, my own early instrument instruction included some ranting about using a rotatable card on the NDB approaches - like it would destroy my capability to figure out headings and intercepts on my own.
My big challenge today is to stop over-controlling the aircraft because the digital information coming at me is showing heading and altitude changes one degree and one foot at a time. I have to keep reminding myself that maritime compasses showed 32 points (rather than 360 degrees) for a reason - holding course any closer was an exercise in futility. Terry, CFI RV9A N323TP |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:47 AM. |