J

jrsites

Well Known Member
Doug Rozendaal's thread about Synthetic Vision contains some discussion related to a subject that I was contemplating just yesterday. I didn't want to highjack the thread, though, so I thought I'd just start a new one.

Our employees' flying club fleet is mostly G1000-equipped, and the majority of those G1000 airplanes have the new GFC 700 autopilot. When I did my G1000 checkout a couple of years ago, it was before the GFC 700 was certified and we had Bendix-King KAP-140 autopilots. Anyway, I'd done a familiarization flight in a GFC 700 airplane earlier this year, but still had very little practical experience with the autopilot.

All the stars aligned yesterday; it was darned near 60 degrees, little to no wind, and there was actually an airplane available even though we're still on our Christmas break. Perfect chance to spend a couple of hours getting more comfortable with the GFC 700. I'm not IFR rated and I wasn't going to be doing any type of instrument flying, but since I figured I was going to have my head down a good bit of the time doing the "now what happens when I push this button" thing, I called a friend of mine to serve as a safety pilot. Plus, he's got more time with the GFC 700, so I knew he could be a valuable resource.

I purposely asked my safety pilot friend to only intervene if I asked him to, or if it was for a safety of flight reason. I wanted to learn the GFC 700 the same way a person best learns a foreign language: by complete immersion and without a "crutch". So here's the main point of my post: I LOVE the G1000 and GFC 700, even as "just" a VFR pilot. I just don't think there is any such thing as "too much" or "unnecessary" information in a cockpit. But here's something I learned yesterday: When you're still learning how to work all the bells and whistles, figuring out just which combination of button pushes and knob turns activate the feature you're looking for, it can be very easy for basic aviating to suffer.

I can't tell you how much of the basic "pilot stuff" I screwed up yesterday. I was so busy trying to operate the electronics that I missed radio calls, flew wrong headings, made radio calls on wrong frequencies, and even failed to realize I was right over the top of one of my destination airports -- uncontrolled, thankfully -- when I thought I was still three miles out (this had more to do with not fully understanding the VNAV function on the autopilot and misunderstanding just what the "Distance Remaining" information was telling me; the others were just bonehead mistakes.)

As I did a mental after-action review, I realized that if I'd been flying a good ol' six-pack airplane, none of those mental mistakes that I so hate would've happened. But then I asked myself why that was. Well, it was because I was purposely trying to use the autopilot as MUCH as possible. I was so busy trying to employ the technology that I let the aviating fly out the window. What a paradox. The G1000 and GFC 700 have more capability than I'll ever be able to effectively use. And I'm convinced that once operating them becomes second nature to me, they will make me a much safer, more aware pilot. I'm also convinced that if I hadn't touched that "AP" button and just been content to use the airspeed indicator, altimeter, and attitude indicator (albeit in electronic form), the flight would've been free of any boneheadery. But it's this crucial transition, where I'm learning how to extract the most from the technology and employ it effectively, even in VFR flying, that seems to present the greatest challenge.

I was pretty well spent after just 1.6 hours on the hobbs. My mind was ready to quit concentrating for a while. The funny thing is, I remember feeling the same way after flying the G1000 alone for the first time. Just a simple round-robin in the local area was a tremendous exercise in concentration. I'd gotten to the point where operating the G1000 for simple VFR flying had become a matter of muscle memory. Adding the wonderfully amazing GFC 700 into the mix took me right back to square one. But as I said in the opening, it will be worth it. The GFC 700 is more capable than the autopilots that were being put in business jets just a generation ago. And there's a place (at least in my cockpit) for many of it's features, even though I'm only a VFR pilot. I just hope I survive getting accustomed to it!

Edit: After reading on a bit further in Doug's thread, I want to add a little more. Please don't hear me saying that the G1000/GFC 700 is making me a more dangerous pilot. Again, I think that all of the information and capability that the system brings to the cockpit can't help but make me a safer pilot. I personally want access to EVERY BIT of information I can get my eyeballs on. As far as I'm concerned, "information in the ether" goes right along with "Runway behind you, altitude below you, and fuel in the truck....." And let's face it, that's exactly what Synthetic Vision or the moving map or the any other part of the system is - information. It's just that learning to pull all that information out of the box is proving to be the hardest part of the transition.
 
Last edited:
Sounds Familiar

Jeff, your well-written post sounds exactly like my transition from "steam" to "Glass" (Boeing) at the airline. Time is the answer. After a while, you learn to think like the computer "thinks". And you are right on when you say you welcome all the information you can get in the cockpit! It just takes a while to learn to properly assimilate it all.

Practice will make perfect, or close!
 
I echo Pete's sentiments.......

....but from a different perspective.

When I started using my Satloc system for swath guidance during spray runs, I had to really concentrate on keeping my head out of the cockpit and watch for towers/trees and other obstacles while programming the unit for destination/swath width, etc, while still "aviating".

It's no different from talking/texting on the cellphone while driving....we become too heavily "task loaded" and something or another suffers as a result. Learning to adapt to glass panels is no exception and the more complex/information loaded they become, the more time we tend/need to spend heads down when we should be heads-up. It's definitely a learning curve and we need to be very cautious as we go there and a desktop simulator would be a great safety addition.

Keep in mind that safety of flight and see-and-avoid rules always apply.



Regards,
 
Excellent thoughts Jeff - and yes, as others have said, time is the answer. Flying instruments with a six-pack doesn't come naturally to very few people - it takes time to process and understand the raw data and convert it into useful information. It also takes time to convert to new representations and new ways to tell the airplane what you want it to do. The important thing is to focus on the end of the training and realize just how much mental workload goes away when you are not just given data, but true information, as can be done with glass. The simplest example is the moving map. We all used to have to develop a mental map of where were were in relation to navaids and runways by interpreting arcane needle movements and numbers on dials. now you just look at th map, and it shows you your position relative to the airport/runway. This frees up brain cells for more interesting work, like evaluating weather, or planning your escape when you have to miss.

But.....yes, it takes time to learn to utilize glass. One suggestion that might get laughed at, but is very efficient - buy a PC flight simulator (even MSFS is great), pick a glass-cockpit airplane model, and fly the heck out of it. No Avgas, and you can freeze it whenever you want.

Paul
 
Paul and John,

The simulator is probably a good idea. The flying club has a G1000 desktop simulator, but there are no "outside" visuals with it. You get the instruments and that's it. For some reason, not being able to "feel" the reaction of the airplane to an input makes practicing the autopilot difficult. Not being able to feel OR "see" the reaction via some visual cue makes it doubly so. At least a sim would let me "see" the airplane's reaction.

Now, if I can just find a G1000/GFC 700 sim that works on a Mac.....

And I should probably clarify a bit. I'm not wrestling at all with flying the EFIS. I've been comfortable from day one with vertical tape displays for airspeed and altitude, trend vectors, moving maps, etc. What's got me all messed up is incorporating the autopilot.

One example of a struggle that I finally got worked out yesterday: Before takeoff, I'd set the target altitude assigned me in the clearance. After takeoff, and upon reaching a safe altitude, I punched "AP", then "HDG" (because I was still under authority of a controller who was giving me headings to fly), then "ALT" (because I wanted the autopilot to capture the set altitude once it got there). The autopilot immediately began leveling off - and I began bumbling about the sky. I couldn't figure out why the autopilot leveled off. So I hit the disconnect button, then just engaged the HDG function (since I knew THAT was doing what I wanted it to). My friend explained to me that the ALT and VS functions are not like the HDG or NAV functions. When you engage either of the lateral guidance functions, the autopilot will steer whatever heading (or course) you have set. Engaging either of the vertical guidance functions, however, causes the autopilot to capture and maintain whatever the airplane is doing at that moment. So, in the case of vertical guidance by the autopilot, I needed to engage the function that corresponds to what I want the airplane to do (or keep doing). In other words, if I'm going to engage the autopilot on climbout, and I want the airplane to keep climbing, I need to push the VS button. This causes the autopilot to maintain whatever vertical speed we had at the moment I pushed the button.

The mistake I made, and the one that was causing a whole other chain of misunderstandings, was in linking the function of the target altitude to the Altitude function on the autopilot. As it turns out, I don't need to "tell" the autopilot to stop at the target altitude (which is what I was trying to do by pushing the "ALT" button); it will always stop at that altitude no matter how I get to it and no matter what else the autopilot is doing. Once I mentally made the connection (or broke the connection, actually) in my mind that the ALT button had NOTHING to do with the target altitude I'd set in the little window, things went much more smoothly.

By the way, Paul, I enjoyed your article in the current RVator. Looks like you showed everyone how to do a mashup of an FMEA and a QFD to come up with an instrumentation list!
 
Last edited:
Jeff,

What I read between the lines in your post is that your problem has little to do with G-1000 or G-700, you just have never had any training in multi-axis autopilot operation.

Lets try a different spin on this. Here is one of the most technically advanced airplanes in the fleet, and you are very quickly getting a handle on it without any formal instruction. This really is a ringing endorsement of the Garmin goodies, and pretty amazing considering the capability and complexity of that equipment. You would have zero chance of doing that in a Pro Line 21 airplane.

Some thoughts:

First of all, a tiny bit of formal instruction would be very useful to you. But the underlying message in your post is a common problem in airplanes with "too many many toys."

These airplanes have a fundamental problem. As pilots we want to use the technology and so when it doesn't perform as expected our field of vision narrows to about 2" at 2000 yards and the whole mission of the flight can easily become to beat the technology, possibly with disastous consequences. Just as important as training pilots how to use the equipment, we need to train pilots to "give up early" and fall back to what they know.

If you want to wrestle with the automation, find a safety pilot and an instructor and then figure out how to utilize the technology in our normal operations.

Given my personality, I really have to be careful about this. I like technology and when it doesn't work as i expect, I can easily get sucked in. I compare this to spreadsheet software.

When I bought my first PC, in 1984, it came with a spreadsheet called Calcstar. Pretty quickly I learned every function in the software, I mastered it. Today I have MS Excel. I doubt if there is a single human on the planet that knows every function in MS Excel, nobody is the master of that software. So while MS is much more capable, I could use Calcstar more efficently.

I have mastery level knowledge of a KX-155, and I am pretty good with a G-430. But you can see where this is headed. As airplanes have more capablility, it will be more and more difficult, if not impossible, to master every function in the automation. That might put off some pilots, but this is not a new concept. Most of us have not mastered our airplane aerodynamically. Bob Hoover was, Patty is, and there are a handful of others who are masters. The rest of us use the capabilty of our airplanes that we need and leave the rest for the masters. That will become the case with the automation as well.

Flying has always been a business of discipline, this revolution will just add another dimension to the need for that discipline.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
 
jrsites said:
By the way, Paul, I enjoyed your article in the current RVator. Looks like you showed everyone how to do a mashup of an FMEA and a QFD to come up with an instrumentation list!
Click to expand...

Shh....if folks realize that they are actually using advanced engineering techniques, it might scare them off....sorta like a kid who's fooled into eating veggies because they are deep-fried....;)

I'm glad that someone enjoyed the article, despite the fact that it got mangled in the layout process. The three tables kind of got separated from their appropriate text, so it looks pretty confusing. Honest - it is simple if you can muddle your way through the layout!

B25Flyer said:
When I bought my first PC, in 1984, it came with a spreadsheet called Calcstar. Pretty quickly I learned every function in the software, I mastered it. Today I have MS Excel. I doubt if there is a single human on the planet that knows every function in MS Excel, nobody is the master of that software. So while MS is much more capable, I could use Calcstar more efficiently.

Doug Rozendaal
Click to expand...

Boy Doug, that sure hits the nail on the head! I used to know everything about every electronic device I used, and now, I only know what I NEED to know - I probably use 5% of the features of all the computers I own. I know how to learn the rest if/when I need it.

I have flown craft with autopilots that will cook you breakfast and serve coffee if you know how to ask them to do it, but in reality, I pretty much use heading hold or select, "follow the NAV", and Altitude Hold functions most of the time - so that is what I have installed in the Val. Yes, my EFIS is much more complex than that, but again, I only use that to "tell me stuff", and not to directly fly the airplane. I probably spent 50 hours flying the Val around VFR after my "official" Phase 1 was complete, just figuring out how everything worked, and spend additional time doing that every time I add upgraded features.

Learning a technically Advanced Airplane is a serious time commitment - but you can help by only using what you NED (and have learned) at any one time. trying new stuff in the clouds is a really good way to go into overload.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.