I have had a flying school tell me that after converting their fleet to aircraft fitted with the G1000 avionics suite, their IR pass rate has improved. Should training therefore stick to traditional methods (after all we still use slide-rules), embrace new technology or embrace a revised IR that encompasses both analogue and EFIS instrumentation? Not only for the IR, many PFA builders are specifying Dynon EFIS in their kitbuilt aircraft. It’s an issue that seems to split opinion, mainly between those who have trained the “old way” and those those who have not. What are your thoughts?
By: wysiwyg - 13th March 2007 at 09:46
When I chose my flight school for CPL GFT and IR training I looked for a school that had slow aircraft rather than fast ones. This gave me time to sort out the issues that came up rather than racing into a failure!
By: Rod1 - 12th March 2007 at 20:39
“many PFA builders are specifying Dynon EFIS”
Not just the Dynon, I have a combined PC Flight Systems / Stratomaster set-up. However being PFA we are strictly VFR of course. Speaking as someone who was trained on the classic set-up and now uses a hybrid system with a glass panel HSI, I find the glass is much better, but the base skill is the same.
Rod1
By: Deano - 12th March 2007 at 20:22
Neil
The bottom line is, if you are good enough you will pass, regardless of equipment, I don’t buy the fact that since their fleet was updated to glass cockpits the pass rates has improved, remember they want your business, so unless they can prove that was the case take it with a pinch of salt.
Also you should go with whatever school makes you feel the most comfortable, just because the IR may be cheap (Using DA TwinStars) it shouldn’t be the attraction, a friend of mine went to Stapleford just because they operate TwinStars, but to me that is going there for the wrong reason.
There is no luck involved in passing the IR, and also remember most Senecas are equipped with the GNS430 or equivalent, which you can incidentally use on test, another thing about the analogue is that “most” airlines will sim check you on a classic of some sort.
The IR course is identical no matter which path you take, you still have to fly it manually (apart from in the airway), and you still have to be able to interpret what the instruments are telling you regardless of type, for instance, when departing an airfield for an intersection on an airway, you still have to be able to navigate there manually crosschecking the DME with the VOR to hit, for instance – ALVIN.
End of the day the choice is yours, see what you think tomorrow when you have a look around the establishment I did my training in, hopefully I’ll be there to meet you, give me that call 😉
D.
By: PhantomII - 12th March 2007 at 17:57
I think there can be good balance found between the old and the new. It’s only a matter of time before aircraft with at least partial glass cockpits find their way into flight schools anyways, and if you’re going to be flying something you need to be familiar with whatever avionics are installed.
As expensive as aircraft with glass cockpits are it will likely be quite some time before most flight schools have these aircraft, but as time goes on, they will become more and more common.
Sign In
March 12, 2007 at 5:15 pm