G1000 transition training: how is your wing doing it?

[Mustang]

I'm curious to know how other wings are conducting G1000 transition training. Please be specific. Don't just say "in accordance with the regs", as the regs (and the corresponding Cessna FITS syllabi) are annoyingly vague and IMHO inadequate for CAP's needs.

[heliodoc]

Previous Wing I was with did a quarterly session with pilots to include refreshing just the buttonology, going over the routes VFR or IFR for the scenarios based portion, review of the MFD/ PFD and its assorted systems and failures, etc.  Two Stan Eval type IP / CFI's had handouts and had the patience of a saint

Then there was towing the 182 onto the ramp with a GPU and more review of buttonology

Then was flying prior to Form 5's and lots of head in and head movement pushing the buttons

REPEAT approx every quarter

The Wing I am in NOW....GOB's  ...no established training program unless one can FIND a CFI who is not with a GOB to fly..... G1000 training in whatever form is sorely LACKING.  Almost entirely on an individual to, for lack of better terms, nag someone to institute a training program.

I am not holding my breath.

How does your Wing do it?   Or is suffering the traditional CAP, we'll just see how this works method(s) of new technology instruction?

[Mustang]

Come on, guys; ONE reply??

[Short Field]

GOB's  ...no established training program unless one can FIND a CFI who is not with a GOB to fly..... G1000 training in whatever form is sorely LACKING.  Almost entirely on an individual to, for lack of better terms, nag someone to institute a training program.

Gee!  Didn't know you were in my wing!!! 

[heliodoc]

^^^^

Could be!!

[sparks]

My wing doesn't have a specific G1000 program either. It's left up to the squadron or group who has the G1000 equipment to do the training. Requests to wing have mediocre success getting training. Biggest problem is access to the equipment to stay current since squadrons have qualified pilots but don't have the G1000 nearby. Some have bought the King G1000 CD course to use as a system refresher.  Not necessarilly a GOB problem.

[heliodoc]

^^^

Maybe not a GOB issue...

BUT definitely a NHQ Stan Eval issue when these aircraft arrived on scene

We can say the same about our FBO flight school brothers........but you know what?   With CAP's expertise in all things flight...this is where they SHOULD have stepped up to the plate to show everyone how its done...after all, we are THE Air Force Aux and we are the "holders of the largest Cessna fleet in the nation."

You get my drift?....LEADERSHIP

[FastAttack]

I know this is an older thread but ,

We did a FITS ground school which took all day.. I was brain fried , but having the sim at home worked great.
Then flew with a CAP G1000 instructor and did the FITS scenario flights.. I am VFR only so I only did the VFR scenarios.

As a supplement our wing conduced several refreshers courses and FITS ground school SAR entry methodology at conference.

[Thrashed]

I did the ground school.  Not many instructors and check pilots around to finish the process.  Plane sitting in the hangar. I'll fly it someday.

[bosshawk]

Had an interesting email from our Wing DOV the other day.  Seems that Cessna is willing to send a G1000 team to the National Board, to be held in San Diego over Labor Day Weekend, and give the complete G1000 Ground School to CAP members,  FOR FREE.  They need 40 people to COMMIT by 15 May in order to make it happen.  The key word is COMMIT, not just show interest.

Of course, you get to spend airfare, hotels and meals in order to get the FREE course.  I expect to be safe and sound in Central CA during that weekend.

[A.Member]

If there were enough G1000 planes, then it'd be an issue to address.   

However, there are so few planes available and the requirements for use are so restrictive that the issue a non-starter for most.   Sure, a person could take a class and learn the G1000 but if you're not using it enough it'll be a waste of time.   In addition to the availability of planes, there are two other main issues that need to be adddressed:

1.  Proficency:  It's one thing to get trained, actually being able to maintain proficiency is something different altogether.  This leads to... 
2.  Cost:  The difference in rate between a G1000 equiped plane and a steam-guage one is enough that only a very small number of members are going to seek it out. 

Until those issues are addressed, you're likely to spin your wheels with training.

[DG]

I did the ground school.  Not many instructors and check pilots around to finish the process.  Plane sitting in the hangar. I'll fly it someday.

Thrash,

I will fly with you.

My schedule is such that I can fly with you just about anytime.  But I prefer weekdays.

I am a factory trained CFAI, so that will qualify you for Instructor Pilot privileges, per CAPR 60-1.

[Mustang]

2.  Cost:  The difference in rate between a G1000 equiped plane and a steam-guage one is enough that only a very small number of members are going to seek it out. 

What wings are charging a different rate for G1000 than steam gauge?  Mine doesn't.  Same rate as before the glass birds started showing up.

[bosshawk]

CAWG doesn't charge any more for a G1000 than is charged for a steam guage 182.  A 182 is a 182.  Now, the points about keeping up your proficiency are spot on: I know folks who went through the training, took the F-5 and are not in a Sq that has one, so they have to travel to stay proficient: it seldom works.  I would suggest that those who are in a Sq with a G1000 bird jump through the hoops and the rest either stay home or stay with a regular guage airplane.  The Sq 65 miles down the mountain from me is getting one and I have no intention of flying it.  I will stick with our Sqs 206.

[Thrashed]

Sure a 182 is a 182, but one costs (value is) four times more.  My wing has a 182 price, not 182 & 182 NavIII.  It's $100.50.  The 206 is $125.50.  The Maule is only $88.00 and has the same engine & fuel burn as the 182!? Either way, its a one hour + drive to the nearest CAP aircraft for me.

[davidsinn]

Sure a 182 is a 182, but one costs (value is) four times more.  My wing has a 182 price, not 182 & 182 NavIII.  It's $100.50.  The 206 is $125.50.  The Maule is only $88.00 and has the same engine & fuel burn as the 182!? Either way, its a one hour + drive to the nearest CAP aircraft for me.

Is that wet or dry?

[bosshawk]

I suspect that the price quoted is wet.  I believe that the dry price is set by Reg 173-3, but Wings are allowed to increase that for valid reasons like hangar rent, parking fees, etc.  I think that the current rate for a 182 is $36, plus fuel(don;t hold me to that rate, because I seldom fly a 182). 

Thrash: I, too, drive 50 miles to the nearest CAP airplane, a 206.  Of course, owning my own plane helps me keep current.  If I had to depend on flying a CAP aircraft to maintain currency, I would likely not bother. Your value computation is seemingly subjective: I wouldn'
t pay a nickel more to fly a G1000.

[davidsinn]

I suspect that the price quoted is wet.  I believe that the dry price is set by Reg 173-3, but Wings are allowed to increase that for valid reasons like hangar rent, parking fees, etc.  I think that the current rate for a 182 is $36, plus fuel(don;t hold me to that rate, because I seldom fly a 182). 

Thrash: I, too, drive 50 miles to the nearest CAP airplane, a 206.  Of course, owning my own plane helps me keep current.  If I had to depend on flying a CAP aircraft to maintain currency, I would likely not bother. Your value computation is seemingly subjective: I wouldn'
t pay a nickel more to fly a G1000.

I was going to say I thought I heard $36 tossed out at my o-rides. Those are some nasty rates though. I paid $4.07/gal 100LL for my orides and it worked out to be around $50ish per hour just for fuel for a G1000. The 172s I used where quite a bit cheaper.

[mynetdude]

I suspect that the price quoted is wet.  I believe that the dry price is set by Reg 173-3, but Wings are allowed to increase that for valid reasons like hangar rent, parking fees, etc.  I think that the current rate for a 182 is $36, plus fuel(don;t hold me to that rate, because I seldom fly a 182). 

Thrash: I, too, drive 50 miles to the nearest CAP airplane, a 206.  Of course, owning my own plane helps me keep current.  If I had to depend on flying a CAP aircraft to maintain currency, I would likely not bother. Your value computation is seemingly subjective: I wouldn'
t pay a nickel more to fly a G1000.

I was going to say I thought I heard $36 tossed out at my o-rides. Those are some nasty rates though. I paid $4.07/gal 100LL for my orides and it worked out to be around $50ish per hour just for fuel for a G1000. The 172s I used where quite a bit cheaper.

I helped  pay for fuel for our squadron who couldn't afford to put fuel in the pre-G1000 plane for cadet orides... that was the most expensive fueling I've paid for (and I got reimbursed through the PIC) but it was $119 for the 2 hours with all the cadets we did.

Now the G1000 has replaced that plane, I was told that it takes the same fuel type and quantity but it burns a little more fuel than the older one does. Don't know if the rate is higher or lower than the old pre G1000 182.

Now as far as what our wing does, well... GOB and if you don't have money you don't get your proficiency but we have two qualified personnel in the southern half who can fly the aircraft for SAREX and ES and orides everybody else is out of the loop because they don't want to pay for the 25hrs required to be qualified and given a F5 on it.

There are a number of people up north who are qualified, not sure how many but we still have some of the older planes as well.

[Eclipse]

I helped  pay for fuel for our squadron who couldn't afford to put fuel in the pre-G1000 plane for cadet orides...

Why isn't the USAF paying for those o-rides?

[mynetdude]

I helped  pay for fuel for our squadron who couldn't afford to put fuel in the pre-G1000 plane for cadet orides...

Why isn't the USAF paying for those o-rides?

They do, but somebody has to pay for it before the USAF will pay back right? Like doing a F108 to get reimbursed for fuel you used to get to and from ICP for an AFAM.  The USAF isn't gonna dangle money in front of you and say "here's the money, go fly!" No, you have to ask for it back and if you read I got reimbursed via the PIC as I was not on the 108.

[davidsinn]

I helped  pay for fuel for our squadron who couldn't afford to put fuel in the pre-G1000 plane for cadet orides...

Why isn't the USAF paying for those o-rides?

The USAF isn't gonna dangle money in front of you and say "here's the money, go fly!"

That's exactly what they did. I was given a budget for Group I and when it came time to gas the birds I just pulled the avcard out of the binder, reminded the FBO of our tax exempt status and that was that. The wing got the reimbursement from the AF. No funds came out of private pockets. The way I understand it my wing was given $X per cadet and they then broke it up by group.

[mynetdude]

I helped  pay for fuel for our squadron who couldn't afford to put fuel in the pre-G1000 plane for cadet orides...

Why isn't the USAF paying for those o-rides?

The USAF isn't gonna dangle money in front of you and say "here's the money, go fly!"

That's exactly what they did. I was given a budget for Group I and when it came time to gas the birds I just pulled the avcard out of the binder, reminded the FBO of our tax exempt status and that was that. The wing got the reimbursement from the AF. No funds came out of private pockets. The way I understand it my wing was given $X per cadet and they then broke it up by group.

the avcard is owned by your wing right? Its still the same concept, somebody has to pay for it NOW and get paid for it LATER.  Your wing had to request the reimbursement, our wing does the same thing but they expect the private members to foot the bill to start off with.

[davidsinn]

I helped  pay for fuel for our squadron who couldn't afford to put fuel in the pre-G1000 plane for cadet orides...

Why isn't the USAF paying for those o-rides?

The USAF isn't gonna dangle money in front of you and say "here's the money, go fly!"

That's exactly what they did. I was given a budget for Group I and when it came time to gas the birds I just pulled the avcard out of the binder, reminded the FBO of our tax exempt status and that was that. The wing got the reimbursement from the AF. No funds came out of private pockets. The way I understand it my wing was given $X per cadet and they then broke it up by group.

the avcard is owned by your wing right? Its still the same concept, somebody has to pay for it NOW and get paid for it LATER.  Your wing had to request the reimbursement, our wing does the same thing but they expect the private members to foot the bill to start off with.

Yes. The nice thing is no individual needs to wait on reimbursement for A-mission flying. Maybe you should send that up the chain for your wing to consider? I think I heard rumors of a fleet card for INWG vans but I'm not sure if that's true or not.

[mynetdude]

I helped  pay for fuel for our squadron who couldn't afford to put fuel in the pre-G1000 plane for cadet orides...

Why isn't the USAF paying for those o-rides?

The USAF isn't gonna dangle money in front of you and say "here's the money, go fly!"

That's exactly what they did. I was given a budget for Group I and when it came time to gas the birds I just pulled the avcard out of the binder, reminded the FBO of our tax exempt status and that was that. The wing got the reimbursement from the AF. No funds came out of private pockets. The way I understand it my wing was given $X per cadet and they then broke it up by group.

the avcard is owned by your wing right? Its still the same concept, somebody has to pay for it NOW and get paid for it LATER.  Your wing had to request the reimbursement, our wing does the same thing but they expect the private members to foot the bill to start off with.

Yes. The nice thing is no individual needs to wait on reimbursement for A-mission flying. Maybe you should send that up the chain for your wing to consider? I think I heard rumors of a fleet card for INWG vans but I'm not sure if that's true or not.

We used to have cards in our vans they belonged to the squadron or wing I don't know and IIRC we had cards in the planes too, not anymore.  Trying to suggest it again is like putting a thorn on a chair and waiting for them to sit on it!

You're absolutely right about that though it would be a lot easier.

[cachambliss]

For the guys commenting that it is a 50 - 70 mile drive to find a G1000 aircraft (or other a/c), I can only say:  If you want something bad enough you will find a way to make it happen.  Following my retirement from the Army, for 12 years I was the Safety Officer and an Instructor Pilot for the Aero Club at Maxwell AFB.  The only problem was that the Aero Club was in Montgomery, Al., and my home, family, job was in Birmingham, only 114 miles each way.  For 12 years this entailed a 1.75 hr drive each way on Saturday and Sunday for my students, and a monthly trip on a Thursday afternoon to conduct the required safety briefing.  For 12 years and I enjoyed every minute of every drive because It's What I Wanted To Do. .  The Maxwell  Aero Club closed shop in 2006, and since January 2006 thru today I am driving 97 miles each way to teach at the Army Flying Activity at Redstone Arsenal.  Yes there are FBO's and rental airplanes 2 miles from my office, and 4 airports with rental aircraft and flight instruction services within 45 miles of my home where I could instruct.  But I choose to stay with the military clubs because It's What I Want to Do.

If you want something, really want something, then you can find a way to make it happen.  Also,
If you want to find an excuse or reason not to do something, then there are plenty available.

[Thrashed]

The drive would be a lot easier if I got paid too. 

[bosshawk]

Thrash: I think that Cliff completely missed the point about the drive distances that you and I both mentioned.  I have driven those 50 miles each way once a week for about seven years and have done it willingly.  Geography dictates that I live 50 miles from the nearest Sq and I have no issue with that: I wasn't complaining, just a statement of fact.  You have a point, if I was being paid to drive long distances, I would do so willingly.  Doing it for a "unpaid professional" position is another matter.

I served for slightly more than 30 years in the Army and I got pretty used to "unusual" requirements and did so without a whimper.

I did make a comment to the effect that I had no intention of driving the 65 or so miles to the Sq in Fresno that is getting a G1000: my reason is that I am not interested in the glass. co

[mynetdude]

I've done a lot of driving my CAP career, I recently started doing more driving including going out of state to get involved in CAP as well.

Is there any way squadrons can make arrangement to alternate with possession of said aircraft so one only has to make the drive once to obtain the a/c and then drive back upon returning the a/c? So say alternate 1 week out of a month or 2 weeks out of every other month or something.

[sparks]

Some wings rotate aircraft so pilots can maintain currency be it a 172, 182 or the G1000. The arrangement is usually authorized through the wing DO or who ever is the "plane guy". Of course some wings and particularly squadrons are aghast at anyone else accessing "their airplane". So, your results will depend on the flexibility of those in charge. Rotating aircraft between squadrons in a group every 30 days can provide an aircraft in places that otherwise wouldn't have one. Of course the squadrons must have pilots who will use the asset and not just park it. Make your proposal through the squadron commander and Group to your wing DO.   

[mynetdude]

Some wings rotate aircraft so pilots can maintain currency be it a 172, 182 or the G1000. The arrangement is usually authorized through the wing DO or who ever is the "plane guy". Of course some wings and particularly squadrons are aghast at anyone else accessing "their airplane". So, your results will depend on the flexibility of those in charge. Rotating aircraft between squadrons in a group every 30 days can provide an aircraft in places that otherwise wouldn't have one. Of course the squadrons must have pilots who will use the asset and not just park it. Make your proposal through the squadron commander and Group to your wing DO.

I don't understand why squadrons get aghast when some other member that is not from their squadron touches the plane.  Its a CORPORATE asset, yes the squadron has the responsibility of hangaring it but if something happens to the aircraft while the approved member is using it the squadron isn't liable at least that is what everybody keeps saying.

Same with CAP Vans, IIRC they are also corporate assets and even though they may be assigned to a particular squadron there isn't anything that says "you can't use our van" granted, just like the airplane coordinate its use via the proper CoC or if you have a working relation with that squadron you can deal directly if allowed.

Our wing does limited rotation of aircraft but for the most part they are kept in "strategic" locations around the state for response capabilities AFAIK.  Of course, any squadron who does not have pilots have no need for an aircraft which makes sense to not rotate to these squadrons.

[simon]

Mynetdude, squadrons are simply protective of their new toys. Let's face it, most of the planes we fly are 30 years old. Even if it was a now round dial plane, squadrons would be protective of them. The fancy avionics make it even more so. It's like a kid with a new toy.

This probably isn't the place for this, but while I'm here, I'll put my 2c in on the G1000. I've been flying a new non CAP G1000 for a while now and personally, I think a new round dial plane is better for CAP. The G1000 planes provide a negligible advantage over a round dial plane when you take into account the average skill level of a CAP pilot and how much time they are willing to get trained in it and keep it up. I stress the latter - keeping it up. The VNAV baffles people. And to be safe IMC, you should understand it THOROUGHLY. I think probably the only people that do are Garmin, Cessna and the CAP check pilots. VFR on the other hand is fine. Any pilot can figure the G1000 out for VFR in one flight. But IFR is a good deal of training. Then there's the head in cockpit thing - It can be deadly - as it was for one crew.

I spent a few hours as safety pilot doing IMC approaches up here in Northern California this morning in the new private G1000 equipped 182. With the avionics, synthetic vision etc., it is an awesome instrument platform. But CAP, at least in the bay area, is short of current mission pilots, especially those signed off for IFR. The G1000 shrinks the pool considerably. A lot of people just aren't taking the time and it is a real draw on the check pilots (That is the real problem - train the trainer type situation). 1 in 3 of the CAWG planes is a G1000 182, so it has split the resource pool for missions. All the pilots need to get on board and become proficient in the new technology. Otherwise, as an organization, we will be ineffective.

The bottom line is that members need to go out of their way big time to learn this thing.

[mynetdude]

I am not a pilot, I have a decent understanding of aviation/navigation/flying from simulator experience which is not anything to compare to real world flying.

As you say many are not IFR rated, it would seem most of our pilots who are not IFR rated are those who fly for pleasure and are not interested in flying IFR and those who are IFR rated are those who have come from the airlines or corporate flying or even from the military aviation.  There does not seem to be a lot of those?

I have no idea what the regulations are for flying an ES air sortie under IMC conditions other than the obvious FAA regulations that require the pilot be IFR rated but it seems to me CAP does not really do much IFR flying (I would be wrong I am sure) because the MS cannot see if the ceiling is 500ft AGL overcast in the search area or how about when the airport is IFR only but there is clear skies in the search area so I don't know why an IFR pilot doesn't take advantage of their rating to get the plane to an area where searching is possible??? ORM says its too risky??? I have been to countless SAREXs where we could not depart due to low ceiling but other air sorties in other places are able to perform in areas where there is good weather.

My point is, what good is the G1000 if an IFR rated pilot doesn't use it to depart IFR??? Yes I am aware there are more rules and paperwork to do if one is going to fly IFR so I guess that is the other reason for not doing so?

What do you mean by synthetic vision? GPWS?

[vento]

^^^
Not sure what you meant by IFR pilots not using their rating. Here in SoCal most CAP pilots depart IFR due to the marine layer that we very often have. 10 miles inland and it's clear skies better than 6 miles visibility.

Some real missions are also done in IFR conditions. Chasing ELT for example. Granted it will not be as accurate as when we can fly lower, but when there is a down pilot waiting for rescue, we gotta do what we gotta do, just take ORM seriously and we should be fine.