Are there any squadrons regularly (meaning more than 2 or 3 times ;) ) flying the 182 w/ glass cockpit? If so, have you used it on a SAR/SAREX? What solutions have you come up with for the Garmin 1000's lack of SAR functionality (primarily search grids/patterns)? Anyone know of plans to update the software?
(Perhaps this question should be in the ES & Operations forum?)
No one? :'(
We have one based in my town. I actually haven't flown observer in it but a few times but I liked the map functions a lot. I seem to recall having a search grid set up on the map screen so I don't know what you're talking about....
Are you certain? Were you the one that set it? I would be curious to know more about the search grid you had displayed. How was it created?
The Garmin 1000 (at least in the 182 in our Wing) doesn't have any SAR functionality (search grids, patterns, etc.) like the GX55. This functionality was a CAP specific add-on for the GX55. Obviously, a person can create a flight plan and all that but, to my knowledge, the G1000 doesn't have the SAR capability (maybe the add-on for the G1000 is being developed? Maybe not...who knows?). As a result, flying search patterns, particularly more complicated ones such as an expanding square, requires significantly more planning and are more complex to effectively execute.
This is a very significant gap from current functionality and has huge potential impact on mission effectiveness. I'm guessing we're not the only ones to encounter this issue (but maybe no one is really flying the glass 182's?). I'm wondering what solutions have been developed to help bridge the gap.
I'm pretty surprised that this hasn't been discussed more. IMHO, this is a real issue and infinitely more important than some of the more popular discussion topics, such as uniforms.
I've mostly been flying it for disaster relief type training and other aerial observation missions and haven't done any real SAR on it this year. The pilot must have set up the grid. The last time I was in it I'm almost positive there was a "SAR" screen or function that we flipped by. I suppose I could be imagining it.
I know that we're flying the heck out of ours in general and are slowly getting more people qualified in it.
How hard would it be for garmin to program it so that it could automatically set up search patterns. They could make it so that there was a standard waypoint pattern that had a center point. The observer could then just move that center point over the center of the target area. They could also build a feature so that you could make the pattern tighter or loser depending on user inputs. Could they then just update the program to an air plane that already has the hard ware in it.
Quote from: Chris Jacobs on November 16, 2006, 04:55:15 AM
How hard would it be for garmin to program it so that it could automatically set up search patterns. They could make it so that there was a standard waypoint pattern that had a center point. The observer could then just move that center point over the center of the target area. They could also build a feature so that you could make the pattern tighter or loser depending on user inputs. Could they then just update the program to an air plane that already has the hard ware in it.
Not trying to be smart with my answer but I'm sure anything is possible. Garmin probably could develop something that meets our needs. As I mentioned in a previous post, Apollo (before being acquired) did this for us with the GX55. The big question is, has anyone asked Garmin? If so, what was the response and how much does it cost? And more importantly, what do we do in the meantime?
As an organization, we're slowly transitioning the fleet to the glass cockpit. However, until a solution for the G1000 is developed, if we're interested in achieving the highest POD on a SAR, seems the best bet is to stick to the steam-gauged 172 with the GX55.
The functionality of the G1000 shouldnt be an issue in SAR as the National SAR School doesn't teach grid searches, instead their instruction revolves around the CSAD. Besides all the pilot has to do is set up two user define waypoints and presto you have a reference.
Folks: once again, we have strayed away from the question: who is regularly flying the Glass Cockpit 182s. There are currently two in CAWG and they both are regularly flown by their resident squadrons. One in Sacramento and one, I think, in Fullerton. As far as I know, they are flown quite frequently by their Sqs. The Wing is about to get a third one.
One of my friends is qualified in the beast and he tells me that it gets to be a burden if you don't fly it regularly. apparently, switching back and forth between the G1000 and round guages is not a healthy thing to do.
It is the wave of the near future, so best we get ready for it and used to it.
Quote from: Hoser on November 19, 2006, 09:32:26 PM
The functionality of the G1000 shouldnt be an issue in SAR as the National SAR School doesn't teach grid searches, instead their instruction revolves around the CSAD.
Regardless of what may or may not be taught, we do fly search grids and patterns. How well a pattern is flown has a direct impact on the POD. Different patterns may be selected based on a number of factors. Search grids define a target area to be searched. The GPS comes into play in that with the SAR ad-on functionality (currently existing with the GX55), we can much more accurately plot patterns and track our course against it.
Quote from: Hoser on November 19, 2006, 09:32:26 PM
Besides all the pilot has to do is set up two user define waypoints and presto you have a reference.
Would love some insight on flying an expanding square with 1/2 mile spacing using only two defined waypoints. How do you know when to initiate turns?
Would love some insight on flying an expanding square with 1/2 mile spacing using only two defined waypoints. How do you know when to initiate turns? (//http:///2%20mile%20spacing%20using%20only%20two%20defined%20waypoints. %20%20How%20do%20you%20know%20when%20to%20initiate%20turns?)
I don't know what you would use the second waypoint for, but if you properly plan your flight you will know at what lat or long (depending on your direction) you need to make each turn at. Software would make this particular search easier to do.
For parallel track searches it is usually simpler to plan it out the old fashioned way which doesn't take long at all. The software doesn't seem to provide any major advantage in this case.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 20, 2006, 02:32:06 PM
Would love some insight on flying an expanding square with 1/2 mile spacing using only two defined waypoints. How do you know when to initiate turns? (//http:///2%20mile%20spacing%20using%20only%20two%20defined%20waypoints. %20 How%20do%20you%20know%20when%20to%20initiate%20turns?)
I don't know what you would use the second waypoint for...
Me neither, that's why I asked Hoser for some insight as to how he/she thinks this would be done.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 20, 2006, 02:32:06 PM...but if you properly plan your flight you will know at what lat or long (depending on your direction) you need to make each turn at. Software would make this particular search easier to do.
The ad-on to the GPS (GX55) definitely makes this easier. Lat/longs aren't all that effective either, particularly when when making a second pass over a search area (to increase POD the original pattern searched is offset diagonally on the subsequent pass). Besides, try plotting that on a sectional, let alone flying it. :(
Quote from: RiverAux on November 20, 2006, 02:32:06 PMFor parallel track searches it is usually simpler to plan it out the old fashioned way which doesn't take long at all. The software doesn't seem to provide any major advantage in this case.
Agreed, creeping line searches aren't nearly as much of a problem. They still require more work than with the GX55 but it can be figured out. However, a creeping line search isn't appropriate for all missions.
From what I've heard, MIWG has mandated that pilots who wish to fly the glass cockpit C-182 are being required to have a minimum of 10 hours PIC per month to stay current on it. My CC is current and our PDO is working on it.
I was told to check out the Garmin 1000 simulator and practice with it a quite a bit before flying as aircrew on it.
Maybe one day I'll get the chance.
Who pays that $1000 a month per pilot to stay current? I doubt there are many in CAP willing to pay $12,000 a year just to stay current in a glass cockpit aircraft, or a Wing that is willing to pay $24,000 for your two pilots, plus any others that are glass cockpit qualified.
Add to that the increased number of 100 hour inspections per year, and the cost per Wing skyrocket.
Quote from: BillB on November 20, 2006, 05:32:45 PM
Who pays that $1000 a month per pilot to stay current? I doubt there are many in CAP willing to pay $12,000 a year just to stay current in a glass cockpit aircraft, or a Wing that is willing to pay $24,000 for your two pilots, plus any others that are glass cockpit qualified.
Add to that the increased number of 100 hour inspections per year, and the cost per Wing skyrocket.
x2, especially when many pilots have alternate access to aircraft (ie. own, flying club - not CAP ;) , etc. ).
...and then you have the GA-8... >:D
But I don't want to stray too far from my original questions.
Quote from: BillB on November 20, 2006, 05:32:45 PM
Who pays that $1000 a month per pilot to stay current? I doubt there are many in CAP willing to pay $12,000 a year just to stay current in a glass cockpit aircraft, or a Wing that is willing to pay $24,000 for your two pilots, plus any others that are glass cockpit qualified.
Add to that the increased number of 100 hour inspections per year, and the cost per Wing skyrocket.
No idea...but I'll look into that, just for curiosity sake. I've heard that we can request local training mission numbers, couple a pilot wishing to stay current with aircrew training and it's covered...
Getting back to the original question...
The G1000 doesn't have the same SAR functionality that the Apollo GPSs do. However, there is an option to bring up a lat-long grid on the MFD when in the map mode. Your current map "zoom" level will determine the spacing between the grid lines.
Looking at the G1000 trainer... on the MFD, go to Menu, Land, and choose Lat/Lon (you get to choose what range it shows up at).
At the 5nm range, it looks like the lat/lon grid is 1 min n-s and 2mins e-w. More than good enough to help you fly that grid. Until someone manages to program in SAR functionality, you'll just have to do some old fashioned sortie planning with a gridded sectional.
I'm pretty sure that once the G1000 TNWG 182 comes out of the shop, after dropping a cylinder, it's going to an operationally active unit that'll be doing some decent flying on it.
PA Wing has one of the G1000 206's and a G1000 182. The 206 is kind of useless except for VIP transport and maybe some hi-bird stuff, since either the Cessna factory forgot to install the SDIS window, or the person ordering forgot to mention it. I know PA does some port security SDIS missions for PEMA and some other people around the port of philadelphia, and I believe they use the G1000 182 for that. I've also seen them used on ELT sorties, which you don't have to fly grids for typically.
I was with one of the pilots when PA first recieved the 206, they flew it down to VAY, and the National Chief of Staff was there, first thing he asked was "Where's the SDIS window?". Silence fell over the hangar.
I volunteered to take it back to Kansas to get it fixed, and was promptly smited.
I assume by "SDIS window" you mean a window in the back you can open to take a photo from. From what I understand these aren't tremendously costly to install. I seem to recall a figure of 1-2K being bandied about once, but I could be wrong.
I believe Cessna had quoted it somewhere in the $20k range. I believe they've decided to forego the window for now, cuz to do it, you have to pop all the rivets around the window, and that would jack up the paint job.
Or so I'm told. This is all stuff above my paygrade.
Quote from: Psicorp on November 20, 2006, 04:36:50 PM
From what I've heard, MIWG has mandated that pilots who wish to fly the glass cockpit C-182 are being required to have a minimum of 10 hours PIC per month to stay current on it.
That's insane. I hope that's funded flying..??
If it is, I'm transferring.
I suspect that someone got mixed up with that MIWG info. From what I understand you need 10 hours of instruction in the glasscockpit before being "certified" in it. Perhaps that got confused with currency maintenance somehow.
The G1000 is pretty fair at grid flying.
Place two points on the map. First is the IP or entry point to the grid. Second is the end point of the first leg.
Make your 180 degree turn and fly the crosstrack error at 1 mile (or whatever your track spacing is).
Keep repeating the process. The crosstrack error will keep you right on line and correct for wind. A standard rate turn @ 90kts will put you about 1 mile downrange on the turn so it all works out pretty well and draws a neat grid too.
Quote from: aveighter on December 20, 2006, 09:52:48 PM
The G1000 is pretty fair at grid flying.
Place two points on the map. First is the IP or entry point to the grid. Second is the end point of the first leg.
Make your 180 degree turn and fly the crosstrack error at 1 mile (or whatever your track spacing is).
Keep repeating the process. The crosstrack error will keep you right on line and correct for wind. A standard rate turn @ 90kts will put you about 1 mile downrange on the turn so it all works out pretty well and draws a neat grid too.
But that's not an expanding square.
Expanding squares are for sissys. ;)
Real men fly grids.
Quote from: aveighter on December 21, 2006, 01:23:50 AM
Expanding squares are for sissys. ;)
Real men fly grids.
LOL...I'll keep that in mind. ;D