Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2019, 06:39:21 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: G1000 Worth the Money?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: G1000 Worth the Money?  (Read 9850 times)
West_Coast_Guy
Member

Posts: 62

« on: July 23, 2010, 08:07:32 AM »

The training requirements to get qualified in CAP G1000 airplanes seem rather steep. Is this reducing the number of pilots who are able to get Form Fives at squadrons that have them? If so, what benefit is CAP really getting from buying these aircraft?
Report to moderator   Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,653
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2010, 08:19:48 AM »

As for the first Q - I don't know. That may depend on the age of the pilots in a particular unit. The younger folks may be joining with G1000 time already logged.

As for the second - the benefit is new airplanes, but that's all Cessna sells now. They haven't made new steam gage planes in the models that CAP is currently purchasing, since around 2007.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
West_Coast_Guy
Member

Posts: 62

« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2010, 08:50:32 AM »

Does time logged in G1000 aircraft elsewhere count against the training requirements mentioned in 60-1 section 3.6a(4)(a) and (b)?

I find myself wondering if glass cockpits are such a great leap forward if they require so much training.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 08:54:17 AM by West_Coast_Guy » Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2010, 11:22:25 AM »

Three 1.5 hr flights (per the FITS transition syllabus) and an abbreviated Form 5 is steep?  Not in aviation terms.  Is 4.5 hrs excessive?  Not if you plan to fly IFR with it.  For VFR-only pilots, you could get away with 2-3 hrs and be reasonably safe.
 
Funding for transition training is sometimes available, your wing just has to submit a funding request and see if it gets funded. 
 
As for what benefit we're getting from these aircraft, I don't think we've fully exploited their potential.  We couldn't do the project I'm presently working on without them (we tried).
 
 
Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

West_Coast_Guy
Member

Posts: 62

« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2010, 05:03:00 PM »

Three 1.5 hr flights (per the FITS transition syllabus) and an abbreviated Form 5 is steep?  Not in aviation terms.

Do you know where I can find that syllabus? Is that the one mentioned in 60-1? 

The FAQ on the NTC Web site mentions three three-hour flights, which is a total of nine hours. In another answer it says it's a three day course! If it's really only three 1.5 hour flights, that doesn't sound so bad, but from asking around at our squadron, which has a G1000 aircraft assigned to it, I've gotten the impression that it's hard to find an instructor to do the training.

I also spoke to an instructor who is a leading expert on G1000 instruction at our airport, and I got the impression that the requirements for him to get CAP-qualified in G1000 were too much for him to swallow. This is someone who has been a CAP check pilot in the past. Are people who got their G1000 training elsewhere being allowed to take the Form 5 without doing the training over again with CAP? CAPR 60-1 does not mention this as an option, while the FAQ makes it sounds sound iffy.

What about pilot availability at squadrons that have a G1000 aircraft? Does anyone know if that has suffered?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 05:15:02 PM by West_Coast_Guy » Report to moderator   Logged
vento
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 689

« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2010, 08:25:35 PM »

Check eServices, left menu, G1000 study materials.
Also check the govilairpatrol.com website. http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/emergency_services/stanevalflight_ops/index.cfm
Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2010, 11:25:17 PM »

Three 1.5 hr flights (per the FITS transition syllabus) and an abbreviated Form 5 is steep?  Not in aviation terms.
Do you know where I can find that syllabus? Is that the one mentioned in 60-1?
Email Pete Kalisky at NHQ and he will send you the PDF.

The FAQ on the NTC Web site mentions three three-hour flights, which is a total of nine hours. In another answer it says it's a three day course!
It could easily take 3 days.  The syllabus requires 8 hours of ground instruction, split between a few lengthy death-by-powerpoint sessions and some guided practice on the PC trainer software, plus the three flight scenarios: a VFR scenario, an IFR scenario (or a 2nd VFR scenario for non-instrument rated pilots), and an emergency procedures scenario. According to the syllabus, scenario 1 should be 1.5 hrs, scenario 2 should be "approx. 2 hrs". No duration is suggested for scenario 3, it probably needs to be flown to proficiency.
 
Are people who got their G1000 training elsewhere being allowed to take the Form 5 without doing the training over again with CAP? CAPR 60-1 does not mention this as an option, while the FAQ makes it sounds sound iffy.
CAP hasn't gotten around to recognizing sources of training other than the FITS syllabus.  If a pilot can show proof that he/she completed the FITS syllabus elsewhere (via a completion certificate), that is acceptable. They would still need a G1000 CAPF 5, obviously.
 
What about pilot availability at squadrons that have a G1000 aircraft? Does anyone know if that has suffered?
It has. On at least one occasion, we've had a G1000 bird sit on the ground at a SAREX for lack of a qualified pilot to fly it.  CAP-USAF wasn't amused.  However, it's part of the cost of modernizing.
Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,816

« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2010, 11:48:15 PM »


What about pilot availability at squadrons that have a G1000 aircraft? Does anyone know if that has suffered?
It has. On at least one occasion, we've had a G1000 bird sit on the ground at a SAREX for lack of a qualified pilot to fly it.  CAP-USAF wasn't amused.  However, it's part of the cost of modernizing.

We recently had a steam gauge sitting on the ramp for lack of aircrew in general - it happens, people say they will show and they don't.

Our experience was a lot of gnashing of teeth by older / less active pilots who had no interest whatsoever in anything but non-mission
burger flying.  They said the same thing when we got 182 steam planes. The others did their training, many with corporate funds, and now we get more complaints about not have the G1000's around than when we do.

We just took delivery on #4 and traded out a steam to get it.

Steam gauges are like fax machines - they still work, but won't be supported in corporate fleets much longer.

My wing will also be pilot-testing a 172 glass refit, with the assumption that if it goes well more will follow.  It adds a third check ride to the fleet, so it wasn't a popular move, but the future does not wait for anyone.  It gets here, like it or not.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2010, 12:26:58 AM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


simon
Seasoned Member

Posts: 246

« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2010, 12:11:04 AM »

If a person has only been flying round gauge planes, the time, energy and cost of getting a G1000 Form 5 is a significant. If you want IFR priviledges, it is quite a bit more. Don't let anyone kid you with this 4 hour nonsense.

Here is my case.  I just got my G1000 Form 5 last week (With instrument privileges).

1. Firstly, I was already checked out to fly a new private G1000 182 and had an extensive checkout for that. (BTW, the synthetic vision is great!). I had 20 hours in that G1000 (Several in IMC and I had done IMC approaches) before even getting into the CAP G1000.

2. I went to the full day CAP ground school.

3. Countless hours reading the manuals, many nights on the installable G1000 simulator.

4. The three mandatory CAP flights. I did the emergency one in the sim, which I recommend because it is realistic and safer.

5. Finally the check ride.

My CAP G1000 time was an additional 8 hours over the time I already had.

Granted, if you want IFR, it is going to be less. But I had the minimum number of flights possible owing to the fact that I pretty much already knew the systems and it was still $800 plus 3 months of waiting for check pilots.

But, the bottom line is, the avionics are great, it can be more precise flying a grid than hand flying (Unless doing contours), it is safer in IMC and it is the way the industry and CAP is heading. In the end, everyone should eventually (As in the next couple of years) be G1000 rated, otherwise there won't be many round dials they can get into.

Quick facts: California Wing has 30 aircraft, 27 powered and 7 of those are G1000 182's (We don't do 172's in CA). We have 197 pilot members, 176 can fly CAP planes, 114 are MP rated, pretty much all of those have instrument privileges and 64 are G1000 qualified, although there is no way of telling how many of those 64 have instrument privileges on the G1000. But the bottom line is with only 1/4 of the fleet being G1000, more than half the mission pilots are G1000 qualified. So people are making the effort.

I do want to point out that I am not making an argument for the G1000 as a better SAR plane. Round dials are perfectly capable (And in some ways better, e.g. useful load). But the G1000 is inevitable in the fleet, so there is no point debating it. I just took a deep breath, set aside $1000 and churned through it. Basically, it is time for everyone to go back to school. But not everyone wants to.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2010, 12:21:25 AM by simon » Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2010, 05:09:52 AM »

If a person has only been flying round gauge planes, the time, energy and cost of getting a G1000 Form 5 is a significant. If you want IFR priviledges, it is quite a bit more. Don't let anyone kid you with this 4 hour nonsense.
Why? It's perfectly doable.  I did it. 
 
Granted, I'm a techie and self-professed GPS nerd, and spent several hours wih the PC trainer on my own, but that combined with 3 flights in the right seat with a friend who was already Form 5'd and the FITS transition training were entirely adequate.
 
People who don't use technology regularly seem to experience the most difficulty transitioning.
 
If it took you 8 hours, after 20 hours of non-CAP G1000 time, I'd say you probably fell victim to some CAWG overzealousness.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2010, 05:13:27 AM by Mustang » Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

Short Field
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,003

« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2010, 05:30:45 AM »

Or some people using the G1000 transition requirements to keep "outsiders" from flying "their" airplane. 
Report to moderator   Logged
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640
West_Coast_Guy
Member

Posts: 62

« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2010, 05:07:30 PM »

Simon and others, thanks for the info. Considering that only about a quarter of our planes are G1000, it sounds like CAWG has done a good job of getting pilots qualified in them so far. I'm still concerned, however, about pilots being required to repeat training that they've already paid for in private flight instruction.

From the NTC FAQ:

Quote
I assume that if a member has already gone through G1000 training, or does at a flight school and has some documents stating that fact, that all he or she would need is to take a form 5 in the A/C and if that person has already had a form 5 in a 182 they would still have to take a new form 5.
 
Obviously our fear is a quickie checkout, etc. However, if the individual received training via a Cessna approved FITS course at an FBO and has the certificate to prove it. Then we would entertain a waiver of the training once the pilot has provided his/her FITS certificate to us. The individual still requires a CAPF 5 to further proof his/her competency with the system to a CAP G1000 checkpilot. John Sharp

https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/dot/G1000/faq/qna.cfm?rec=58

This says that CAP would "entertain" a waiver for pilots who have an FITS certificate from elsewhere, but it sounds like the waiver is not automatic, and it still rules out pilots whose training used a different syllabus, including the highly expert instructor I mentioned earlier. I don't see why it is necessary for CAP to dictate what syllabus is used before a pilot is even allowed to take a Form 5. We don't dictate the syllabus for round dial pilots. As for the fear of "quickie checkouts," either a pilot is competent in G1000 operations or not. It ought to be possible to determine this on a Form 5. If the G1000 portion of the Form 5 is not adequate for this purpose, then it should be made adequate.

I guarantee you that if I were allowed to pay an instructor for this purpose, I would not have to spend "three months waiting for check pilots" to give me the instruction, but there's no way it would make sense to do this if I don't know in advance that I would be allowed to take the Form 5 based on that.

I recognize that there are probably search-specific items that might not be covered in private instruction, but that could be covered through an endorsement on the Form 91.

By the way, the link to the FAQ I'm quoting from is on this page:

https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/dot/G1000/index.cfm
Report to moderator   Logged
simon
Seasoned Member

Posts: 246

« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2010, 03:49:52 AM »

First, a response to Mustang, then I'll reply to you (West_Coast_Guy).

Mustang, where did you get the 3x1.5 hour flight times in the FITS transition syllabus? I am looking at the syllabus right now (Version 4.0) and it doesn't mention flight times. I will agree that 1.5 hours is reasonable for the VFR flight. But it is not for the IFR flight. IFR release, intercepting and tracking an airway, 3 approaches, going missed twice, proceeding to the hold, holding, emergencies, etc., all under the hood? There's no way that is 1.5 hours, at least for us here in the SF Bay area. We need to get out of town first. Getting a release can be a 5 minute wait in itself, vectoring out of local inbound traffic to get you on your course, climbing out of the terrain etc.

My rides were as follows:

- VFR: 2.6 (We did some mountain work, canyon flying etc. Proper aircraft handling. But that could equally apply to round gauge. All I am suggesting is that it was a proper workout)
- IFR: 3.1. KPAO-KSCK-KMER-KLVK-KPAO. 3 approaches, all different types at different airports. Disabling screens etc.
- Emergency: 1.4. This was in a sim, but a proper G1000 sim, so I still had to pay $65 an hour.
- Form 5: 2.3. KPAO-O28-KSCK-KPAO. IFR departure. The controller did route us the wrong way for 10 minutes (He was totally overloaded with inbound SFO traffic - he thought we were going to Oakland not Oakdale - we let it go for a few minutes before it was obvious). 3 approaches. Holds, emergencies etc.

So that's how I got to 8 hours in the plane plus 1.4 in the sim. How you did it in 4, if that includes the Form 5, surprises me. Surely it can't include the check ride, because if it does, it ain't much of a check ride, even if it is VFR. If it was an IFR scenario ride plus an IFR check ride, I can't imagine how you possibly fitted in the six approaches, missed approaches, two holds, etc. I'd like to see the flight plan.

BTW, I am not technology averse. My day job is a software engineer in Silicon Valley. I live on this stuff. Also, as I mentioned I already had 20 hours in a G1000 182 prior to the CAP stuff. And three years of using Garmin 430/530 GPS's before that (I did my FAA IFR checkride demonstrating GPS approaches). But I do concede to the possibility of CAWG being overzealous. I thought the level of checkout was appropriate what what I was asking to be allowed to do - Take a TAA into the soup with CAP passengers, possibly VIP's? Our local three check pilots want to make sure you really understand the systems and how to handle failures. The lead guy is retired from the airlines and my experience from friends in the airlines today is that when it comes to check rides that really do rely on the avionics (aka IFR), a token "Yeah he made a few mistakes but he'll get it" doesn't really cut it. I guess what I am trying to say is that VFR only is a completely different level. Then it just becomes a regular old 182 with pretty LCD's. I was pretty comfortable VFR after about 2 hours in a G1000 flight - mostly getting used to the scan.

Now, back to West_Coast_Guy, I had a problem also that I was having to repeat training. I spoke to the lead check pilot for CAWG about this. His response was that there was a lot of debate about how to develop consistency in the new aircraft and the resolution was to take advantage of the FITS program that trains everybody the same way. Same procedures, same settings, same order of doing things etc. Basically it is what the airlines do. We're just not used to it in the private pilot world, where every instructor has their own way of teaching students (With I might add, their own share of misinformation). Yeah, it's a drag, but when there are three pilots in a G1000 plane, it stops 3 heads being down in the cockpit arguing about whether the lean assist setting in cruise should be peak EGT, 50 degrees ROP or something else. CAP says follow the Cessna recommendations of 50 degrees ROP and that's it. No more arguing. (BTW, as an example the guy who checked me out in the private G1000 wants me to fly peak EGT because I am renting it from him wet and he is managing the aircraft where he pays the owner dry...see what I mean?)

I should mention that if the pilot has done the FITS training separately, then the chief wing pilot should be able to use their discretion. I had done FITS-like training, but my instructor was not factory trained, so it didn't count.

I am totally with you on the private vs. CAP instructor thing. Money is the motivation. If I went down to the local club and said I needed a G1000 FITS checkout pronto, I'd wager that half a dozen CFI's would put their hand up to get me checkout out in a couple of days. That's the rub. CAP instructors aren't paid. And it's a significant factor in why it takes so long to become a pilot at CAP. C'est la vie. But (To quote Bill Clinton), "Ahhh feeel your paaain".

Don't be discouraged. I felt the same way. Think "Four flights. Four flights". Then see if you can find check pilots that will enable you to schedule all of the flights in advance, spaced out. Maybe one every two weeks. Then you'll be there before you know it. If you ask a check pilot for a flight date a couple of weeks out they are often able to accomodate.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 04:05:05 AM by simon » Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2010, 11:36:55 AM »

Mustang, where did you get the 3x1.5 hour flight times in the FITS transition syllabus? I am looking at the syllabus right now (Version 4.0) and it doesn't mention flight times.
Page 13, VFR flight: "The PT and instructor will plan a short visual cross-country flight of approximately 1 and a half hour (sic) in duration."
 
Page 18, IFR flight (or VFR #2): "The flight plan will be a short IFR or VFR cross-country flight (as appropriate) of approximately two hours in duration."
 
For the Abnormal/Emergency Considerations flight, no duration is specified; however, it does state "The VFR and IFR PT will plan a two-leg flight". On page 4 of the syllabus, an "automated navigation leg" is defined as "A flight of 30 minutes or more...."
 
I will agree that 1.5 hours is reasonable for the VFR flight. But it is not for the IFR flight. IFR release, intercepting and tracking an airway, 3 approaches, going missed twice, proceeding to the hold, holding, emergencies, etc., all under the hood?
I think you'll agree that this could've been done in "approximately two hours" if you had kept the cross-country legs to a minimum.
 
My rides were as follows:

- VFR: 2.6 (We did some mountain work, canyon flying etc. Proper aircraft handling. But that could equally apply to round gauge. All I am suggesting is that it was a proper workout)
Mountain work and canyon flying are not part of the syllabus and could have been omitted, shortening your flight to the 1.5 specified.

- Emergency: 1.4. This was in a sim, but a proper G1000 sim, so I still had to pay $65 an hour.
- Form 5: 2.3. KPAO-O28-KSCK-KPAO. IFR departure. The controller did route us the wrong way for 10 minutes (He was totally overloaded with inbound SFO traffic - he thought we were going to Oakland not Oakdale - we let it go for a few minutes before it was obvious). 3 approaches. Holds, emergencies etc.

So that's how I got to 8 hours in the plane plus 1.4 in the sim. How you did it in 4, if that includes the Form 5, surprises me. Surely it can't include the check ride, because if it does, it ain't much of a check ride, even if it is VFR. If it was an IFR scenario ride plus an IFR check ride, I can't imagine how you possibly fitted in the six approaches, missed approaches, two holds, etc. I'd like to see the flight plan.
I completed the transition syllabus in 4.6 hrs--1.5 VFR flight, 3.1 combined IFR/Emergency procedures flight--plus a 2.3 hr Form 5 (which was also my annual standardization check).  For the IFR/EP flight, I flew two ILSs to holds, an RNAV and a VOR approach with an arc segment (with the PFD failed) at three different airports.
 
As I said earlier, I also spent hours (4-6 total) doing nothing but shooting approaches with the PC trainer, both coupled and manually flown, and have sat right seat in the airplane as safety pilot and button-pusher for a few hours of approaches too. This, plus the 4.6 hrs flown to the syllabus adequately prepared me for the Form 5, and I think my factory-trained check pilot would agree with that assessment.
 
As I'm sure you discovered, I found the G1000+GFC 700 combo to make short work of IFR flying. If you have a solid understanding of IFR fundamentals, the jump from steam gauge to glass is an easy one. Understanding how to use GPS, an HSI and the associated RMI-esque bearing pointers in the IFR environment helps even more. From there, it's just a matter of learning the vagaries of the MFD and FMS.  As you pointed out, the scan is different, and I admit I haven't really mastered this to my desired comfort level yet (especially when having to hand-fly off the MFD  :o ), but that will come in time.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 11:40:19 AM by Mustang » Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

simon
Seasoned Member

Posts: 246

« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2010, 08:56:37 PM »

Okay, agree with all that.

I am amazed you got all the training and check ride done in 4.6. You must have been busy on the IFR parts.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2010, 11:12:43 PM »

Apologies if I wasn't clear, the 4.6 didn't include the checkride.
Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

West_Coast_Guy
Member

Posts: 62

« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2010, 12:48:13 AM »

I just had a disturbing thought.

According to a post on the AOPA message board, Garmin has sent a memo to their dealers stating that due to parts availability issues the GNS430 28v and GNS530 28v will no longer be repaired after September 30, 2010. (These are said to be the non-WAAS models.) Apparently the issue is chip obsolescence.

As an electrical engineer, I see no reason why this problem should not affect G1000 panels eventually, raising the ugly spectre of entire airplanes becoming unrepairable. Looks to me like the industry's rush to glass panels may turn out to be a huge problem for aircraft owners eventually.  :(
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,816

« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2010, 01:05:12 AM »

Everything breaks eventually - they replace the broken with new.
Report to moderator   Logged


West_Coast_Guy
Member

Posts: 62

« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2010, 01:17:49 AM »

Would a new model of glass panel be backwards compatible, what red tape would the FAA require for the substitution, and what would it cost?

Perhaps more importantly, are manufacturers even planning ways of dealing with this problem?

Perhaps CAP NHQ should ask Cessna these questions.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2010, 01:20:00 AM »

I'm more interested to know what CAP's plans are for 100LL going away. This has the potential to ground the entire fleet, not just the G1000-equipped birds.
Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

Pages: [1] 2 3  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: G1000 Worth the Money?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.073 seconds with 26 queries.