You can’t couple the AP to an NDB even on a kite :smike:
I suspect A&C is fairly familiar with the Airbus.
But one quote that I read on a summary about the SR22 probably fits this very well: “Technology simplifies that which is complicated, and complicates that which was simple.”
Well, sounds like an interesting quote, but is actually meaningless. What is “more complicated” on an SR22 than on a Beech Bonanza or Mooney? I think: Nothing. The whole panel is probably 1/10 of the parts in the SR22.
New thread please for the A v B debate.
Relax; I don’t think that quote by a Cirrus instructor was meant to be a comparative statement with other aircraft types. It is certainly about the avionics. And there it depends which avionics you have in a Bonanza.
But let me try an example: If you set up an RNAV approach with vertical guidance on the SR22 correctly and everything works as intended, then it has made a formerly complicated approach simple to fly. If you screw it up and you don’t know what the plane is doing and why, then it would have been easier just flying the VOR approach on a classic sixpack.
Peter wrote:
You can’t couple the AP to an NDB even on a kite
But you could on many types pre 1970 (or so). A very quick google search found the AFM of a B36 (http://www.cfc1939.org/CFC/docs/N124DH_FM_Autopilot.pdf) and a C-12 (Military King Air variant https://books.google.de/books?id=LHk-AAAAYAAJ&pg=SL2-PA7&lpg=SL2-PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false ) which seem to have this feature. Although the Bonanza manual says “Do not use for ADF coupled approach” – but who ever did what the book says?
I am completely relaxed :-)
First, it really doesn’t happen that an RNAV approach in an SR22 “doesn’t work”. Might happen sometimes but it is very much more likely that the mechanical HSi in the classic plane fails .. no?
But of course, I know what you mean and probably there are cases where the high level of automation makes things more complex.
Flyer59 wrote:
First, it really doesn’t happen that an RNAV approach in an SR22 “doesn’t work”.
Ah, ok? I was warned for example about activating a Direct-To to the correct waypoint in the approach. If you happened to forget that, your plane will fly to the overhead of the airport and then to the IAF. I would say that qualifies as setting up an approach incorrectly and not everything working as intended. So in that case, you have made an error that you cannot make if you don’t have all this fancy automation.
RWY20
This as you say is not the place for an intrenched Airbus vs Boeing debate, both have their strengths and weaknesses.
However there seems to be a trend in the thread above to assume that technology = safety and this is clearly not true, the very high tech aircraft has just enabled pilots to invent new ways to kill themselfs.
Unfortunately those without basic skills use the technology to shield themselfs from their own shortcomings, as these people have moved upward in the Industry they have encouraged reliance on automation to the point that basic flying skill base is being badly eroded, this is happening with both Boeing and Airbus fleets but it is much harder psychologically to fly the Airbus with raw data due to the way it is selected and displayed.
On another thread I said that replacing DME with a GPS fix on an instrument approach that has been based on a DME fix was a human factors CFIT going some place to happen. It is perfectly posable to use GPS for this function and the tech fans on the forum seem to think it can be done however getting that GPS fix introduces a bucket full of ways to get it wrong that simply tuning into a DME station does not have and is a case of too much technology being used.
The real challenge for the pilot is to bring the appropriate amount of technology to the situation, a few weeks back I had to move a DA42 about 50 miles in good VMC, I just put a line on a map and followed a compass heading, I can’t help thinking that some of those who fly such aircraft would have used far more automation to solve this problem but burnt a lot more engine time sitting on the ground getting the G1000 programmed than I did.
RobertL18C wrote:
Anecdotal feedback from the regulators seems to be that the MPL route (which bypasses a PPL entirely) is not proving to be a panacea.
I’m not surprised. There’s something very strange with a license which entitles you to be first officer in heavy CAT, but not automatically entitles you to be PIC in a basic SEP trainer.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I’m not surprised. There’s something very strange with a license which entitles you to be first officer in heavy CAT, but not automatically entitles you to be PIC in a basic SEP trainer.
Amen to that!
