Beside being an aviation nut, I’m a fan of Apple computers and other products… Hello iPhone, iPods… One of the books I’m reading right now is Inside Steve’s brain by Leander Kahney. A whole chapter of this book is dedicates to Jobs’s pursuit of excellence in design. Attention paid to every detail, from materials to shapes to packaging and the look of almost every single pixel.

A part of Apple’s success comes from the simplicity and ease of use of their products, anyone can understand them. Simple things look easy and friendly, but anyone who already tried to do some design – whatever the domain – knows that it’s not easy. There’s a very good quote on that in the book, and it’s not even from Jobs, but from Constantin Brancusi, a Romanian sculptor who once said:

Simplicity is complexity resolved

I find it brilliant, simply. I had these things in mind when I saw a Garmin advert on the backside of a previous edition of the AOPA magazine. A nice cockpit (Beechcraft if I’m correct) with a G600, a GNS530, a GNS430 and a Garmin transponder. The picture was detailed enough, so one could see the stopwatch displayed on the transponder’s LCD screen…

The engineer in me thought “Cool idea, there’s anyway so much electronics in a transponder that fitting a chronograph in that. Then I linked that with the design considerations from the book. Why shall a transponder contain a stopwatch ? By the way, the GNS430 and 530 also have equivalent features. And the G600 as well. I used to fly with ADF receivers that could also be used as stopwatch. Many aircraft also have a dashboard mounted watch with chronograph function.

From a user experience point of view a cockpit is not exactly simple or easy to understand. Electronics, and particularly integrated glass-cockpits, allowed for some standardization, but the overall complexity is still overwhelming. If you’re familiar with the Garmin G1000 glass cockpit, or with any other Garmin unit, you probably eared the term “buttonology” a couple of times, don’t you ? The sole existence of this term proves that despite all their efforts, the design guys at Garmin have not solved the complexity.

I still think that glass cockpits with touch screens will help improving the usability of our cockpits and make them much easier to understand. The Garmin G3000 is certainly a good step in this direction, but the PFD and MFD must also go touch, not just some extra input devices.

Is Steve Jobs gets bored working for Apple and Pixar, I’m sure he could find new challenges and express all his love for good design in the glass-cockpit area…

Earlier this year I posted about the idea of mixing glass-cockpit and touch-screens. Call that chance, talent or vision, but Garmin announced the G3000 recently, which includes two touch-screen control units. Bad news: the issue I talked about, having the controls far from the display, is not solved. The G3000 is made of two PFDs, one MFD, and two touch screen control units. The PFDs and the MFD are not touch screens… yet. May be the G5000 will integrate that…

The G3000 is a big step forward. Compared to the G1000, the softkeys below the screens are still present, but there are no knobs on the side. The screens are bigger, and of a different aspect ratio. The touch-screen control units seem to be like bigger versions of my iPhone. Lists scroll smoothly, and the infrared technology used by Garmin reduces the risk of error in turbulence. Actions are not triggered when your finger touches the display, but when you remove it. If turbulence makes your finger shift, the impact and end of contact points won’t be the same and the controller will take no action.

Garmin presented the G3000 at NBAA, and several reports are available from there. Click here to read more from AOPA. As mentioned in this article, the G3000 will initially be certified for light turbine aircraft, read King-Airs and light jets. With the G1000, Garmin used a different approach, starting with light aircraft to step up into turbine. I’m not sure why they use a different approach this time, but I guess the cost of the two controller units – required for multi-crew and redundancy – as well as the required space make less sense in a light aircraft. They could gain some room by using touch screens the PFD and MFD. Got it, guys ?

It’s not easy to describe a glass cockpit system with words, so I selected for YouTube videos for you.

Finally, from the GarminBlog, a spectacular but short history of glass:

This post is the third in a series about future technology that could help pilots in near future. Click here to read part one and part two of an imaginary flight in 2015. This third post lists all what the two first proposed to see what already exists, what’s possible, and what is far future…

The iPlane app with weather is already a reality. Check ForeFlight for example, or many other free weather apps for iPhone. Automatic automatic IFR routing exists today for PC in software like Jeppesen’s FlightStar. Integration with FBO is something else. Some offer online booking, but I’m not sure about refueling. Moreover, direct integration with the on-board GPS is not possible yet. If you know of an FBO pre-programming the GPS for you, let me know. Pre-flight briefings on cell-phone are already a reality. Getting NOTAMs, weather information from a cell-phone is as easy a getting them from the Internet. No need to comment about that.

Electronic checklists are already a reality. You can do a very simple, personal version with PDF files and use any device to read them. The next step, already existing, are smartphone applications specialized for this purpose. They allow to “check” any item electronically to be sure you don’t forget one. I don’t know about versions with vocal interface as I suggested, but it sounds good…

Electronic clearance is also existing today. As Patrick reported in comment, some airports offer ATIS and departure clearance over ACARS. This is today reserved to airlines and corporate flight departments, and only available in certain airports. On the negative aspect, ACARS is slow and not really interactive. The text based clearance is used in several parts of the world for non-urgent clearances. Check this page to see an illustrated example of Controller Pilot Data Link Clearance – a.k.a. CPDLC. It includes departure clearance, frequency changes, direct-to clearances, and request to contact center again using VHF.

Automatic engine start is well known to jet and FADEC engine pilots. Starting a Thielert TDI engine is as simple as turning the engine master on, waiting for the glow plugs to turn off, and turning the key. What does not exist yet is a link informing ATC that aircraft is ready for taxi once engines are started, but this is certainly possible. From the moment the electronics is controlling the engines, and able to communicate as explained above, this becomes an integration question.

Ground chart on MFD including aircraft position is also reality. What is missing compared to what I suggested is the position of other aircraft. Ground to ground ADS-B transmission is not easy because of line of sight problems. However systems like TIS-B where ground based receivers broadcast information to the aircraft should be expandable in this direction. Automatic tuning of the stand-by frequency is not an easy task, because the one to use is not published. Depending of traffic, en-route centers can collapse certain sectors together, using only one frequency. Similarly, tower have reserve frequencies, in case the main one is disturbed. But if a frequency change can be sent per CPDLC, it should be easy to put it on stand-by to reduce workload and pilot error.

Glass-cockpit pilots are now familiar with speed bugs. These small marks along the tape-shaped speed indicator remind them when to rotate, what are the best angle / best rate of climb speed, and even best glide speed if required. Automation of lights and pitot heating does not exists yet. I guess that one of the problem was the lack of position information. Moreover, clearance information is required to make sure landing lights will not turn on if the aircraft taxies over a runway which will not be used for take-off.

The next point is the flight assistant. In my example, this is an electronic module doing vocal call-outs to assist the pilot. It also asks question to which the pilot can answer using the ACK or NEGATIVE buttons on the stick. Julien and Matthew made interesting comments about the possibility to use voice recognition software instead of using buttons. After my post on a new voice recognition product for GNS 430 / GNS 530, I should have imagined it myself.

With all flight and engine parameters integrated in a glass-cockpit system, having call-outs for speed, engine parameters and rotation speed should not be complicated. Technically, giving gear control to electronics is not hard. The gear lever is nothing else than an electrical switch, easily replaceable by a relay or a transistor. Like many of the things I proposed, this could however present some certification challenges. Electronic power settings raise the same kind of issues. With FADEC engines, there is no direct mechanical action from the throttle to the engine. But giving control of the input itself to a computer is one more step. Note that this already exists on jets equipped with auto throttles.

From all the things I mentioned, video stream from the airport as part of the briefing is the one that seems the most remote to me. The bandwidth required to transmit such a feed is quite hard. But on the other hand, I can watch YouTube videos or live streaming on my iPhone…

Automatic calculation of the Top of Descent is a reality in jets FMS. It partly exists within Garmin panel mounted units, but it’s not exactly easy to use. With approach and flight plan programmed in the GPS, the calculation is easy. Just as the heading, speed and localizer warnings. These could seem quite unnerving, but when flying an IFR approach under heavy workload, it’s easy to be loose concentration. A kind reminder can’t hurt. The automated call-out at 500 feet above the minimums should not be a problem. If WAAS approaches are accurate enough to guide an aircraft down to 200 feet AGL, the system should also be good enough for such call-outs.

Last but not least, the automatic “RUNWAY IN SIGHT” announcement. The latest versions of the Cirrus Perspective (G1000) already include an infrared video camera. This helps pilots to identify and check that runways are clear at night. The picture is displayed on the MFD on short final. Replace it with a visible spectrum camera, add on that some image processing software and checking that runway is visible is easy. This could be of great help for pilots flying single man IFR.

For years, such advances were simply impossible because the technology was not present. Now that glass cockpits integrate flight, engine and other system parameters, a lot of things become possible. They however raise some certification and liability questions. These, together with the “nose-down” tendency that such equipment could induce will be the topic of the fourth post in the series.

Before briefing the first approach, I checked the latest weather. I taped on the destination airport on the MFD to see a decoded version of the METAR. The display zoomed around it to display all available information. The wind vector is displayed over the airport symbol and the ceilings are represented over a model of the terrain. They are low, but few hundred feet above the minimums, exactly what I need. This airport is one of the first in the region to broadcast a video feed. I press a button on the side of the MFD and the picture sent by a tower on the camera appears. The ceilings seems to be higher on the approach end of the runway. Sounds good. Winds are calm, and the digital airport information reports runway 35 in use.

The communication icon blinks again: “APPROACH CLEARANCE AVAILABLE”. The MFD displays the ILS CAT I approach to runway 35. The trajectory is displayed over the chart, to make it easier to read. The approach starts with a direct leg to a point on the localizer, 4 miles before glide-slope interception. Thanks to the GPS, I can navigate directly to it. I check the minimum, and the ILS frequency. As I’m navigating using GPS, the flight assistant automatically activated the ILS frequency and identified it. Everything is fine, otherwise the trajectory would not be shown on the chart. I brief the missed approach, which is quite easy: climb straight ahead, to 5.000 feet.

Time goes back quickly, and the artificial voice of the flight assistant kindly reminds me: “APPROACHING TOP OF DESCENT”. I disengage the autopilot, reduce power, and start descent. I prefer to anticipate a bit to descend with a lower rate. Once I intercept the localizer, the fight assistant asks: “CONFIRM GEAR DOWN ?”. I click the ACK button on the stick and the gear comes down. A new message appears on top of the PFD, ATC wants to know my intentions after the approach. I’m not sure now, it will depend of the remaining time. I keep concentrated on flying the ILS, as the glide-slope interception approaches. I just click the “STAND-BY” button on my stick. ATC can wait.

I intercept the glide-slope, extends one level of flaps, and reduce power. I’m now well established on the glide. I check the time, and see that I’m a bit short. I don’t want to stop there. I press my push-to-talk on the stick:

”Tower hello, N123VL”

”N123VL, Tower, go ahead”

”N123VL, request low go-around and activation of my IFR flight plan.”

”N123VL, roger, you’re cleared for low go-around runway 35, you’ll receive your clearance digitally”

”Cleared for low go-around, N123VL”

I approach the middle-marker. I check the altitude, just before the flight assistant calls “Middle marker, altitude is correct”. I really feel like I have a co-pilot. Suddenly, my the aircraft starts to yaw. Slowly first, but then more aggressively. I have to use full rudder to compensate. The MFD automatically displays engine instruments. The left engine is dead. The system identified it, and the synthetically generated voice asks “CONFIRM FEATHER AND SECURE LEFT ENGINE ?” I click the ACK button, and see the left hand throttle come back. I call ATC again:

”N123VL, lost left hand engine. It will be a full stop landing”

”N123VL, roger. Do you need assistance ?”

”I see no flames, but I’d appreciate if you could send some fire equipment, just in case”

”Roger, they’ll wait for you. Wind is calm, you’re cleared to land runway 35″

”Cleared to land runway 35, N123VL”.

On my MFD, I can see the two aircraft behind me breaking their approach. Sorry for that guys. I’m still IMC, and I have to fight to maintain the aircraft on the ILS. The flight assistant voice regularly issues warnings: “CHECK HEADING”, “CHECK LOCALIZER”, “CHECK SPEED”. I feel like I’m back in training. The thresholds defined for these warnings are fine when both engines are working, but it’s hard to stick within the limits on one engine. I could switch the flight assistant off, but I expect a couple of important calls… and here they come:

”500 FEET ABOVE MINIMUMS – ALTIMETER CROSSCHECK OK”. Just to make sure, I do it again. DME distance, GPS position and altimeter are all coherent. I continue to focus on flying the aircraft. The needles are so sensitive close to the minimums… I start to feel nervous, I don’t really enjoy the idea of going around on one engine. I do my final check: gear is down, I don’t go for full flaps on one engine, and turn the landing light on.

”200 FEET ABOVE MINIMUMS”. Stress goes up one level, but soon after that, the flight assistant announces “RUNWAY IN SIGHT”. This new system using a video camera to detect the runway in the visual spectrum is really good. No need to look out when approaching the minimums. I raise my head with the certitude that the runway will be here. It’s a bit on the right, because my left engine is failed, and the fire trucks are waiting, with their blue flashlights blinking.

I do the final check again, just in case, and then concentrates on my landing. With all this audience, I don’t want to miss it. After touchdown, I slow down and receive a welcome message on the radio:

”N123VL, FireChief, welcome to our airport. Do you need assistance ?”

”FireChief, thank you for coming. I can taxi, but not sure about risks of fire.”

”Roger, follow our marshaller. He’ll bring you to the fire station. We follow behind.”

”Wilco, thanks”.

This post is the second in a series about how flying light aircraft could look like in 2015. Click here to read the first part.

18 September 2015 – A perfect day to go out for a practice IFR flight. I pull my iPhone 5GS+ out of my pocket and activate the iPlane app. The weather charts confirms what I taught: close to the minimums, but only fog and stratus clouds, no convection, no icing. I draw a route on the touchscreen, from my home base to a nearby airport, then to a third one, and back to my home base. Three approaches are enough. The system automatically finds an IFR route using the airways. One of the DA52 SuperTwinStar from my FBO is free and I decide to fly with it. I book it with a single tap, say I’ll be flying alone on board. A final tap to confirm all the data, and it’s sent. I can go to my office, looking forward to a nice afternoon flight.

Two hours before the flight, I feel my iPhone vibrate in my pocket. My pre-flight briefing just got updated. I check the last charts, weather reports, and NOTAMS. Nothing that could affect my plans.

When I reach the FBO, my plane is on the line, with full tanks – no weight and balance issue with a single passenger. I turn the large touch-screen of the Garmin 1200 on. The flight plan server sent all my data and everything is pre-programmed. I do a careful pre-flight inspection, using my iPhone to make sure I don’t forget any item. The vocal guide is really a great help. When I come back to the cockpit, the communication icon of the MFD blinks. My clearance is available. I read it and click the “WILCO” button. The GPS flight plan is automatically updated.

After strapping myself in the seat, I press the “ENGINE START” button. Left engine first, then right engine. They come to live flawlessly, the FADECs managing the warm-up. Few seconds later, the communication icon blinks again, saying “TAXI CLEARANCE AVAILABLE”. The aircraft informed ATC that I was ready for taxi as soon as the door was closed and the engines running. The MFD displays a ground chart on which my taxi route is shown in red. It also shows other active aircraft, but there’s no conflict today.

Once I reach the holding point, the FADECs automatically start the engine tests. No single glitch. The MFD now shows a departure chart, and I use it to brief my departure. The speed bugs are set, lights are on, the environment computer manages the pitot and de-icing systems if required, everything looks fine. I press the push-to-talk button.

”Tower good afternoon, N123VL, ready”

”N123VL Tower, good afternoon to you, cleared for take-off runway 25″

”Cleared for take-off runway 25, N123VL”

Since 2012, all non-urgent clearances are transmitted electronically. Only the one requiring quick reaction, and those the system can’t anticipate are transmitted vocally.

No way to visually check if the approach sector is clear with this low visibility, but the MFD does not show any traffic apart a jet which is 15 miles out. I activate the roll-director to line-up perfectly. As soon as I’m on the axis, it turns itself into a flight director. I gently push the throttles forward, monitoring the engine parameters. The engine panel remains totally black, no problem. When I fly alone, I use to activate the flight assistant. I like how the synthetic voice announces important call-outs:

”Speed is alive…”

”Passing 60… Engine parameters normal”

”Rotate”

I pull the stick softly. The flight assistant asks “CONFIRM GEAR UP ?” I click the “ACK” button on the stick, and it gets the gear up for me. The next question comes rapidly: “CLIMB POWER SETTING ?” I click “ACK” again. The throttles come slight back, I lower the nose, following the flight director. Passing the minimal altitude, the flight assistant asks again: “ENGAGE AP, VNAV, LNAV ?” I don’t feel like it, I prefer to fly manually. I click the “NEGATIVE” button on the stick and concentrate on flying.

A new non-urgent clearance comes in, for a frequency change. The communication system tunes the radio automatically. There is no amendment to my clearance, so no need to talk to the new controller. The traffic displays shows an Airbus 320 which took of after me. A new clearance blinks on the PFD: “RIGHT HEADING 360°”. I click “WILCO” and starts a right turn. The heading bug is automatically adjusted, but I continue to fly manually.

I reach my cruise altitude, reduce power (yes, some still do that manually) and engage the autopilot. It’s now time to brief the first approach…

Click here to read the second part of this series: Flying in 2015 – Part II

VoiceFlight Systems just received the FAA certification for their VFS101 pilot speed recognition system. With this unit it’s possible to command Garmin GPS using vocal commands. The system is activated by pressing a dedicated button on the yoke and then interprets what the pilots is saying.

If you ever entered an IFR flight plan in a GNS 430 / 530 or G1000, you know how long this process can be. Inner knob to select a letter, outer know to go to the next, then enter to validate, and do it atgain for the next waypoint. With the VFS101, it’s as simple as pressing the button and saying “KILO OSCAR NOVEMBER INDIA LIMA ENTER”. The system also recognizes airways and direct to instructions.

If you’re skeptical, check the video demonstration on VoiceFlight Systems website. They present the entry of a complex IFR flight plan using their system, then demonstrate the use of the direct to feature. During the whole demo, a small inset shows someone entering the same flight plan using the knobs. By the end, the guy doing it manually does not even reach half of it, not to mention entering direct instructions or validate it.

Light aircraft are not yet equipped with computers as sophisticated as 2001 – A Space Odyssey’s “HAL” or Alien’s “Mother” but this is a first step. Is this good ? Definitely yes. The Garmin buttonology can be a challenge. The VFS101 is a great time saver while on the ground and allows for flight plan update en-route without stopping to scan the instruments. This is a great safety improvement for single IFR operations.

Multi-crew operations rely on the flying pilot / non-flying pilot to relieve the pilot actually flying the aircraft from this kind of tasks. The non-flying pilots manages the communication and the navigation tasks. When an updated clearance is received from ATC, the non-flying pilot updates the flight plan in the navigation system. The VFS101 is not (yet ?) smart enough to interpret an ATC clearance, but it simplifies the way the pilot enters the changes in the GPS.

This can be particularly good when flying complex instrument departures. They often include lots of intersections which must be programmed in the GPS only to be by-passed by direct-to or vector clearances followed by a direct-to. Managing that, plus power settings and level-off in climb can rapidly increase the pilot’s workload, and focusing on a GPS flight plan amendment can make the situation more critical.

The VFS101  is one more step towards automation and pilot workload reduction, and this adds a supplementary safety margin in single pilot IFR operations.

Glass cockpits are like a new user’s interface for pilots. They introduce new concepts like tapes instead of needles, bugs for more parameters and red crosses over failed instruments. Getting used to them takes some time and they also have some drawbacks. I already posted about the G1000 ergonomics compared to a steam gauges panel.

One of the challenges pilots converting to glass-cockpits is to find the right knob to turn or the right button to press. Why is this a challenge ? Because display and control elements are far away and don’t directly relate with each other. Look at the following pictures: they are from a G1000, and Avidyne Entegra and an Airbus 320. I highlighted the position of the heading but and its tuning knob on each of them.

G1000 Heading bug

Avidyne Entegra Heading bug

Airbus 320 Heading bug

Now compare this with the next picture, from a PA32 dashboard using classical instruments. The heading bug is controlled by a knob which is part of the HSI itself. No need to look for the knob for long.

Classical cockpit heading bug

In today’s world touch screens are present everywhere. Telephones, GPS for cars, information systems of all kind, … So why not a touch screen glass cockpit system ? The interaction models are not that complex:

• Drag elements like the heading bug, CDI
• Touch virtual buttons for autopilot modes
• Roll virtual cylinders to dial frequencies (like the iPhone combo-boxes)
• Use a touch keyboard for flight plan entries

This would solve a lot of problems as interface elements (heading bug, altitude selector, CDI, autopilot modes) will be used for both control and display. Touch screen technology is now mature enough and the display elements in a glass cockpit are large enough to be used for interaction. Systems will also become mechanically and electrically simpler.

I see only two possible drawbacks:

• The display can be partly obstructed during the interaction
• Turbulence can reduce usability

I’ll keep a close look at the market to see if some suppliers will go in this direction or not. If you know of some touch products for aviation, let me know.

Diamond Aircraft makes two announcements over the last few days: a glass-cockpit for the DA20 and a DA42 TwinStar fitted with the new AE300 AustroEngine flew all the way from Austria to Oshkosh!

The two news occur at both the low- and high-end of Diamond’s products range (excluding the coming D-Jet). The DA40 has been available with G1000 glass cockpit for years but there was no glass basic trainer until now. The DA40 compares to a Cessna 172 or a PA28-180, both available with glass as well. The DA20 is a two seater, comparing to a C152 or Cherokee with a small engine. The DA20 is now available with a Garmin G500 glass-cockpit. The G500 is not as integrated as the G1000 and operates hand-in-hand with a GNS430. It offers synthetic vision, flight director, and all standard features of glass cockpits.

The second good news is that Diamond will present both versions of of the DA42 TwinStar: the one powered by Lycoming engines and the one powered by the new AustroEngine turbo-diesel engines. Nothing new… except that the AustroEngine powered one made it from Vienna (Austria) to Oshkosh over the Atlantic. The flight stopped in Dortmund, Germany – Wick, Scotland – Reykjavik, Iceland – Narsarsuaq, Greenland – Goose Bay and Quebec, Canada.

A light aircraft flying across the Atlantic is not something new but what I find cool is that they made it with a stock. No need for extra-tanks or special equipment. The DA42 is not the light twin able to do that but the simple idea that any pilot can cross the Atlantic in a light twin is cool, isn’t it ?

Read more from Diamond’s website:
DA20 Glass-cockpit: http://www.diamondaircraft.com/news/news-article.php?id=105
AE300 DA42 to Oshkosh: http://www.diamondaircraft.com/news/news-article.php?id=103

In a recent post Julien mentioned that he prepared “flow patterns” to help him getting familiar with the Arrow he’s now training on. Flow patterns have been developed in commercial aviation but apply well to light, private aviation as well. This also has to do with checklists and memory items. Most private pilots use checklists as “do-lists”. The two last FTOs I trained with make the difference because they are mostly training professional pilots to be. The difference between do-lists and checklists is quite easy. Do-lists are used to guide actions as they are getting done. Checklists are used to verify actions previously done on base of memorised items.

The idea is to avoid constantly switching attention from the checklist to the cockpit element to be switched, twisted, flipped, pulled or pushed. Not all series of items can be verified, at least in single pilot operations, i.e. the final check (at least: gear – flaps – light, and if applicable: carburetor heat – high RPM – cowl-flaps). Hopefully this one is short. The longest lists are usually the before descent check (at least in IFR) and cockpit preparation before start-up. The DA42 one contains not least than 21 items. Shall the pilot memorise all of them to apply the do-list / check-list principle ? Yes. And this is where flow patterns come into the game. Some lists are built on a system oriented base: all electrical, all fuel, and so on. Flows are based on cockpit to make them easier to remember.

Flows are not always logical in terms of sequence but they are made to be easy to remember. The picture below shows the sequence of items in Diamond’s cockpit preparation checklist for the DA42. Thanks to good cockpit design it’s almost easy to remember. Not all cockpits are so well designed and some are even anti-ergonomic.

This flow starts on the parking brake on the center pedestal. Even if it’s not so bad it’s still looping and jumping around. The FTO I fly with developped a much easier flow pattern based on the very natural reading direction (except for asian languages…) from left to right and top to bottom. It starts top left with the lights and then goes to the right, then back left “one line below” with the ECU and alternator switches, to the right, and so on…

This flow pattern makes it easy not to miss any item. I can’t cite all of the 21 items but simply “scanning” the cockpit makes it easy. Once the flow is completed the checklist is used to verify that no item was left unchecked. It’s that easy.

Do-lists (read memory items) can also rely on flow pattern to make them easier to memorize. On the DA42 the following items must be performed on engine failure once the failed engine is correctly identified: engine master off – fuel selector off – alternator off. The engine master is right in front of the pilot, on each side of the key, the fuel selectors are on the central pedestal (where the two red locks can be seen), and the alternator switches are on the left-hand side of the panel, below the fresh air outlet. Once the engine is stopped there is no system reason to first close the fuel valve before getting the alternator online. My personal variant of this drill is: engine master off – alternator off – fuel selector off. I find much easier to first get the alternator offline as this switch is much closer to the engine master than the fuel selector.

One must take great care when modifying the checklists proposed by the aircraft manufacturer. In this example it could be “geometrically” tempting to use the following sequence: fuel selector off – engine master off – alternator off, but this would damage the engine, particularly if done for training purposes. Diesel engines uses high pressure pumps that can be damaged if they run out of fuel… Damaging one while practicing an incorrectly adapted drill would be a shame.

You can read more about how airlines use checklists, do-lists and flow patterns and how to possibly adapt them to your flying from this excellent post from Sam.

Axel wrote the two posts compiled below while he was preparing his G1000 training, back in October 2008. Read more about the resources he used and what he expected. He will soon post here about the results, now that he’s G1000 fluent. Vincent.

Awaiting my departure to Florida I am currently reading Max Trescott’s G1000 Glass Cockpit Handbook to prepare for my upcoming glass training. I find this book to be a great aid in becoming acquainted with the complex systems of the Garmin G1000. The book is written in a well structured manner and the G1000 systems are presented with clear and concise descriptions and explanations. The book manages to break down the complex systems of the G1000 into easy-to-understand segments and this way the learning process becomes very feasible. I am convinced that the studying of this book is something I will benefit from once I start my in-flight training in the G1000 and ultimately make my transition to glass a much smoother one.

Fellow pilot blogger PlasticPilot recently was invited along on a weekend fly-in in a Cirrus SR22 equipped with the Avidyne Entegra glass cockpit. With his prior experience from the Garmin G1000 this was a great opportunity for him to make a comparison of the two systems. His experiences from this fly-in resulted in several interesting posts on his blog PlasticPilot.net including one dedicated to the comparison between the Avidyne Entegra and the Garmin G1000.

Being particularly interested in glass cockpit systems since I am soon about to start my glass training in the G1000 myself, I read his post about his comparison between the two aforementioned systems with great interest. I left a comment on his post offering some of my own views on the two systems as well as asking him some questions about what it is like to fly IFR in a glass cockpit as compared to round gauges. As always he responded promptly and gave me some good advice on my upcoming glass training.

A little later in the evening I checked into PlasticPilot’s blog again and noticed there was added one more comment to his post about the glass cockpit comparison. When I checked it out I found it to be a personal response to my previous comment with some good and helpful advice written by Max Trescott, 2008 National CFI of the Year! That sure was a fun surprise!

I would like to extend my thanks to both Max Trescott and PlasticPilot for taking the time to answering my questions about glass cockpits and the Garmin G1000.

I will be starting my glass cockpit training in just a few weeks, and so, what do I expect from this new type of avionics system compared to my earlier training with round gauges?

First of all, I expect that the much larger scale of the artificial horizon, which in the Garmin G1000 is filling an entire LCD display – the PFD, in itself will make it somewhat easier to detect deviations from desired flight attitude. That way, during my instrument scan, I should be able to make the proper corrections for any deviations at an earlier stage than what I was able to before and thereby be able to control the airplane more accurately while flying by the instruments.

Less physical work for the eyes due to the lack of physical barriers between the primary instruments, should result in a more efficient instrument scan, enabling me to collect the necessary information from the instruments in a shorter time during my scan, thus allowing less time for any deviations in flight attitude to develop before they are detected and properly corrected for.

I do also expect that the operating of a more complex avionics system in-flight at times will require extra attention from me as the pilot, which in turn may draw some focus away from other primary tasks like the instrument scan and hence may have some negative effect on my performance in the aircraft while flying in instrument conditions – whether they be actual or simulated. I do expect this effect to become less of an issue though, as I gradually become more familiar with the use of the G1000 system. What I can do right now to alleviate this issue is to make sure I do as good a job as possible of studying the G1000 system in advance of my in-flight training. That will likely help reduce the effects of this issue quite a bit during the initial faces of my in-flight glass training.

Compared to conventional cockpits the G1000 hosts a range of new and safety-enhancing features. To mention just a few, a large scale moving map providing a clear and concise picture of where you are and where you are heading using data from the G1000’s built-in terrain and navigation databases, as well as Traffic Information Services Alerts that identify surrounding air traffic are all features that should help the pilot maintain a higher degree of situational awareness during flight. Garmin’s recently introduced Synthetic Vision feature (SVT) is also a big step further in the development of new features that help raise situational awareness in the cockpit.