BFR / Flight Training Plans / IPC workflow (+/- with advanced avionics)

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, Marc_B said:

If you could choose customized Redbird simulators with this, that would be pretty awesome!

Absolutely. Problem is that Redbird doesn't even have full avionics fidelity with what it's emulating. So what you learn about the avionics is very surface, and some just wrong.  The limitation is the underlying Prepar3d software. 

That #6 on my list? In at least two of the three cases, the pilots who busted their approach clearances spent a lot of time with a Redbird.  The Redbird does not all you to clear the hold-n-lieu once it's there. The two busted their clearance in different ways. One said they never hear of clearing the hold. The other used the Redbird work-around. 

Don't get me wrong. It's still very valuable for many things. Development of good habits. Scanning. Understanding procedures. I did a session last week with a pilot in which we did the same approach three times to illustrate three different issues. But it's important to understand its limitations.  

[MikeOH]

11 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Absolutely. Problem is that Redbird doesn't even have full avionics fidelity with what it's emulating. So what you learn about the avionics is very surface, and some just wrong.  The limitation is the underlying Prepar3d software. 

That #6 on my list? In at least two of the three cases, the pilots who busted their approach clearances spent a lot of time with a Redbird.  The Redbird does not all you to clear the hold-n-lieu once it's there. The two busted their clearance in different ways. One said they never hear of clearing the hold. The other used the Redbird work-around. 

Don't get me wrong. It's still very valuable for many things. Development of good habits. Scanning. Understanding procedures. I did a session last week with a pilot in which we did the same approach three times to illustrate three different issues. But it's important to understand its limitations.  

@midlifeflyer

Thanks for this post as I've been considering purchasing a Redbird.  Do you know of any other AATDs that are approved for instrument currency work that don't have these drawbacks?

[Marc_B]

44 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Problem is that Redbird doesn't even have full avionics fidelity with what it's emulating. So what you learn about the avionics is very surface, and some just wrong.

I think that's the crux of learning and training advanced avionics, GPS units, and navigators...There are a lot of procedures that you may not use regularly and aren't trained regularly.  Some things are time critical, whereas others you can request delay vectors, or just put the unit in heading mode while you set things up. 

So the big question, is what's the "right" mix of simulation, Garmin Aviation Trainer knobology type computer work, and flight training.  What items need to be included in an "Understanding your panel" guide book.  What list of training tasks should be routinely exercised and understood.  Even your basic steam gauge panel will have GPS Nav/Coms that require experience, understanding and education (and I've not yet flown a VOR approach that I thought would be my choice if weather was bad).

Some of these tasks need to be trained with an instructor, but a lot of them are just process tasks that can easily be exercised in the air or at a desk chair.  i.e. if you've never been asked to remove a hold do you default to "direct to" hold exit or do you just remove the hold by clicking on the hold and then remove, or do you try to reload the procedure and say "no" when it asks if you want to load the hold?  @midlifeflyer I like your list as it's something that we all can work on independently as well as with an instructor.

 

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Marc_B said:

e. if you've never been asked to remove a hold do you default to "direct to" hold exit or do you just remove the hold by clicking on the hold and then remove, or do you try to reload the procedure and say "no" when it asks if you want to load the hold?

Click on the hold and remove. Reloading is hit or miss. Loading from certain directions don’t ask. When I test this, I set it up from a direction where it loads the HILO without asking. I guess you could still reload and say no from the right spot, but why take the extra steps when removal is simpler?

I can’t say what the right proportion is - enough that you are exposed to some of the variations and gotchas coupled with an understanding of specific ATD limitations. When I do avionics transition training, it’s typically a combination of all three. I have playlists for applicable YouTube videos for self study. I treat the ATD as a way to get used to basic buttonology and scanning (the ATD is particular good for this), with ground (I use the manufacturer-specific trainers and videos) and then apply and go through the ones that can’t be emulated in an ATD in flight, along with applying what has been learned. The proportion depends on the pilot.

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

@midlifeflyer

Thanks for this post as I've been considering purchasing a Redbird.  Do you know of any other AATDs that are approved for instrument currency work that don't have these drawbacks?

I don’t. I’m not sure but my impression is that most are based on existing engines also available for the home market, whether PrePar3d, x-plane or MSFS. They all have their limitations without avionics add-ons, some of which are very impressive but might not be available in an approved unit.

They are still very valuable.

[donkaye, MCFI]

Levels of Learning per the Instructor's Handbook from lowest to highest: Rote, Understanding, Application, Correlation.  Rote: Read the operator's manual several times.  Understanding: Watch Youtube videos of the products you are interested in learning about.  Application: Watch Youtube videos of the products you are interested in learning about with examples, read postings on forums such as this or Beechtalk, practice with Apps if there is one, and practice in your airplane.  Correlation: Practice in your airplane in the real world with ATC throwing the inevitable curve balls at you.  It happened to me today on a student's Instrument Cross Country.

Except for the multimillion dollar simulators like operators such as Flight Safety have, I never thought much of inexpensive sims.  If you're going to spend in excess of $100,000 for a modern panel upgrade, you need to spend the time and read the manuals from cover to cover--several times.  While it may seem boring to some, most of the information needed to competently use the equipment is in the manual.  And each of the manufacturers has their own design philosophy.  Once you understand the philosophy, I've found that you can usually pretty quickly find a solution to a problem by going to the right menu.  Finding the menu quickly is philosophy dependent.  I do find it is challenging to learn many philosophies.  I feel like I'm an expert in the Garmin world.  Not so much in the Avidyne world, although I find I can get around pretty well even there, since the most used actions are fairly obvious.  The more complicated actions in any of the worlds such as VNAV as an example, or loading Airways, which is device dependent, require a YouTube video, or an instructor who has "been there, done that".

I have found that there is no substitute for practicing with your own avionics.  If something doesn't go as planned, it's back to the manual for guidance, then back to the plane to try it out.  Unfortunately, company support is usually worthless from my experience.  These people seem to be trained to a level that is barely Rote.

So set aside some time sit down in a cosy chair, and start your "Adventures Through the Manuals".  You'll be surprised how much you can learn.

[midlifeflyer]

12 hours ago, donkaye said:

you need to spend the time and read the manuals from cover to cover--several times

This is absolutely true but I think unrealistic for most. There’s so much tendency to not RTFM at all, I’m thrilled if they read it once and are able to effectively use it as a reference. 

I think the smartest thing Avidyne did in the modern era was to use a combination of a scenario-based training manual, a series of videos which go through them, and an app you can use to follow along. 

But as you point out, correlation is yet another step higher. And it doesn’t deal with integration - how your FMS/Navigator plays with the other stuff in your panel.

[Andy95W]

On 8/23/2024 at 7:07 AM, midlifeflyer said:

Sure. I do all the time. You may have already seen it elsewhere. That #7 is separate because it’s really one of those tips and tricks rather than an important skill.

 

@midlifeflyer  Hi, Mark.  Thanks for posting this list.  About # 5a- how do you create a waypoint for a GTN?  (I have a GPS175 which uses the same buttonology, IIRC).  In the past I’d just intercept a course or radial as in # 1, and then hold at a distance like it was an old VOR/DME fix.  But it would be easier to actually create the waypoint.  Thanks.

[201Mooniac]

5 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

@midlifeflyer  Hi, Mark.  Thanks for posting this list.  About # 5a- how do you create a waypoint for a GTN?  (I have a GPS175 which uses the same buttonology, IIRC).  In the past I’d just intercept a course or radial as in # 1, and then hold at a distance like it was an old VOR/DME fix.  But it would be easier to actually create the waypoint.  Thanks.

Not Mark but if you go to use a waypoint that doesn't exist in the database it will ask you if you want to create it.  When it asks you for the waypoint, just type in a name that doesn't exist such as USR123.  Once you define the point as either Rad/Dist, Rad/Rad, or Lat/Long you can then use it for creating a hold.

[Andy95W]

Thanks!  I figured it wasn’t too difficult, but just couldn’t find it.

[Marc_B]

The two other ways I've added a user waypoint...

From Home --> Waypoint Info --> Create Waypoint.

From the Map you can touch an area of the map to enable either Create Waypoint & Graphically Edit FPL

Regardless of how you start the process, it takes you to the same "Create User Waypoint" screen.  There you can define the user waypoint by Lat/Lon, Radial/Radial, or Radial/Distance.  If using the map page pointer, that data will be prepopulated on the best way it comes up to define that, but you can change to whatever you'd like...so if you're on the map page I just use that on the fly.

[Andy95W]

Yeah, it’d be nice to have the screen space of a GTN750!  On the 2” screen on the GPS175 it’s easiest doing it the way you first said.  Plus, it’s most similar to the airplane I fly at work.  Thanks again!

[hammdo]

On 8/25/2024 at 6:38 AM, midlifeflyer said:

This is absolutely true but I think unrealistic for most. There’s so much tendency to not RTFM at all, I’m thrilled if they read it once and are able to effectively use it as a reference. 

I think the smartest thing Avidyne did in the modern era was to use a combination of a scenario-based training manual, a series of videos which go through them, and an app you can use to follow along. 

But as you point out, correlation is yet another step higher. And it doesn’t deal with integration - how your FMS/Navigator plays with the other stuff in your panel.

For my GNC355, I took the Sportys and Gary Reeves Garmin training courses. Sportys/Garmin has a manual with training scenarios. I found that helpful with the Garmin training simulator.

-Don

[midlifeflyer]

On 8/28/2024 at 11:08 AM, 201Mooniac said:

Not Mark but if you go to use a waypoint that doesn't exist in the database it will ask you if you want to create it.  When it asks you for the waypoint, just type in a name that doesn't exist such as USR123.  Once you define the point as either Rad/Dist, Rad/Rad, or Lat/Long you can then use it for creating a hold.

Exactly. 

Here it is in a GNS, GTN, G1000 and IFD (in which it’s a little different). The smaller Garmin units do it the same way as a GTN.

(BTW, the clearance is based on an older video - not mine - in which this clearance was given. )

 

 

[midlifeflyer]

20 hours ago, Marc_B said:

The two other ways I've added a user waypoint...

From Home --> Waypoint Info --> Create Waypoint.

From the Map you can touch an area of the map to enable either Create Waypoint & Graphically Edit FPL

Regardless of how you start the process, it takes you to the same "Create User Waypoint" screen.  There you can define the user waypoint by Lat/Lon, Radial/Radial, or Radial/Distance.  If using the map page pointer, that data will be prepopulated on the best way it comes up to define that, but you can change to whatever you'd like...so if you're on the map page I just use that on the fly.

You can, and with the IFD you have to. But it’s a bunch of extra steps. I use the “long way” when I’m creating a user waypoint for later use. If it’s for the current flight plan, I create it within the current flight plan.

[Jim Peace]

On 8/20/2024 at 9:26 PM, Vance Harral said:

Ideally the client has studied the the block diagram of their avionics installation - there's a good article advocating for this at https://www.ifr-magazine.com/avionics/avionics-systems-issues/. 

Where do you get that block diagram.  I have mostly Garmin and I have no diagram...

[Vance Harral]

11 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

Where do you get that block diagram.

The avionics shop that installs the equipment is supposed to provide you with updated schematics for your aircraft, as part of the installation.  But almost none of them do, which is an irritant.

The best practical advice I can give clients in your situation is to look at the installation manuals for their equipment, which often contain wiring diagrams that effectively serve as system block diagrams.  You may hear that Garmin is persnickety about this, and doesn't publish all their installation manuals - particularly for their GNS/GNX/GTN navigators.  But if you just want block diagrams rather than actually installing equipment, there's a workaround: Garmin sells their PFD/ADI/HSI products into both the certified and experimental market, so installation manuals for those products are downloadable, and those manuals contain system diagrams showing how the G5/GI275/G3X is connected to navigators and other equipment.

For example, if your airplane has dual G5s, you should look at Section 5 of https://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-01112-10_31.pdf.  In particular, Figure 5-12 on p.132 of that manual is a very common configuration for aftermarket dual G5 installations with a GNS/GNX/GTN navigator.

[Marc_B]

I came across another good thing to add to the advanced avionics IPC...probably good to review even if you don't have advanced avionics...

ODPs, Diverse Departures, and VCOAs:  These all have quirks that sometimes are difficult to integrate with the GPS.  i.e. an ODP may not appear in the GPS database but CAN often be programmed into the box.  i.e. a climbling turn to altitude X, then on VOR radial Y to the VORTAC and climbing in holding pattern different from the radial you just flew to the VORTAC on.  This allows reviewing and instruction on "Course to" as well as building holds.  Both of these things are something that we don't do frequently, but can be trained on the Garmin Trainer from the ground.

Follow up question...for all the CFI-I's who do IPCs/BFRs, how often do you pull in the Garmin Aviation Trainer into your ground instruction??  I would think that a list of tasks to demonstrate proficiency on with the trainer would be great instruction (and remediation) as well as a good look into the knowledge base of the pilot prior to hopping in the aircraft!

[Vance Harral]

27 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

how often do you pull in the Garmin Aviation Trainer into your ground instruction?

If you're talking about the full-blown GAT that runs on a PC, not very often.  The challenge with it is that the folks who would benefit the most, are generally too distracted by the fact that I can't make it exactly match their panel.  Mainly this involves the ADI/HSI display, but I also can't model the GNS navigators in it.

The PFD/MFD options in the trainer are the GDU 620 or the TXi system, but common equippage amonst my clients is G5/GI-275.  I can point out that a GDU 620 PFD is more or less the same view you'd get on a pair of G5s, but the buttons are different.  But the people who are fine with this are already pretty savvy with advanced avionics.  The people who most need training have a hard enough time with the equipment in their actual airplane, and the distraction of operating something different in the trainer is generally a net loss.

For the navigator, I can tell someone that the logic in a GTN is the same as the GNS.  But this is a hard sell, between the legitimate differences in the UI, and the inevitable "I hate touchscreens" side dish served up by the client.  So I have to go back to the really ancient PC trainer for the GNS navigators, or convince them to pony up $65/hour for the Redbird simulator at our local flight school - which has one simulated airplane that models GNS navigators and steam-gauge ADI/HSI, but almost never matches their airplane, much less their panel.

Adding all that up, the promise of simulation is usually greater than the actual benefit.  It's too bad, because I think simulation is a great tool.

I do wish Garmin would undertake the singular effort to add the "little" ADI/HSI instruments into their GAT (G5 and GI-275), but I'm not holding my breath.  Guessing there are technical challenges in doing so.  Really this just goes back to the baseline problem with advanced avionics training, which is that there's so much variation in the operation of each gizmo, that it's a problem even for the simulators and trainers.  It's diverse enough within the Garmin universe, that even Big G can't seem to release a trainer that covers the most common GA equippage.

[hammdo]

@Vance Harral, I believe this analysis is spot on. Sims are different than my panel - although I use the Garmin Trainer a lot to keep up with the ‘buttonology’. I have my Garmin trainer setup to use the GDU 700L as that is a close enough to my G5 (minus the Synth). I do all of my X-Country flights on that and in ForeFlight before taking trips. Helps a lot. I prefer to train in my plane often (every month) with my CFII - keeps me from getting behind the plane that way.

Sims miss the IMC part for me — that is a whole other ballgame. I use the Icarus when no IMC, that thing is really great!

-Don

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Marc_B said:

CFI-I's who do IPCs/BFRs, how often do you pull in the Garmin Aviation Trainer into your ground instruction?

Mostly for transition training but often enough. The room where I usually do ground and debriefings has a big TV on the wall. I can connect my iPad or laptop to it via HDMI so the Garmin and Avidyne trainers become great tools.

 

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

I do wish Garmin would undertake the singular effort to add the "little" ADI/HSI instruments into their GAT (G5 and GI-275), but I'm not holding my breath. 

That's doable with a laptop and Garmin's PC trainer. For people moving to a set of G5, GI 275, or G3X, it's not going to be perfect but the GDU 700P helps with translating things in the GPS onto a visually similar PFD.

[Vance Harral]

12 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

For people moving to a set of G5, GI 275, or G3X, it's not going to be perfect but the GDU 700P helps with translating things in the GPS onto a visually similar PFD.

Again, I don't find this to be true in practice for people who most need the training.  The visual display is similar, but the interface just isn't.  Think about what's required to set a VOR course using the (virtual) "OBS knob" on a G5 vs. a GDU 700.  Or to set a heading bug and the baro setting (two independent knobs on a dual G5, one singular knob on the GDU).

[midlifeflyer]

5 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

, I don't find this to be true in practice for people who most need the training. 

I haven't seen too many issues but yes, it can happen. Looking at a 700P and dual G5s, for example, some people see stark differences while others see a huge similarities.

I suspect those in the "most need the training" group are also in the "stark differences group." But even with them, I've found it very useful. Kind of like a Redbird ATD with avionics which almost but not quite emulate "real" avionics. 

 

[Marc_B]

I was just primarily thinking of the GTN programming, direct-to/course-to, holds, etc.  So could probably do what I was talking about through either the PC Garmin Aviation Trainer or the iPad GTN trainer.  I went to the TXi/Xi garmin onsite course, and probably most of what they taught could be replicated with the PC GAT, given that loading approaches, departures, arrivals, building flight plans, course-to, direct-to, etc are all done through the GTN.

For the PC GAT, you can choose from G500 TXi, GDU 620 (G500 legacy), GPS 175/GNC355/GNX375, GTN 750/650, GTN 750/650Xi.  I think that would capture quite a bit of the Garmin side of modern upgrades.  Of course doesn't include GNS430/530, and I'm surprised that they don't include the G3X with the PC GAT for flight display.

[Marc_B]

i.e. Program KFOM ODP departing runway 22.  You don't find this ODP in the GTN.  But you can program KFOM DTA..., then "direct-to" button and choose both the "course to" (332 deg course to for the R-152) as well as build the hold either here or from the flight plan by selecting DTA waypoint and "Hold at Waypoint" to build the hold.  The PFD is immaterial in this other than to confirm that your programming sequenced correctly.

I need to start building a list of tasks to program in that uses processes/programming/etc that we don't do routinely as a refresher.  Some procedures might not exist locally to train with an instructor, but would easily be able to set up with a PC trainer or simulator.