Glass, or Steam?

[Positive Rate]

Hello Flight Instructors!

I plan to start flight instruction in about 9 months from now. I'll be spending roughly two (2) full years dedicated to obtaining all of my ratings and learning as much as I can about General Aviation. Afterwards, I'll be doing a lot of private flying and quite a bit of business flying for myself. I have a lot of questions. The first thing I'd like to know however, has to do with Avionics and Instruments.

During my research, I came across a few interesting facts:

1) The FAA set out to officially decommission all VORs back in 2012. I assume that is an ongoing project for them.

2) Garmin decided to officially decommission its GNS 430 and GNS 530 series product line.

3) Many GA flight training aircraft have been retrofitted with the Garmin GNS 430 and GNS 530.

Over the next 8-9 months before my flight training begins, I plan to do a lot of simulated flying to get familiar with procedures and to start developing good mental habits with respect to avionics and instrument operations.

Ok, so based on all that, I essentially have three (3) questions for you:

a) What are the absolute essential avionics and essential instruments that I should spend most of my time learning inside and out?

b) What are the absolute essential avionics and essential instruments needed to conduct VFR and IFR operations?

c) Should I take these 8-9 months and spend my time learning the G1000 operations, or should I spend that time learning conventional steam gauges coupled with GNS 430 and GNS 530 WAAS instruments?

Please note that the future aircraft that I will be flying will have either the G1000, or the G3000 EFIS with a few back-up steam gauges.

Thank you.

 

[alfadog]

Not a CFI but do want to make one point.

Glass vs. steam is not only about navigation. In fact, I would argue that glass vs. steam is is not really about navigation at all. I do not remember VORs, DME, ADFs, etc being termed "steam".

I, personally, cannot stand simulated flying but if you like it then go for it. My point is simply that, when it comes to stick and rudder skills and flying the airplane VFR, you can, to a large extent, throw all the considerations about what nav equipment is in the airplane out the window. Learn to fly the airplane and learn to navigate by dr and pilotage. Later in your training, you can get to electronic nav equipment but dr and pilotage are always your fallback techniques.

For me glass vs. steam is about how you want to interact with the airplane. I prefer steam. Others do not, no prob.

 

[Ted]

Personally, I would recommend learning on steam gauges rather than glass. The gauges themselves have little to do with navigation equipment, and I think it's an easy transition from steam to glass. Glass adds a bunch of extra features that you'll need to know how to work. Steam less so. Additionally, planes with steam gauges will probably rent for less, allowing you to spend less money on your ratings.

The 430/530 will be around for years to come yet, and are probably the best GPSs to know how to operate since you'll find them in about every airplane. The 650/750 will take their place, but you'll see 430/530s for a long time. In fact, we are installing a 430W in our plane to compliment the 530W instead of a 650. Why? I know how to use the 430/530 series very well, and don't want to have a second GPS that operates differently in there. That creates a human factors issue.

Everyone's flying is different. If you're talking about private flying and intend to buy your own plane, then that's what you're going to fly as far as equipment goes. So if you think you're always going to own an airplane with glass and that's all you'll ever fly, then go for it.

If you're going to be flying other people's planes, it's a pretty good bet that you're going to be flying ones with crappy avionics at some point or another, this is why it's important to have a good breadth of avionics knowledge. You'll want to understand how to use VORs (they're not dead yet), shoot an ILS, shoot WAAS and standard GPS approaches, etc.

 

[poadeleted20]

1) The FAA set out to officially decommission all VORs back in 2012. I assume that is an ongoing project for them.

The FAA set out to officially decommission all NDB's back in the 70's. That project is still ongoing. Don't expect VOR's to go away for a few decades.

2) Garmin decided to officially decommission its GNS 430 and GNS 530 series product line.

...and replace it with the GTN650/750, which are essentially similar with the addition of the touchscreen.

a) What are the absolute essential avionics and essential instruments that I should spend most of my time learning inside and out?

Whatever is installed in the aircraft in which you are training.

b) What are the absolute essential avionics and essential instruments needed to conduct VFR and IFR operations?

Those are listed in the regulations -- 14 CFR 91.205, to be exact. That said, you may find a more extensive avionics package to be useful and to improve pilot workload and operational capability. Personally, I'd say anyone contemplating serious IFR operations in a light plane today should be looking for at least two comm radios, two VOR's, an IFR GPS with WAAS, a transponder, and a good audio control panel/intercom. Backup vacuum or a backup attitude indicator would also be a very good idea.

c) Should I take these 8-9 months and spend my time learning the G1000 operations, or should I spend that time learning conventional steam gauges coupled with GNS 430 and GNS 530 WAAS instruments?

Depends what's in the plane in which you train, and that should be selected based on what you plan to fly in the future. As a working instrument instructor, I'm happy teaching you in whatever you have, but it's important that you learn the system you do have.

Please note that the future aircraft that I will be flying will have either the G1000, or the G3000 EFIS with a few back-up steam gauges.

In that case, you should do your training in a G1000 aircraft, and that means learning the G1000 system.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Over the next 8-9 months before my flight training begins, I plan to do a lot of simulated flying to get familiar with procedures and to start developing good mental habits with respect to avionics and instrument operations.

Hello dude!

I ain't no flight instructor, but one thing I will point out - for some it appears to be easy to learn to rely on instruments when you are flying a simulator. That is a bad mental habit that you may have to unlearn when you get in an airplane where you need your head outside the cockpit in VFR conditions so you don't run me down from behind.

YMMV

 

[timwinters]

Learn to fly in a taildragger with inop gauges.

You'll really learn how to fly!

 

[MAKG1]

Simulators have a few specific uses, but they are largely limited to IFR. You can learn how to use a VOR. You can't learn how to flare, and in some simulators, you can't even use the rudder correctly. It trains in seriously bad habits like uncoordinated flight and especially heads down flying. Expect negative benefits.

For national security reasons, GPS will never be the exclusive method of navigation. That means a VOR network for the foreseeable future.

Train in what you will fly if you know. But make sure you really know, not just assume. Most rental aircraft are 35 years old or older. And glass panels get obsolete quickly, and make further temptation to stare inside the aircraft.

I think you're missing the point of flying. You fly an airplane, not a panel. And for the first half of your training, possibly much more, your navigation equipment is the Mark I Eyeball.

What do you need? To start, a tachometer and airspeed indicator. Once you get some feel for the aircraft, not even that. 14 CFR 91.205 has a list of things that must be installed and working for VFR flight. That they work at takeoff is no guarantee they work 10 seconds later. You must become capable of surviving a blown circuit breaker or a bug in the pitot tube.

Oh, and you also need a decent pair of sunglasses (NONpolarized if you're going to insist on all those LCDs), and at least a borrowed aviation headset.

You can use your time more productively by taking a discovery flight so you can see just how wrong the simulator is, and by studying the Airplane Flying Handbook and Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Both of those are free on the FAA website, or published cheaply in paper form.

 

[clawz]

Simulators have a few specific uses, but they are largely limited to IFR. You can learn how to use a VOR. You can't learn how to flare, and in some simulators, you can't even use the rudder correctly. It trains in seriously bad habits like uncoordinated flight and especially heads down flying. Expect negative benefits.

Just wanted to back this statement up. I just started flight school and the sim's really do not do the real thing justice.

For example, in FSX, full realism mode, with one of the most popular Cessna 172 payware packages out there, there is an extreme difference between how the rudder reacts compared to the real thing. In the sim you barely apply rudder input and the turn coordinator ball goes crazy but in the real plane it actually takes a good bit of rudder input or quick bank changes to get that thing swinging around.

There are plenty of examples of this so I instantly stopped the sim stuff for anything other then goofing around here and there.

Just my 1.1 hours worth Be safe up there.

 

[MAKG1]

In the sim you barely apply rudder input and the turn coordinator ball goes crazy but in the real plane it actually takes a good bit of rudder input or quick bank changes to get that thing swinging around.

In real life, the control surfaces and the "ball" can move on their own. Wait until summer afternoons to experience that one.

I've never seen a simulator that has an accurate force feedback for the feel of pulling the aircraft out of pitch trim, or adverse yaw in a steep turn. For some aircraft (e.g., 182), the control pressures are quite strong, but even in a light trainer with very light action, you fly by feeling pressure in the yoke.

A joystick spring just isn't even close. Even a "yoke" like the CH one feels like a spring; quite wrong.

And you keep the blue side up VFR in two ways -- by feeling the forces (to keep it coordinated) and by looking at the horizon. You need both of these VFR. In IMC, you use the artificial horizon and several supporting instruments instead of the real horizon, and you try to ignore your butt because it's often wrong with no visual references. Home simulators don't have that, and the really expensive full motion simulators only approximate it (there is no way to "pull Gs" on one for more than a second or so, and even those require multistory buildings to pull off). This makes it appear that flying is a lot easier -- and different -- than it actually is. IRL, a 60 deg coordinated steep turn pulls two G's, and the experience is on another planet from a home simulator.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Just wanted to back this statement up. I just started flight school and the sim's really do not do the real thing justice.

How did you feel when you first sat down in the left seat? I suspect that some time playing with a simulator would reduce the tendency to be overwhelmed when you get in the seat and look at the panel.

But, yes, based on my limited experience, using something like MSFS on your own teaches you nothing about how to do things like landing a real airplane. But it does sound like the O.P. will be doing some research on "how things are done" and not just using the "lets see what happens when I do this" approach. (I hope)

 

[MAKG1]

I did something similar when I started training, which is why I'm so down on simulators for primary training.

The only thing that the simulator really helped was understanding the radio stack, including the basics of VOR navigation -- but I still had the bad habit of not identifying the VOR before using it (and I didn't even have the opportunity until after the first dual cross-country). The first flight was still a massive firehose of information. I had figured out that trim was key to a non-faceplant landing, so remembering to do that all the time was a habit. But I wasn't doing it correctly because you can't feel the control pressures in the sim.

The sim cost me some time, but I don't think it was much. Basically, I had to forget everything I "knew," which wasn't difficult after the first flight, when I figured out the sim was Bravo Sierra.

 

[GCA319]

Flying is expensive and most G1000 planes are quite a bit more per hour than their steam counterparts. Makes it a pretty easy decision IMO...Unless of course you do your private in an LSA with a Dynon, then you'll be learning in a glass cockpit and paying less per hour than you would for a 30 year old 172 with steam.

 

[Henning]

You obviously have a mission for a plane, so go ahead and buy an S-35 Bonanza and put an SVT glass panel in it and train in it from day one. You will find it will take much less than 2 years, 100hrs and you will be doing everything you want to be doing. Buy your last plane first and train in it from day one. It will provide the best long term value in both cost and competency.

 

[TMetzinger]

You obviously have a mission for a plane, so go ahead and buy an S-35 Bonanza and put an SVT glass panel in it and train in it from day one. You will find it will take much less than 2 years, 100hrs and you will be doing everything you want to be doing. Buy your last plane first and train in it from day one. It will provide the best long term value in both cost and competency.

This is correct, with one caveat. Expect your training to take a little longer as you'll be training in a more complex airplane. You won't solo as quickly, and you won't take your checkride as soon. However, you'll be done sooner overall (all your ratings and necessary experience for insurance) than someone who goes through several airplanes during the process.

 

[Henning]

This is correct, with one caveat. Expect your training to take a little longer as you'll be training in a more complex airplane. You won't solo as quickly, and you won't take your checkride as soon. However, you'll be done sooner overall (all your ratings and necessary experience for insurance) than someone who goes through several airplanes during the process.

I'll bet a person can be soloed in a Bo as fast or faster than in a 152. Bo is a much easier plane to land. If you make your first take off with the gear switch, you never learned any different. I say the complexity in equipment (or lack there of really) is negated by it's ease of handling.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'll bet a person can be soloed in a Bo as fast or faster than in a 152. Bo is a much easier plane to land. If you make your first take off with the gear switch, you never learned any different. I say the complexity in equipment (or lack there of really) is negated by it's ease of handling.

Before I sign someone off to solo a retract, they'll have to do all the stuff for the solo, AND all the stuff for the complex endorsement. That alone will increase the time for solo.

Land the plane? Sure. Deal with the gear in normal operations, sure.

But a solo pilot has to be able to describe the gear system, the CS prop, and explain and demonstrate how to deal with situations where those things don't work as expected. That's gonna add some time.

Again, it's just a matter of setting expectations. No, Johnny, you probably won't solo in eight hours like Sammy in the C152. But while Sammy's taking dual X/Cs to build up the 50 hours Complex time to meet the insurance requirements, you'll already have it, so you'll be off flying your missions much sooner doing all your training in this airplane from the start.

 

[Henning]

Before I sign someone off to solo a retract, they'll have to do all the stuff for the solo, AND all the stuff for the complex endorsement. That alone will increase the time for solo.

Land the plane? Sure. Deal with the gear in normal operations, sure.

But a solo pilot has to be able to describe the gear system, the CS prop, and explain and demonstrate how to deal with situations where those things don't work as expected. That's gonna add some time.

Again, it's just a matter of setting expectations. No, Johnny, you probably won't solo in eight hours like Sammy in the C152. But while Sammy's taking dual X/Cs to build up the 50 hours Complex time to meet the insurance requirements, you'll already have it, so you'll be off flying your missions much sooner doing all your training in this airplane from the start.

I still say the complex part can be taught in the time saved learning to land, the Bonanza's gear system is as simple as it gets, everything including setting the limit switches and checking the ADs can be covered in 20 minutes, and that is ground work.

 

[stearmann4]

Learn to fly in a taildragger with inop gauges. You'll really learn how to fly!

Actually, I agree with this, but it may not be an option for you. I fly glass for a living and I teach in antique steam (if any) gauged airplanes so I get to see both sides of ther argument.

If you are enrollling in some ab-inito program that's going to specifically groom you for an airline career than by all means go for the glass (Technically Advanced Aircraft) However, it bears mentioning after compiling 7 years of data on accdient reports stemming from glass cockpit aircraft the FAA has recommended pilots fly more "raw data" /steam gauges as there has been a marked degree of basic airmanship that has been lost through the proliferation of automation and flight director cues to the point where some several examiners have noticed applicants unable to fly fly a simple VFR manuever without heading, airspeed and altitude cues, and a moving map.

So, if I were you, I'd go enroll to fly the cheapest C-150 available, get your license, enjoy your freedon and you'll have a better perspective on what you want to do in aviation. My guess is it'll save you hundreds if not thousands of rental dollars when it's all said and done.

Mike-

 

[Henning]

Actually, I agree with this, but it may not be an option for you. I fly glass for a living and I teach in antique steam (if any) gauged airplanes so I get to see both sides of ther argument.

If you are enrollling in some ab-inito program that's going to specifically groom you for an airline career than by all means go for the glass (Technically Advanced Aircraft) However, it bears mentioning after compiling 7 years of data on accdient reports stemming from glass cockpit aircraft the FAA has recommended pilots fly more "raw data" /steam gauges as there has been a marked degree of basic airmanship that has been lost through the proliferation of automation and flight director cues to the point where some several examiners have noticed applicants unable to fly fly a simple VFR manuever without heading, airspeed and altitude cues, and a moving map.

So, if I were you, I'd go enroll to fly the cheapest C-150 available, get your license, enjoy your freedon and you'll have a better perspective on what you want to do in aviation. My guess is it'll save you hundreds if not thousands of rental dollars when it's all said and done.

Mike-

Flying 'raw data' and flight director cues has nothing to do with glass, turn the autopilot off. BTW, not all glass is equal, there is 3D SVT glass and there is 2D 'digital steam'.

 

[Alexb2000]

If I were planning to do my own flying I would go with glass from the get go. The G500-600 retrofit can make just about any bird glass so that really isn't a limitation anymore. There is more to flying glass than just going point A to point B using the same navaids you would in a steam aircraft. There is a learning curve to really take advantage of all the things glass can do. Coming from steam it took me a long time to do this myself. Go fly with someone at night or in low IMC and I'm sure you'll appreciate the value of glass.

 

[John Baker]

Go to John's post #2. Your getting way ahead of yourself. Learn to fly the airplane, then master dead reckoning and pilotage.

You first must be able to fly an airplane from A to B without the aid of any instruments other than engine indicators, fuel indicators, which you should never believe, a compass, a chart, and a watch.

The only instrument you should be learning to master at this point is a manual E-6B.

Do not waste your money on an electronic E-6B, they are pretty much worthless in bumpy, stressful conditions.

-John

 

[dtuuri]

I'll be spending roughly two (2) full years dedicated to obtaining all of my ratings and learning as much as I can about General Aviation.

Good attitude. It tells me you aren't interested in limiting your skills to one model of hi-tech avionics suite. Also, you want to understand "general aviation", not merely avionics. So, use airplanes most appropriate to your ascending levels on the learning curve. Do you want your initially inevitable hard landings while drifting sideways to be in a more delicate retractable-gear airplane or in a rugged two-place trainer built for it? Do you want your first airplane purchase to be an expensive one, or would you rather learn how to appraise them with less financial risk first? Same goes for the proper care and feeding (maintenance) of it--are you going to throw yourself to the wolves (A&Ps) without any sense of reasonable costs?

I say enjoy the variety of learning experiences different airplanes offer you. If it were me, I'D GET A TAILDRAGGER to start. And a paper sectional. And a paper E-6b.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

I'll bet a person can be soloed in a Bo as fast or faster than in a 152.

My experience as a CFI (some 40 years and 3000 hours) tells me zero to solo in a complex/HP aircraft like a Bonanza will take at least twice as long as in a simple plane like a 152. Tell us, please, how many people you've signed off for solo in either, and in what times it was accomplished.


Oh, sorry -- I forgot -- you've never had a CFI ticket, so you've never soloed anyone in anything.

 

[iflyforfun]

Learn to fly in a taildragger with inop gauges.

You'll really learn how to fly!

Not the way I learned, but a few years later I got the opportunity to fly a J-3 from the back seat. The gauges can be fully functional ... doesn't matter if you can't see them.

Transitioning from a Velocity to a J-3 was a ball of fun. I had never really considered that you could fly a plane without any instruments other than a compass ... really cool.

 

[Lil Pill]

Not the way I learned, but a few years later I got the opportunity to fly a J-3 from the back seat. The gauges can be fully functional ... doesn't matter if you can't see them.

Transitioning from a Velocity to a J-3 was a ball of fun. I had never really considered that you could fly a plane without any instruments other than a compass ... really cool.

I have to agree here completely. When I was a CFI many moons ago, I had the opportunity to transition to some tailwheel flying myself in an old Luscombe. The old coot covered up all instruments and taught me for the first time what "attitude" flying is all about. It changed how I approached flying completely and I still am grateful to this day that I was lucky enough to have been exposed to such old school skills...

I can still hear that guy...don't worry about your airspeed or power setting...if it looks and sounds right, it's right, if it's not, make it right! Works in every plane I've flown since, no matter how big or fast.

He showed me the difference between being an aviator vs just a system's operator that fine morning.

 

[Henning]

My experience as a CFI (some 40 years and 3000 hours) tells me zero to solo in a complex/HP aircraft like a Bonanza will take at least twice as long as in a simple plane like a 152. Tell us, please, how many people you've signed off for solo in either, and in what times it was accomplished.


Oh, sorry -- I forgot -- you've never had a CFI ticket, so you've never soloed anyone in anything.

How many students have you taken from zero to solo in a Bo?

 

[hindsight2020]

I know this doesn't pertain to training or VMC intensive environment, but I think the glass is worth it for the AHRS you're flying behind of. Flying IMC behind mechanical pneumatic gyros is russian roulette man. Even on a good day, mech gyros are wonky enough to never really give you a tight heading and attitude representation without some constant form of compensation on your part as a pilot in order to fly precisely. It's a PITA. When I flew solo it was cool to play chicken with the leans and de facto full-time partial panel.Now with the fam on board, I want accuracy and better reliability, which leads to lessened workload during single pilot IMC.

View attachment untitled.bmp

 

[tmyers]

Doesn't the FAA require that the electronic displays have some back up from the wonky instruments? Wonder why?

 

[redtail]

I know this doesn't pertain to training or VMC intensive environment, but I think the glass is worth it for the AHRS you're flying behind of. Flying IMC behind mechanical pneumatic gyros is russian roulette man. Even on a good day, mech gyros are wonky enough to never really give you a tight heading and attitude representation without some constant form of compensation on your part as a pilot in order to fly precisely. It's a PITA. When I flew solo it was cool to play chicken with the leans and de facto full-time partial panel.Now with the fam on board, I want accuracy and better reliability, which leads to lessened workload during single pilot IMC.

View attachment 29103

How do you deal with a AHRS failure? Just curious. I haven't started IFR training yet.

Edit: Not talking about Attitude, Airspeed & Altitude (standby instruments). I'm talking about flying an instrument approach, (precision).

 

[MAKG1]

Better reliability on a single point of failure?

Might want to rethink that a bit.

You're not flying behind pneumatic gyros. You're flying behind two pneumatic gyros and one electric gyro, plus several pressure-sensing instruments and one magnetic sensing instrument.

These almost never fail all at once. An AHRS can.

 

[John Baker]

At the stage of training the OP is at, glass or steam have little to do with anything. First, he must learn to fly an airplane with confidence. Basic navigating, pilotage and dead reckoning must also be mastered, so if things go wrong on his panel, it is not a genuine emergency.

Leaning to fly by glass or steam are skills that can be picked up fairly rapidly, they are not rocket science, much like learning to fly complex. All it takes is a little practice with a CFI.

This guy is at the very beginning, glass or steam are not much of a factor at this point. If his first trainer is glass, fine, so what? If his first trainer is steam, fine, so what?

If he has time to sit and fiddle needlessly with a simulator, he has time to master an E-6B. He has time to study for his written, he has time to get a medical. He can do those things without spending very much, and it is what he has to do, there is no getting out of it, no matter what kind of airplane he thinks he might end up with.

-John

 

[redtail]

Better reliability on a single point of failure?

Might want to rethink that a bit.

You're not flying behind pneumatic gyros. You're flying behind two pneumatic gyros and one electric gyro, plus several pressure-sensing instruments and one magnetic sensing instrument.

These almost never fail all at once. An AHRS can.

That would be my biggest concern! I've had it fail on me once just after my runup. I pulled the breakers then reset them, which cleared the problem.

 

[Henning]

Doesn't the FAA require that the electronic displays have some back up from the wonky instruments? Wonder why?

You can use redundant electronics, no worries. Things fail regardless of build. If you have a component that 'can't fail', you install redundancy or even triple redundant 'odd man out' redundancy. Nothing says that my back up instruments need to be mechanical, that's just the way things usually are because it's the cheaper way to go. I know Av Shilo's Comanche is 'all SVT' now, the only round gauge left on his panel is the flap indicator.

 

[poadeleted20]

Doesn't the FAA require that the electronic displays have some back up from the wonky instruments?

No. The backup instrumentation may be electrically powered if it has an independent redundant electrical power source.

 

[poadeleted20]

How do you deal with a AHRS failure?

You use the backup AI for attitude, the mag compass and GPS track data to replace the HSI display for directional control, and the CDI display to replace the HSI display for angular cross-track error data.

 

[Ted]

Doesn't the FAA require that the electronic displays have some back up from the wonky instruments? Wonder why?

You can use redundant electronics, no worries. Things fail regardless of build. If you have a component that 'can't fail', you install redundancy or even triple redundant 'odd man out' redundancy. Nothing says that my back up instruments need to be mechanical, that's just the way things usually are because it's the cheaper way to go. I know Av Shilo's Comanche is 'all SVT' now, the only round gauge left on his panel is the flap indicator.

No. The backup instrumentation may be electrically powered if it has an independent redundant electrical power source.

True for our aircraft. In the transport category world, though, they still have little gyros for AI, ASI, and altimeter. They're pretty ridiculous from what I've seen, but they're there.

 

[poadeleted20]

True for our aircraft. In the transport category world, though, they still have little gyros for AI, ASI, and altimeter.

...and just like ours, those are powered by independent redundant sources. Only difference is they must have three AI's compared to our two.

 

[Ted]

...and just like ours, those are powered by independent redundant sources. Only difference is they must have three AI's compared to our two.

...and the power sources for their panels are double/triple/quadruple redundant.

 

[redtail]

You use the backup AI for attitude, the mag compass and GPS track data to replace the HSI display for directional control, and the CDI display to replace the HSI display for angular cross-track error data.

Thanks Ron. So that must be pretty challenging and I'm assuming you'd have no autopilot under an AHRS failure, right?

How do you simulate that during a lesson, pull the AHRS breakers?

Or is that an instructor's secret I shouldn't know

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks Ron. So that must be pretty challenging

Frankly, no, compared to flying needle/ball/airspeed in a conventional instrument aircraft. You've still got the backup AI for attitude plus the GPS navigation, directional information, and situational awareness. Beats the heck out of nothing but airspeed, altimeter, TC, VSI, and a VOR.

and I'm assuming you'd have no autopilot under an AHRS failure, right?

Correct.

How do you simulate that during a lesson, pull the AHRS breakers?

Yes, if possible.

For G1000's, it's easy in a Diamond, as the c/b's are right in front of the instructor (and not where the trainee will see you doing it). Hard in a Cirrus as you're risking charges of sexual assault to reach the c/b's, and even then, it's hard to see which c/b you're pulling. Also, the Cirrus Perspective has dual AHRS, so you have to kill both (realistic? ) to get to that situation. And Cessna says not to do it by c/b, so you have to come up with an overlay to hang from the comm/nav freq knobs to cover the instruments of interest.

Avidyne is another story. For a Rev7 Avidyne, you better be done with the AHRS for the rest of the flight since once killed, it's dead until you get on the ground for realignment. Not sure about the Rev9 system -- haven't dealt with one yet.