IMC with shotgun panel

AdamZ

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,869
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Who has flown in IMC with a shotgun panel and is really that much harder than with a six pack?
 
I wouldn't say it is harder just a little different.
I have only done it once, but I had several hours in the plane VFR before that so it was a non issue to me.
I personally would not jump in one with a shot gun panel and go directly into IMC the first time flying it. Just so you aren't "hunting" for the instruments in IMC.

Mark B
 
What you learned with, is what you think is standard.
 
I have, and it required a little more concentration since the scan pattern wasn't what I was used to. I wouldn't say it was "hard" however.
 
I've never heard of a shotgun panel. What is that?
 
Instruments in "non-standard" locations rather than the "6-pack" most of us are used to.
 
I have also, and I think you get used to whatever is in front of you after a while. The first time might be a little distracting though.
 
All seems to go well as long as you're ahead of the plane and ahead of the situation. Get behind either and a little confusion can quickly turn into a lot of confusion.

As with most things in aviation, this depends on the pilot and how he/she handles the situation at the moment.
 
AdamZ said:
Who has flown in IMC with a shotgun panel and is really that much harder than with a six pack?
Click to expand...

By itself, a "non-standard" arrangement isn't a big deal if you are only flying that configuration, but if you are mostly flying behind a 6 pack and only occasionally flying the scattered panel, you're likely to experience some difficulties. Even then, I suspect that once you have a few hours in simulated or actual IMC behind that panel, you'll be able to adapt fairly quickly, just don't launch into 200-1/2 when you're not "current" on the shotgun layout.

And if this is an airplane you have control over, it's often possible to juggle a few instruments and end up with something that's close enough to the standard that adaptation will be a non-issue. I flew for several years in an old Bonanza that I had done this with. The only departure from the standard was that the VSI was to the right of rather than below the altimeter and all the instruments were three inches to the right of the pilot's center. Switching from that to a Skylane or newer Bonanza was a complete non-issue.

In addition to the layout issues, older panels also often come with ribbon DGs, radios located in hard to reach places, and a marginal or no autopilot. I find those differences to be more significant than the placement of the gauges.
 
I have done it and will. Many times the plane I had available to rent, usually an old twin, was set up this way. Some old Cherokees and Comanches I've flown likewise. I like to sit in the plane on the ground, get a feel for the layout before I launch. I might do this a couple times. I do know pilots who won't fly them. But then, I know CFIs who tell me their primary students won't fly solo x-co without a GPS. And lately, I've heard a couple owners in my mechanic's shop say they will never, ever, ever, ever, fly IMC unless they are in a plane with a glass cockpit. Go figure.

And not quite off-topic, I took a neighbor pilot, from a hangar a few doors down from mine, up on a short flight in my 62 Baron. It has the standard panel layout [T layout] of instruments, and in fact everything on the panel is exactly where one would expect in a Baron. His problem? He said he would be very nervous to fly it x-co as it did not have a fuel totalizer.
 
Last edited:
Everyone draws the risk line differently. I'd rather share the sky only with those who are at top form, but given reality, I'd much rather have a pilot who underestimates his competence than one who overestimates it.

I won't fly my family in IMC without a functioning autopilot and at least my handheld GPS for situational awareness. Put me in the plane solo and I have a higher risk tolerance
 
TMetzinger said:
Everyone draws the risk line differently. I'd rather share the sky only with those who are at top form, but given reality, I'd much rather have a pilot who underestimates his competence than one who overestimates it.

I won't fly my family in IMC without a functioning autopilot and at least my handheld GPS for situational awareness. Put me in the plane solo and I have a higher risk tolerance
Click to expand...

Excellent post. The risk we are willing to take IMHO doesn't make us any better or any worse than another pilot. It is just what WE are willing to do.

Mark B
 
I used to switch from a "T" in the 182 to the shotgun in the Cherokee all the time. It's all in what you are used to. We even have an old style barrel DG in the 140, which stays true with minimal precession. The guys who aren't used to it invariably think we're turning the wrong way.

The 430 is the habit-forming little devil.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
We even have an old style barrel DG in the 140, which stays true with minimal precession. The guys who aren't used to it invariably think we're turning the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Oooh, I flew a C-206 for a couple years which had one of these. I got used to it eventually but it certainly wasn't my favorite thing. :no:

Of course there were a lot of other things about that particular airplane that I wasn't fond of either...
 
jesse said:
Hmm. The ASI is on the left...right where it always is...
Click to expand...
Oops! Sorry, I was staring at the tachometer. In that case, all are there in front of you. I pay attention to engine sound more than I do the tach once I've set it at cruise.

I squawked the ASI on the traffic plane the other day so I had that on my mind as I was looking at this panel.
 
lancefisher said:
By itself, a "non-standard" arrangement isn't a big deal if you are only flying that configuration, but if you are mostly flying behind a 6 pack and only occasionally flying the scattered panel, you're likely to experience some difficulties.
Click to expand...
You got it. I spent a couple of years jumping back and forth between six 6-pack D-model Aztecs and two shotgun C-model Aztecs (one of which had the weird old DG that looked and worked like a mag compass -- y'know, "backwards"). It was no fun at all. In addition, I got my IR in a 6-pack C-172 and then got into an older 180 Cherokee with a shotgun panel -- again, some adjustment required.

Fundamentally, I think that if you learn in either but stick with it, it's not a big deal, but switching requires some adjustment, and switching back and forth is an invitation to disaster. There are good reasons why the FAA made SWA turn their 737-300+ glass panels into a TV picture of a 737-200 6-pack panel (instead of a truly modern presentation) in order to keep the common type rating for all their pilots in all their planes.
 
Last edited:
KennyFlys said:
Oops! Sorry, I was staring at the tachometer. In that case, all are there in front of you. I pay attention to engine sound more than I do the tach once I've set it at cruise.

I squawked the ASI on the traffic plane the other day so I had that on my mind as I was looking at this panel.
Click to expand...

Cessna 150 with the standard six pack has the tach way the hell over on the right somewhere. That said the 150 panel isn't very big..so it's not really that far over.
 
jesse said:
Cessna 150 with the standard six pack has the tach way the hell over on the right somewhere. That said the 150 panel isn't very big..so it's not really that far over.
Click to expand...
The 172RGs were standard on the six pack but MP and Tach varied on a couple birds. That was a pain when switching back and forth almost every day.

No kidding about "the 150 panel isn't very big." I can't believe I ever squeezed into a 150 along with an instructor!
 
AdamZ said:
is really that much harder than with a six pack?
Click to expand...

no

I flew IFR quite a bit (in training) with this panel

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
This topic interests me, as I'm still thinking about buying a C140 and doing my IR in that. I have yet to see one with anything resembling a 6-pack; in fact the one IFR-legal C140 that I really want to have a look at has a panel that probably looks pretty crazy to anyone who trained on a 6-pack (see attached).

But the current owner and a few other 140 owners/pilots I've spoken to have ditto'd the thought mentioned above: the 6-pack is probably more efficient, hence its adoption, but it's what you learn on and fly often that counts.
Pilots flew for decades before the 6-pack in the clag with some very odd panel layouts, usually successfully. And there are still a few C-140 flyers out there shooting approaches with "shotgun" panels.

The only big challenge with training on a panel like this, I guess, would be making sure you don't move your head too much...but believe me, that panel is not very wide! :D
And at least this one has a VOR with GS, unlike the one Tim shows! :D
 

Attachments

  • N9458A-panel-small.jpg
    N9458A-panel-small.jpg
    199.8 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:
rottydaddy said:
T

The only big challenge with training on a panel like this, I guess, would be making sure you don't move your head too much...but believe me, that panel is not very wide! :D
And at least this one has a VOR with GS, unlike the one Tim shows! :D
Click to expand...

My CFII was of the grey-haired, old school variety who thought anything other than needle, ball and airspeed was "mollycoddling". He'd point at the AI and say, "cover that damn thing up. Waste of money".

Doesn't make much difference what the panel layout is when you can only use half the instruments.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
My CFII was of the grey-haired, old school variety who thought anything other than needle, ball and airspeed was "mollycoddling". He'd point at the AI and say, "cover that damn thing up. Waste of money".

Doesn't make much difference what the panel layout is when you can only use half the instruments.
Click to expand...
Lucky (?) you... that's good foundation-building, I guess, even if it takes years off your life. :D

What kind of airplane were those flights done in?
 
Fly different planes and it becomes second nature to SEE the instrument where ever it is. You look more for the inst rather than where it should be. The Bellanca is totally odd ball and the 150 is not much better. The VS is way down on the lower panel. On the Bellanca They have the ASI and VSI over one another along side the OBS and ALT. The DG and AI is off to the right in the center. It took a while but now I like it. It would not be fun however in IMC for the first time. On a second note would entering a plane for the first time in IMC be a good idea anyway.

Dan
 
Ditto,

I have flown a number of odd setups. The thing that kills me is the damn AIs which are black and blue.

~ Christopher
 
timwinters said:
That was on the 396 on the yoke!

My typical ILS approach to this day look like:
:rollercoaster:
Click to expand...

Duh! Should've realized that... I'm not very GPS-savvy.
I didn't know the 396 was legal for that...?

What was the trouble with shooting an ILS in that plane? The 396, the size of the plane, or...?
 
rottydaddy said:
Lucky (?) you... that's good foundation-building, I guess, even if it takes years off your life. :D

What kind of airplane were those flights done in?
Click to expand...

'66 Cherokee 140. IMHO good bird for IFR training. Fairly stable, and if you get a little inattentive IMC, will scream for attention before you build enough airspeed to get into real trouble.
 
rottydaddy said:
I didn't know the 396 was legal for that...?

What was the trouble with shooting an ILS in that plane? The 396, the size of the plane, or...?
Click to expand...


I almost put foot in mouth and castigated the use of a portable as an IFR source of navigation. However, according to this site, at least, the 396/496 are legal for IFR en route, terminal and approach navigation.

I was 100% sure this was not the case, however, the 396s I have seen, with panel adapters all still have "VFR only" placards.

Still, damn . . . guess it's time to get the 396.

~ Christopher
 
Last edited:
jwriteclub said:
I almost put foot in mouth and castigated the use of a portable as an IFR source of navigation. However, according to this site, at least, the 396/496 are legal for IFR en route, terminal and approach navigation.

I was 100% sure this was not the case, however, the 396s I have seen, with panel adapters all still have "VFR only" placards.

Still, damn . . . guess it's time to get the 396.

~ Christopher
Click to expand...

That site is not garmin's website. It is an April fools joke from 2007. They are NOT approved for IFR navigation.
 
Last edited:
rottydaddy said:
Duh! Should've realized that... I'm not very GPS-savvy.
I didn't know the 396 was legal for that...?
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed...I said I flew a bunch of IFR in that bird in training. That would be in VFR conditions, with a safety pilot (my instructor). The only approach I could legally fly in that plane in IMC was a VOR approach.

rottydaddy said:
What was the trouble with shooting an ILS in that plane? The 396, the size of the plane, or...?
Click to expand...

...the pilot!:yes:
 
By the way...

Here's the rest of that plane. I truly wish I still had her. She was a lot of fun...and my first love.

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top