Instrument Scan with 1 or 2 G5s?

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Keeping scan discipline with 6 pack steam gauges is what I’m learning on. I imagine one of the big screen PFDs would make that aspect easier, but what about a tiny G5, or two? Do you just “stare” at G5? Is it easier?

 

[Boone]

Keeping scan discipline with 6 pack steam gauges is what I’m learning on. I imagine one of the big screen PFDs would make that aspect easier, but what about a tiny G5, or two? Do you just “stare” at G5? Is it easier?

You learn to get the information from where it’s displayed. Your scan adapts as necessary. Even if it’s one display with most of the information, you still look at what you need to know. Staring isn’t scanning.

 

[GRG55]

I don't have experience with the G5, but on the G1000 those vertical tapes for airspeed and altitude drive me crazy in turbulence. I revert to the analogue backup gauges. I'm sure the folks that learned on glass to start, or transitioned early in their flying, cope much better.

And I am toying with the idea of installing an upgrade in the Aztec, but the other 4 analogue gauges will still be there paired on either side.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I was thinking from a peripheral vision standpoint.

My eyeballs move from gauge to gauge in my plane. With a 10” PFD, my eyeballs would still move I’m guessing due to the display size, but maybe easier due to the visual cue, tapes, etc. Was thinking the G5 there is no real eyeball movement and you can “see it all” at once?

 

[dmspilot]

I was thinking from a peripheral vision standpoint.

My eyeballs move from gauge to gauge in my plane. With a 10” PFD, my eyeballs would still move I’m guessing due to the display size, but maybe easier due to the visual cue, tapes, etc. Was thinking the G5 there is no real eyeball movement and you can “see it all” at once?

I don't really think human physiology will allow it to work that way, you still have to move your eyes even though it's a shorter distance.

 

[schmookeeg]

I just did some checkouts in a Baron with the dual G5 setup. I found myself scanning the rest of the six per normal and using the upper G5 for attitude only and lower G5 for HSI.

It actually turned me off of the idea of "only two G5s" as a replacement for the entire six pack. I love clean panels, so this surprised me.

 

[Salty]

I just did some checkouts in a Baron with the dual G5 setup. I found myself scanning the rest of the six per normal and using the upper G5 for attitude only and lower G5 for HSI.

It actually turned me off of the idea of "only two G5s" as a replacement for the entire six pack. I love clean panels, so this surprised me.

I’ve been struggling to stay on altitude under the hood. The Mooney is pitch sensitive, but obviously I wasn’t keeping up my scan. Last flight I failed the AI G5 and flew with no AI and I kept altitude about perfect. My theory is it was because the analog gauges are easier to detect subtle changes. It also could have been due to higher vigilance not having an AI, but I think the former has more to do with it.

 

[Groundpounder]

It's just a matter of getting used to the sight picture.

I transitioned from this:



To this:



After over 1000 hours in the first cockpit, it was a bit tough adjusting my scan, but it was second nature after about 100 hours or so. The more you fly with it, the quicker you will get used to it.

 

[FORANE]

Keeping scan discipline with 6 pack steam gauges is what I’m learning on. I imagine one of the big screen PFDs would make that aspect easier, but what about a tiny G5, or two? Do you just “stare” at G5? Is it easier?

I have a grt hx efis plus g5 plus dynon d3.
The grt provides synthetic vision which is great but harder for me to interpret in imc. I set the g5 and dynon to blue over brown attitude only. With one on right and the other on the left, it is very easy for my peripheral vision to interpret correct attitude.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't have experience with the G5, but on the G1000 those vertical tapes for airspeed and altitude drive me crazy in turbulence. I revert to the analogue backup gauges. I'm sure the folks that learned on glass to start, or transitioned early in their flying, cope much better.

I absolutely agree that the altitude tape is one of the more difficult things to get used to (it should always be bugged). Airspeed tape a bit less so, unless one of the (common) errors is chasing perfection So one of the things I do in glass transition training is cover the analog instruments.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My theory is it was because the analog gauges are easier to detect subtle changes.

I think you are right. There are detectable subtle changes in both systems, but the learned skill to note and react appropriately is substantially different. So someone used to one has at least initial difficulty with the other.

 

[kayoh190]

Our club 172s each have a pair of G5s installed. For the life of me I can't get the airspeed and altitude tapes integrated into my scan. I'll always defer to the analog gauges on either side. Perhaps it's because the analog instruments are generally placed where the tapes would be on the bigger glass displays that I'm used to, I dunno.

 

[PPC1052]

I was thinking from a peripheral vision standpoint.

My eyeballs move from gauge to gauge in my plane. With a 10” PFD, my eyeballs would still move I’m guessing due to the display size, but maybe easier due to the visual cue, tapes, etc. Was thinking the G5 there is no real eyeball movement and you can “see it all” at once?

We just put a pair of G5s this year in the Cardinal you saw when I bought your old Michelle TKM. I am not fully acclimated yet. It's nice that all the information is on one screen. The hardest part of the transition is how much more sensitive they are than the original analogue gauges. Any little changes shows up right away, and so it's easy to start overcorrecting.

 

[PPC1052]

My theory is it was because the analog gauges are easier to detect subtle changes.

I actually think it's the opposite. Every little change in attitude is more evident immediately, and you end up over-correcting trying to chase it.

Last flight I failed the AI G5 and flew with no AI and I kept altitude about perfect.

That you flew better without the AI might be indicative of overcorrecting due to the above. Not sure. Just something to consider.

 

[Salty]

I actually think it's the opposite. Every little change in attitude is more evident immediately, and you end up over-correcting trying to chase it.

I don't disagree, I think it's just a different way of looking at it. My brain can determine a change in altitude or airspeed much quicker with an analog gauge. If the needle is straight down I'm at x500 feet. A little to the right I'm descending, etc.... With the tape, it's constantly bobbing around and it's harder to detect a trend.

 

[PPC1052]

With the tape, it's constantly bobbing around and it's harder to detect a trend.

Yeah, I think that is exactly it. Thanks.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I was thinking from a peripheral vision standpoint.

My eyeballs move from gauge to gauge in my plane. With a 10” PFD, my eyeballs would still move I’m guessing due to the display size, but maybe easier due to the visual cue, tapes, etc. Was thinking the G5 there is no real eyeball movement and you can “see it all” at once?

You might be able to see it “all at once”, but your brain can’t process it that way. You’ve got to process each instrument individually, so you end up needing a scan to do that.

 

[Ryan F.]

I have one G5 with the HSI going in January -- install date has been set and equipment ordered.

I've done some flying in dual-G5 airplanes. I generally tend to reference the traditional airspeed indicator and altimeter which are placed in their usual locations to the left and right of the ADI. But, I have started using the tapes a bit more.

It's hard to think in terms of the adjustment to the scan in a conscious way. I think many pilots who fly for work develop a scan which is hard to even describe -- it just 'happens' without any mental effort. I can use the tapes, and sometimes do; I more often reference the legacy instrumentation for those functions, but not always; and in my mind the ADI/HSI are just that for the most part. The additional data is more for SA than anything else.

Even the G5s, which are a bit more decluttered and easier to utilize as a "PFD" vs. the GI275, are slightly small for me to rely on for that function. It may be the fact that I'm accustomed to much larger displays and my brain rejects the tiny data fields, or maybe it's just that my 45-year old eyes can't handle it. Could be these little PFDs are a young man/woman's game now. But for ADI/HSI they're just right.

 

[FORANE]

maybe it's just that my 45-year old eyes can't handle it. Could be these little PFDs are a young man/woman's game now. But for ADI/HSI they're just right.

Whipper snapper, get off my lawn!

 

[Deelee]

I’m in the same camp as a few others who have posted. We have an Aspen EFD 1000 with speed and altitude tapes. Also have the analogue ASI and altimeter In their usual places left and right of the Aspen. Maybe I haven’t fully transitioned yet, but my eyes always go to the analog ASI and altimeter.

maybe covering these on a training flight would help get the scan narrowed to the Aspen. Maybe after I pass the IR check ride though. Don’t want to mess with learning a new scan beforehand.

 

[dmspilot]

The primary-supporting technique isn't well suited to a glass panel, use the control-performance method.

 

[AlphaMike]

I don't disagree, I think it's just a different way of looking at it. My brain can determine a change in altitude or airspeed much quicker with an analog gauge. If the needle is straight down I'm at x500 feet. A little to the right I'm descending, etc.... With the tape, it's constantly bobbing around and it's harder to detect a trend.

That's exactly how I was when I first transitioned to the G5's I had to really "look" at the air speed and altitude on the G5. On the analog it was just a quick glance and I had the information I needed. My CFII noticed that I was wasn't using the G5 for much other than AI and she decided to fail my analog gauges for a few flights to get me acclimated to the G5s. After a few flights with the analog gauges covered I got much better at it. I still find myself using the analog VSI more then the tape though.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The primary-supporting technique isn't well suited to a glass panel, use the control-performance method.

I have an entirely different perspective on those two “methods”. They’re not two ways to do the same thing, as the FAA says. To me, control/performance is how you fly the airplane. Primary/supporting is more about how you detect instrument malfunctions.

if you get into needle, ball, and airspeed, obviously control/performance as printed falls apart, but most instructors don’t seem to teach instrument functions deeply enough to do more than hang on and hope at that point anyway.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I have an entirely different perspective on those two “methods”. They’re not two ways to do the same thing, as the FAA says. To me, control/performance is how you fly the airplane. Primary/supporting is more about how you detect instrument malfunctions.

if you get into needle, ball, and airspeed, obviously control/performance as printed falls apart, but most instructors don’t seem to teach instrument functions deeply enough to do more than hang on and hope at that point anyway.

My view is slightly different. Both control/performance and primary/supporting are techniques of instrument interpretation. Neither are scan techniques.

 

[chemgeek]

I've been flying with G5s for about 9 months. Initially, I found the G5s to be a bit of information overload, and and used the G5 AI and HSI just like I would in the old analog scan, along with the altimeter, VSI, TC, and ASI. The slight disagreement between altimeters provided an unwelcome distraction.

As I have had more time with the G5s, I find that my scan can be largely limited to the G5 AI and HSI, with reference to the TC for standard rate turn establishment, and only occasional glances at the altimeter to confirm I've set both altimeters to the correct barometer setting, and that they still agree. Having the CDI baked into both G5 instruments is really handy: a CDI display is always in your primary scan. The virtual ball in the virtual slip/skid indicator works really well (very sensitive!) but the TC bars are impossible to see and nearly useless. So are the VSI bars. The actual TC is more intuitive than the virtual one. I hated the tapes initially, especially the ASI tape, but now I find both tapes easy to interpret. Both tapes are very sensitive to small changes. I find I don't look at the real ASI much anymore, and am just mostly mildly annoyed that AI and altimeter readings are never exactly the same, even if they are within specs. I decided to follow the AI tape, and confirm that the analog altimeter is consistent from time to time. I still use the VSI to verify power/pitch performance for standard climbs and descents. One thing that is a huge improvement: the AI is so clear and sensitive that it is easy to set precise pitch/power settings for desired flight configurations. The only complication is that level flight at approach speed is not the AI centered on the horizon, but rather 2 degrees nose up for me. (This will be different for every plane.) For certified installs, centered on the horizon is supposed to be the attitude when the plane is properly leveled on the ground. You are not allowed to "adjust" it in flight like the old mechanical AIs. Or set it to something other than as described in the installation manual. Just something different to learn and incorporate.

It does take your brain a little practice to become acclimated to ingesting the appropriate information for instrument flight, but it is not a difficult transition, even for a 60-something. I think going the other way (glass to analog) would be harder, but I have no way of knowing that based on my own training, which was 30 years ago, and subsequent experience which was strictly analog. Personally, I think the G5s are an improvement, and I don't miss the vacuum system at all. (One less gauge to scan.)

 

[SbestCFII]

I just did some checkouts in a Baron with the dual G5 setup. I found myself scanning the rest of the six per normal and using the upper G5 for attitude only and lower G5 for HSI.

It actually turned me off of the idea of "only two G5s" as a replacement for the entire six pack. I love clean panels, so this surprised me.

I have the same thoughts with the G5s. They're only certified replacements for the AI and DG/HSI and I use them just like you. I don't scan the tapes (but I do set the bugs) and still rely on the "Steam" ASI/ALT/TC and VSI since they are much easier to quickly interpret, not to mention certified. I actually prefer this type of "hybrid" panel over straight-up glass despite 100+ hours of G1000, G500, Avidyne, etc.

 

[EdFred]

After a year of flying behind dual G5s I find myself migrated mostly to G5 only except for ASI on approach. Just easier to catch the needle out of the corner of my eye than looking for the number on the tape.

 

[Tim Taylor]

I fly with dual G5s and I use my steam gauges for my cross checking. I find that this helps my scan be more active and, as mentioned above, these are the actual certified instruments.

 

[EugeneR]

I have the same thoughts with the G5s. They're only certified replacements for the AI and DG/HSI and I use them just like you. I don't scan the tapes (but I do set the bugs) and still rely on the "Steam" ASI/ALT/TC and VSI since they are much easier to quickly interpret, not to mention certified. I actually prefer this type of "hybrid" panel over straight-up glass despite 100+ hours of G1000, G500, Avidyne, etc.

You’d probably love Dynon HDX then (took the picture with the protective film still on, so lots of reflections).

 

[PaulK]

I'm now flying behind two G5's, with the 4 steam gauges surrounding it. I, too, am trying to find a comfortable scan.

It occurs to me that "partial panel" training or practice must be done differently. Please share your partial panel exercises with dual G5's.

 

[Salty]

I'm now flying behind two G5's, with the 4 steam gauges surrounding it. I, too, am trying to find a comfortable scan.

It occurs to me that "partial panel" training or practice must be done differently. Please share your partial panel exercises with dual G5's.

One instructor covered portions of the g5 with blue painters tape. Another turned one off and reset revisionary mode on the hsi back to hsi so that I had no AI and had to use the steam altimeter and airspeed indicators and turn and bank.

On my checkride the DPE failed both G5’s by placing sticky notes over them.

 

[RussR]

I'm now flying behind two G5's, with the 4 steam gauges surrounding it. I, too, am trying to find a comfortable scan.

It occurs to me that "partial panel" training or practice must be done differently. Please share your partial panel exercises with dual G5's.

Importantly, it's no longer referred to as "partial panel" in the Instrument ACS. It's "loss of primary flight instruments" (or something similar) and the failure is supposed to represent a reasonable, realistic failure of systems. So, if the person has 3 Aspens and 2 G5s in the panel (like someone I know), then it's not realistic for all of them to fail at once. Meaning "partial panel" for him is nothing, really, just looking at a different set of complete instruments.

I instructed in a dual-G5 equipped airplane a few days ago. I simulated "loss of primary flight instruments" by dimming both G5s until they were unreadable. I reasoned that this was a realistic failure if, for example, there was a programming bug that affected both of them (sometimes CFIs have to get creative with their reasoning now). He did have a backup, electric AI though, which he could use just fine, as failing that too would not be a realistic failure mode (since if it was the electrical system that failed, well, that AI AND the 2 G5s all have battery backups).

It does take a little more effort for a CFI or an examiner to determine and set up a realistic "partial panel" scenario now than it used to. And a different level of knowledge for the pilot. In the "old days", you knew exactly what was going to happen with "partial panel", and you knew how to deal with it. Now, the answer is always "it depends" on exactly what the failure was. For my flight I just mentioned, the failure of the 2 G5's also took out his primary navigation display, the HSI on the second G5. The #2 NAV was tied to a regular CDI, but NAV2 was not a GPS. So he would be left with the choice of either flying a non-GPS approach using the #2 CDI, or flying a GPS approach using the CDI displayed on the GPS screen, which is on a page not normally used, and therefore not getting any vertical guidance. Systems knowledge becomes more important.

 

[bnt83]

Get flight sim and add G5s and GTN, fly all day long for pennies.

The X Aviation G5 plugin isn't as polished as it could be but they work. An example would be the remaining distance indicator on the HSI should disappear when its showing VHF nav (green) but it doesn't.

To me the VSI tape is so small on the G5 I never pay attention to it, the large steam VSI is so much easier to see.

 

[bnt83]

IIt actually turned me off of the idea of "only two G5s" as a replacement for the entire six pack.

Who has one like that? That wouldn't be a legal installation in a certified airplane. The STC Airplane Flight Manual Supplement and STC Installation Manual are clear about what instrument(s) the G5s can replace.

 

[WannFly]

It occurs to me that "partial panel" training or practice must be done differently. Please share your partial panel exercises with dual G5's.

I only have a couple of partial panel exercise with both G5 covered so take it with a huge grain of salt ... but i found it whole lot easier to recover the plane from an unusual attitude using partial panel (mostly because of less information, but right information across the 4 steam gauges). I start with TC - find out if you are in a bank or not and then look at ASI - am i climbing or descending? verify that with Altimeter and VSI and take appropriate actions.

 

[pnancoz]

Our club 172s each have a pair of G5s installed. For the life of me I can't get the airspeed and altitude tapes integrated into my scan. I'll always defer to the analog gauges on either side. Perhaps it's because the analog instruments are generally placed where the tapes would be on the bigger glass displays that I'm used to, I dunno.

Maybe it's because I learned on a six-pack before I had the G5's installed, but I do the same.

 

[SbestCFII]

After a year of flying behind dual G5s I find myself migrated mostly to G5 only except for ASI on approach. Just easier to catch the needle out of the corner of my eye than looking for the number on the tape.

G5 PFD works fine. I purchased a G5 HSI, but after using one in a friends plane with a 650,I sent it back to Spruce and hung onto my current DG.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

G5 PFD works fine. I purchased a G5 HSI, but after using one in a friends plane with a 650,I sent it back to Spruce and hung onto my current DG.

Why did you send the HSI back? Just curious, I don’t own a G5 and have never flown with one (or two, lol).

 

[EdFred]

G5 PFD works fine. I purchased a G5 HSI, but after using one in a friends plane with a 650,I sent it back to Spruce and hung onto my current DG.

Why did you send the HSI back? Just curious, I don’t own a G5 and have never flown with one (or two, lol).

Probably operator error. HSI works outstanding. Way better than the "regular" HSI it replaced.

 

[AlphaMike]

Probably operator error. HSI works outstanding. Way better than the "regular" HSI it replaced.

I totally agree! the G5 HSI is only instrument I've used that actually makes me fly better than I did with a "regular" instrument.