Is it cheating

[bbchien]

I'm glad you've come around to agreeing with what I said originally over a hundred posts back.

Agreed.

 

[RotorAndWing]

If we're on the same page I'm glad as well.

Since you train people to use SVT, I'm very interested in what kind of training you do with it?

 

[Everskyward]

Good post and so true. If you haven't seen it here is a good video of a 737NG night landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsG_rvyLnYQ

This will at least get rid of the "pilots don't look out the window anymore" complaint.

I love it.

How did the display make that landing easier?

 

[Dr. O]

I'm not trusting an all glass panel until it reaches the state where I get in and say, "Computer, take me to Poughkeepsie." and it replies, "Do you take cream with your coffee?" as it starts the engine and taxis out...

denny-o

 

[Ted]

I'm not trusting an all glass panel until it reaches the state where I get in and say, "Computer, take me to Poughkeepsie." and it replies, "Do you take cream with your coffee?" as it starts the engine and taxis out...

denny-o

Not sure I see how that's productive.

 

[Alexb2000]

How did the display make that landing easier?

The flight path marker is a great tool and certainly would make any visual approach more accurate. Not to mention it can be used in other scenarios.

Not that it's a huge deal, but you'd have much less head bobbing with HUD.

On an IMC approach it would easier to look out the window for the lights as well as check your instruments as you approach minimums.

If for whatever reason you had to do a go around, now you can verify positive rate, airspeed, etc. without looking down even for an instant.

Apparently it has reduced the operational minimums for take-offs by half.

All of this seems to be migrating down from the military and despite its cost, airlines see the value.

Aviation had a lot of years with nothing new, now we're seeing a lot of advancement in a relatively short time, and that's exciting to me. Even if I don't personally get to use it.

Here's an article from Boeing that also talks about their version of SVT:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/feature/737tech.html

 

[Everskyward]

On an IMC approach it would easier to look out the window for the lights as well as check your instruments as you approach minimums.

Personally I think it would be harder to look out the window for the lights while looking through the display.

 

[Alexb2000]

Agreed.

It's good to see you are in agreement with me as well. I don't know what the controversy was since my first response to the OP (page one, post 2, second line) said:

"Before we go off the rails, NO I'm not suggesting it be used as a replacement or crutch for any traditional IFR training."

I guess it kept things interesting.

 

[poadeleted20]

Since you train people to use SVT, I'm very interested in what kind of training you do with it?

Preparation for the IR practical test, primarily.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not trusting an all glass panel until it reaches the state where I get in and say, "Computer, take me to Poughkeepsie." and it replies, "Do you take cream with your coffee?" as it starts the engine and taxis out...

To be honest, and maybe it's because I've seen 2001 too many times since 1968, that level of automation makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Alexb2000]

Preparation for the IR practical test, primarily.

I was asking specifically what kind of training do you do with SVT?

Scenario based? Flight path marker? Engine out?, Terrain avoidance? Upset recovery? That kind of thing.

Other than knowing how to turn if on and off (and basic features) I didn't think the PTS says much about it?

 

[poadeleted20]

I was asking specifically what kind of training do you do with SVT? Scenario based? Flight path marker? Engine out?, Terrain avoidance? Upset recovery? That kind of thing.

Since I'm usually giving IR training, I'm not focusing much on engine out -- it's not on the practical test, and I don't like the risk level involved in simulating breaking out at 400 AGL or the like. I hadn't thought of using it in that situation, but it's now on my mind for the future.

For unusual attitude recovery, the PTS requires performance without use of the primary flight instrument, so the PFD must be out during that training, and once they can do it with the backup instruments, recovery with the PFD is a trivial case.

Likewise, terrain avoidance is assured if you follow the IFR procedures, so that's not an issue that comes up at all.

Use of the flight path marker to assist in course tracking or determining runway touchdown point during nonprecision approaches is certainly something that would be discussed and covered.

Other than knowing how to turn if on and off (and basic features) I didn't think the PTS says much about it?

It doesn't say anything specific about it. It's just another tool to help you perform the specified tasks.

Frankly, the biggest issue with SVT is convincing the trainee not to use it as a substitute for real sight of the runway environment for descent below MDA/DA outside of a real, no-foolin' emergency. I suppose if we had time during training, we could try that once or twice, but usually in a 10-day program, there isn't time for low probability "nice to know" training rather than just what's needed to pass the test and fly routine IFR safely.

 

[Alexb2000]

Since I'm usually giving IR training, I'm not focusing much on engine out -- it's not on the practical test, and I don't like the risk level involved in simulating breaking out at 400 AGL or the like. I hadn't thought of using it in that situation, but it's now on my mind for the future.

For unusual attitude recovery, the PTS requires performance without use of the primary flight instrument, so the PFD must be out during that training, and once they can do it with the backup instruments, recovery with the PFD is a trivial case.

Likewise, terrain avoidance is assured if you follow the IFR procedures, so that's not an issue that comes up at all.

Use of the flight path marker to assist in course tracking or determining runway touchdown point during nonprecision approaches is certainly something that would be discussed and covered.

It doesn't say anything specific about it. It's just another tool to help you perform the specified tasks.

Frankly, the biggest issue with SVT is convincing the trainee not to use it as a substitute for real sight of the runway environment for descent below MDA/DA outside of a real, no-foolin' emergency. I suppose if we had time during training, we could try that once or twice, but usually in a 10-day program, there isn't time for low probability "nice to know" training rather than just what's needed to pass the test and fly routine IFR safely.

Thank you for the response. I fully understand your position and the limitations on time and money. This is a familiar story and a sad one IMO. Here is a training scenario using SVT that I purposed on the first page:

"For example you're in IMC at night and your engine fails. You set best glide and vectors for the nearest, will you make it? You can try and do the rough math (fighting the urge to panic) while flying the airplane; or you can just put the flight path marker on the airfield. If you can hold the flight path marker mid-field at best glide, you'll make it. if not, start looking for a better landing spot before you give up any more altitude."

I don't know of another technology or methodology that can come close to the ease and accuracy in the above scenario as using SVT. Engine failures may be low probability, but we sure spend a lot of time worrying about them, and in certain scenarios like the above the survivability is very poor.

What are your thoughts?

 

[bbchien]

Not Ron, but you should ask Ken Ibold (on this board) for the MMOPA procedure for engine out ILS. These guys practice it and can do it based on the numbers, no devices other than the right altitude and correct airspeed/configuration.

 

[Alexb2000]

Not Ron, but you should ask Ken Ibold (on this board) for the MMOPA procedure for engine out ILS. These guys practice it and can do it based on the numbers, no devices other than the right altitude and correct airspeed/configuration.

Sure, but how realistic is it to expect to have a problem at high altitude cruise over an airport with an ILS?

There are many other problems with this, you have to have the altitude AND find a way onto the approach course (which may or may not be possible), what about strong winds, or you're 90 degrees off the runway without enough glide range to reach the FAF? Or extra drag affecting the math? How hard is it to find L/D Max exactly for your weight, wind, etc? Or...

What if the best shot you have is a road surrounded by forrest if you can make it or a lake the other direction and you have to make a either or decision? Do you trust your math in IMC in the dark to 40' tollerances with near certain death as a result of a mis-calc?

As you can probably guess, I'll still argue SVT is far and away the best tool for this.

 

[bbchien]

I'll just mention that your SVT failed and now you're lost like a house kitten in the woods....

 

[denverpilot]

 

[Jaybird180]

I'm not trusting an all glass panel until it reaches the state where I get in and say, "Computer, take me to Poughkeepsie." and it replies, "Do you take cream with your coffee?" as it starts the engine and taxis out...

There are more exciting places to go than Poughkeepsie

 

[Alexb2000]

I'll just mention that your SVT failed and now you're lost like a house kitten in the woods....

I really don't know exactly what your talking about, but if you lost your engine and simultaneously lost SVT, in IMC, at night, over hostile terrain, out of gliding range of an airport, then you truly are having a bad day.

Let's take that same scenario in your /A bird. You loose your engine, at night, in IMC, over hostile terrain, out of gliding range to an airport.

My answer is keep your landing light off, what's yours?

 

[Jaybird180]

I really don't know exactly what your talking about, but if you lost your engine and simultaneously lost SVT, in IMC, at night, over hostile terrain, out of gliding range of an airport, then you truly are having a bad day.

Let's take that same scenario in your /A bird. You loose your engine, at night, in IMC, over hostile terrain, out of gliding range to an airport.

My answer is keep your landing light off, what's yours?

My answer is FTFA!

 

[Alexb2000]

My answer is FTFA!

?????

 

[bbchien]

I really don't know exactly what your talking about, but if you lost your engine and simultaneously lost SVT, in IMC, at night, over hostile terrain, out of gliding range of an airport, then you truly are having a bad day.

Let's take that same scenario in your /A bird. You loose your engine, at night, in IMC, over hostile terrain, out of gliding range to an airport.

My answer is keep your landing light off, what's yours?

Excute the one engine inoperative procedure. You're getting all lathered over a PISTON SINGLE. Heck, it's a piston single. I have referred to that fact in a prior post. You missed my intent, but you sure got it this time.

If the /G goes out, I'm flying VOR/ILS DME nav. I finish on an ILS at my usual speed and to minimums. My FIKI continues to work. Not much of a bad day, at all, really. In fact, just another day at the office.

 

[Alexb2000]

Excute the one engine inoperative procedure. You're getting all lathered over a PISTON SINGLE. Heck, it's a piston single.

I'm really not get lathered up about anything. The scenario was part of a question to Ron, so yes a piston single is what I expected his IR students to be flying. Sounds like if you're flying a Seneca then there isn't much to this flying game. Good to know.

 

[bbchien]

When, and only when they extend the protected corridor down below what I can get with an ILS or LPV, due to synthetic vision, it will become an increase in capability. But until then, it's NADA. Everything one can do to stay in a protected corridor you can do with /G.

I'll consider the expense then. But for now, the second engine and usually flying 200 below gross represents a considerable increase in CAPABILITY. You gave the example of that. Do you get it now?

 

[poadeleted20]

There are more exciting places to go than Poughkeepsie

I dunno -- IIRC, they have a nice little airport reestaurant.

 

[bbchien]

Sounds like if you're flying a Seneca then there isn't much to this flying game. Good to know.

Paging Alex.....if you're going to be sarcastic, I'm going to be insistent. Cite all of your multi time to back that up, why don't you.....

You still don't get it, do you? All those $$s for what right now is a toy and does not increase your capability any. When it increases capability, it'll be "on the table". Synth vision does nothing for you in your "lost the engine" scenario....it was YOUR scenario BTW.

I really don't know exactly what your talking about, but if you lost your engine and simultaneously lost SVT, in IMC, at night, over hostile terrain, out of gliding range of an airport, then you truly are having a bad day.

...so I guess that is a "HUGE" increase in capability.....not.

 

[Alexb2000]

Paging Alex.....if you're going to be sarcastic, I'm going to be insistent. Cite all of your multi time to back that up, why don't you.....

You still don't get it, do you? All those $$s for what right now is a toy and does not increase your capability any. When it increases capability, it'll be "on the table". Synth vision does nothing for you in your "lot the engine" scenario.......so I guess that is a "HUGE" increase in capability.....not.

Let me paraphrase this conversation:

For the kinds of operations I fly, I believe SVT increases safety. I've given numerous examples and scenarios. You have never tried them, nor have you claimed any experience with SVT (so I will assume none), but you're still absolutely sure it won't help. That's fine with me, I've made my points about it and you've made yours.

Your basis for SVT's lack of value specific to your operations is that you don't ever see a scenario where you could be below an MEA unless you were on an instrument approach or departure. Therefore SVT offers you nothing unless the rules change and capability is increased. Ok, once again fine by me.

It appears the next turn of this conversation will be piston twin capability. My multi time does not include the Seneca, so I can't argue one way or another to its capabilities in a OEI drift down scenario in the mountains, or where ever this might go. I do know that your bird has a very high published single engine service ceiling that I am sure you would like to use as further evidence that nowhere in North America could you be forced outside of a IFR safe airspace and need anything like SVT. Rather than trade 20 posts about that, I'll just concede the point.

The last thing I would say is this conversation has ceased being informative, productive, interesting, funny, or anything else worthy of our time. If you review your posts they drip with venom and rudeness. That's OK by me except every time I give you a little bit back I feel you are taking it personally, which is beyond my intent. You are obviously a very accomplished person in many areas, so this thin skin surprises me, and frankly I don't think it's a good idea for us to continue to trade posts on this topic.

Intent is hard to communicate here so I'll apologize up front if you feel I have said anything out of bounds. Maybe some other time on some other topic we can trade ideas and perhaps (probably) disagree without it going this far.

 

[Jaybird180]

The last thing I would say is this conversation has ceased being informative, productive, interesting, funny, or anything else worthy of our time.

I thought it has been quite entertaining and even informative at times. Caused me to think about ideas/ concepts that I wouldn't have thought about otherwise, accelerating my learning. Afterall, that's why I participate at PoA.

 

[L.Adamson]

You still don't get it, do you? All those $$s for what right now is a toy and does not increase your capability any. When it increases capability, it'll be "on the table". Synth vision does nothing for you in your "lost the engine" scenario....it was YOUR scenario BTW....so I guess that is a "HUGE" increase in capability.....not.

I feel like I'm in a time warp. At least two decades ago...

 

[bbchien]

Let me paraphrase this conversation:

For the kinds of operations I fly, I believe SVT increases safety.

For which there is no actual results-evidence. All benefits are purported, and unproven.

I've given numerous examples and scenarios. You have never tried them, nor have you claimed any experience with SVT

Go reread again. I have USN training in these systems. And when I was active duty, these systems were very impressive indeed.

(so I will assume none)

Incorrect. I pointed out that if you have need of operations OUTSIDE of protected corridors, then it confers a benefit. But, in civil life, I will not be making treetop approaches....at night in vis <5. Those guys going into Sparrevohn AK in marginal vis might benefit from this. But not civil ops.

, but you're still absolutely sure it won't help. That's fine with me, I've made my points about it and you've made yours.

I assume you have need of special ops in bad weather at treetop level at 250 knots....yeah, right.

.

Your basis for SVT's lack of value specific to your operations is that you don't ever see a scenario where you could be below an MEA unless you were on an instrument approach or departure. Therefore SVT offers you nothing unless the rules change and capability is increased. Ok, once again fine by me.

someday when you actually have to own an aircraft you'll "get it". Or maybe you are fabulously wealthy.....and don't need to care about utility increments.

It appears the next turn of this conversation will be piston twin capability. My multi time does not include the Seneca, so I can't argue one way or another to its capabilities in a OEI drift down scenario in the mountains, or where ever this might go.

Who brought it up:

if you lost your engine and simultaneously lost SVT, in IMC, at night, over hostile terrain, out of gliding range of an airport, then you truly are having a bad day.

Let's take that same scenario in your /A bird. You loose your engine, at night, in IMC, over hostile terrain, out of gliding range to an airport.

Hey YOU brought up this scenario in YOUR post about a "really bad day", not I. Show me the evidence that in a single in this scenario there are more survivors in the aircraft equipped with SVT, deadstick. Betcha can't find any.....because guess what, there isn't any.

I do know that your bird has a very high published single engine service ceiling that I am sure you would like to use as further evidence that nowhere in North America could you be forced outside of a IFR safe airspace and need anything like SVT. Rather than trade 20 posts about that, I'll just concede the point.

Magnanimous of you.

The last thing I would say is this conversation has ceased being informative, productive, interesting, funny, or anything else worthy of our time. If you review your posts they drip with venom and rudeness. That's OK by me except every time I give you a little bit back I feel you are taking it personally, which is beyond my intent.

The problem is, you are so ill equipped and don't see it. A NASA study citing purported benefits is very different from an accident study showing that the purported benefits actually confer anything like a benefit. You are displaying the inability to think critically. This we call "drinking the kool-aid".

You are obviously a very accomplished person in many areas, so this thin skin surprises me, and frankly I don't think it's a good idea for us to continue to trade posts on this topic.

Those of us who have to pay for aircraft, upgrades and systems to get utility tend not to go for the "bright and shiny" but go for the actual capability, like KNOWN ICE, which you can have for about the same $$s as SVT. for the money, Known ICE is going to save you life, maybe weekly in winter. SVT, not so much....unless you are an unrated pilot in IMC. Then, Maybe.

Intent is hard to communicate here so I'll apologize up front if you feel I have said anything out of bounds. Maybe some other time on some other topic we can trade ideas and perhaps (probably) disagree without it going this far.

You need to reread the posts. You're so "set" on this is the best and so you call it "safest" without any data (and there are none), without regard for the "big picture".

For example, You probably don't know that "Improper IFR" is 90% fatal. Some guy named "chien" published a nice review of ten years of accidents in Aviation Safety in March of 2004. So one has to ask, "why would I be below MEA?". That's just like asking, "why would I operate below blue line speed". You DO know what blue line is, don't you?

I conclude that you are captivated by the "latest and greatest" and are not able to be critical: that is the definition of "bright and Shiny syndrome". Brightness and an improved display (iPAD3) cannot save one's sorry tail. Thoughtful operations, however, do.

 

[L.Adamson]

I conclude that you have relatively trivial operating experience and love the "latest and greatest": that is the definition of "bright and Shiny syndrome"

As I previously stated...............the responses on this forum......do make me feel like I'm going back 20 years. Thankfully, the RV forum, which Dr. Chein despises, are filled with postings from individuals who work, design, and test some of the most modern aircraft equipment available. But you'd have to expect that, as RV owners are also Airbus 380 test pilots, NASA managers, engineers for avionic hardware companies, avionic test pilots for Honeywell, Garmin, etc.................as well as military & commercial pilots.....and all those who just enjoy GA.

I'm a lot more interested in future advancements, especially in regards to CFIT and safety, than reading comments from someone who can only label the latest and greatest as a definition of bright and shiny. You've also referred to synthetic vision as a toy.

 

[bbchien]

AS it currently is, for civil operations, it is, a Toy. Show me lower mins because of it. Hmmm. Can't find it. Would you point the SVT approach out for me? RNP 0.1 DOES get us lower, however (oh, but that's not SVT, I forgot...).

In the future, it will not be. But that is vapor until it is.

A toy? Maybe not for Dagger Flight, flying in marginal VMC in formation over a public field. DEFINITELY not for our helo guys doing low level incursions....in Pakistan! But for civil use? Still A Toy.

There is no future if you do not survive today.

 

[L.Adamson]

Brightness and an improved display (iPAD3) cannot save one's sorry tail. Thoughtful operations, however, do.

I'm not totally in favor of iPads at this point. As to improved displays.... saving one's sorry tail....................you had better bet they can. I have plenty of proof, including my own investigations, board of inquires, etc, that says exactly that.

Of course, all of the dead pilots and passengers didn't survive.........because the operator had got a bit "unthoughtful", at the wrong moment. Regretfully, there seems to still be a lot of unthoughtful operators out there; even if it's a lapse of just a few seconds........when that little piece of electronic "gizmo" can save your hide. Your passengers will appreciate it..

I suppose I'll just have to make daily post's including documents and accident pictures to prove my point.

 

[bbchien]

Oh, boy! More toys!

Now equipped with toys, Piston single pilots can fly IFR about the Rockies with assuredness that in the fan stops they will be able to see their way between Ponderosas! Yessss!

Great displays still allowed the Cirrus pilot who landed, downwind, (because the opposite approach wasn't depicted) to run of the end and burn. No more judgement required!

To do some real research, you need to develop a statistic on /A non TAA aircraft accident rates vs TAA rates.....and there is no difference. Hmmmmm.

A better display would have saved the Minneapolis father and two children departing from Jackson WY? the Texas couple with the G1000 C182 who crashed into the peaks at 12,100 last winter? okkkkkkkkkayyyyyyy.

 

[L.Adamson]

A toy? Maybe not for Dagger Flight, flying in marginal VMC in formation over a public field. DEFINITELY not for our helo guys doing low level incursions....in Pakistan! But for civil use? Still A Toy.

Really??

Then I guess it's my time to actually direct you to all of those CFIT accidents, that could have easily been prevented with use of such a simple toy. We use to average three CFITs out here a year (all mountains). It's slowed a bit. It's either due to less flying, advanced cockpits, or perhaps both.

 

[bbchien]

Really??

Then I guess it's my time to actually direct you to all of those CFIT accidents, that could have easily been prevented with use of such a simple toy. We use to average three CFITs out here a year (all mountains). It's slowed a bit. It's either due to less flying, advanced cockpits, or perhaps both.

Read the post immediately preceeding, please. EXAMPLES given.

Flight into known ice in nonturbocharged aircraft. But the glass protected them really really well, didn't it?

 

[L.Adamson]

Oh, boy! More toys!

Now equipped with toys, Piston single pilots can fly IFR about the Rockies with assuredness that in the fan stops they will be able to see their way between Ponderosas! Yessss!

Great displays still allowed the Cirrus pilot who landed, downwind, (because the opposite approach wasn't depicted) to run of the end and burn. No more judgement required!

To do some real research, you need to develop a statistic on /A non TAA aircraft accident rates vs TAA rates.....and there is no difference. Hmmmmm.

As I said, it's a waste of time on this forum. Looks like one of the "gate keepers" (yourself) can do no better than come up with a few mocking remarks to justify your thoughts. Bye....

 

[Alexb2000]

For which there is no actual results-evidence. All benefits are purported, and unproven. Go reread again. I have USN training in these systems. And when I was active duty, these systems were very impressive indeed. Incorrect. I pointed out that if you have need of operations OUTSIDE of protected corridors, then it confers a benefit. But, in civil life, I will not be making treetop approaches....at night in vis <5. I assume you have need of special ops in bad weather at treetop level at 250 knots....yeah, right. someday when you actually have to own an aircraft you'll "get it". Or maybe you are fabulously wealthy.....and don't need to care about utility increments.Hey YOU brought up this scenario in YOUR post about a "really bad day", not I. The problem is, you are so ill equipped and don't see it. A NASA study citing purported benefits is very different from an accident study showing that the purported benefits actually confer anything like a benefit. You're obviously young and I see this annoyingly often: the inability to think critically. This we call "drinking the kool-aid". Those of us who have to pay for aircraft, upgrades and systems to get utility tend not to go for the "bright and shiny" but go for the actual capability, like KNOWN ICE, which you can have for about the same $$s as SVT. for the money, Known ICE is going to save you life, maybe weekly in winter. SVT, not so much....unless you are an unrated pilot in IMC. Then, Maybe. You need to reread the posts. You're so "set" on this is the best and so you call it "safest" without any data (and there are none), without regard for the "big picture".

For example, You probably don't know that "Improper IFR" is 90% fatal. Some guy named "chien" published a nice review of ten years of accidents in Aviation Safety in 2001. So one has to ask, "why would I be below MEA?". That's just like asking, "why would I operate below blue line speed". You DO know what blue line is, don't you?

I conclude that you have relatively trivial operating experience and love the "latest and greatest": that is the definition of "bright and Shiny syndrome"

Do you think someone is going to call up the FSDO and say, "Hi, I just lost situational awareness and almost flew into a mountain. Luckily I had SVT and I noticed the terrain and made a correction, but I thought you should know"?

I would hope a critical thinker like you would already know the answer to that.

SVT on a G1000 system is ~$10K, on an Aspen maybe ~$3K. No where near the cost of a FIKI system install at ~$40-50K+.

Since you brought it up. Known Ice may provide additional safety in your operations, but it's nothing but dead weight in others; like island hopping in the tropics. Just like SVT in mine, you flat landers wouldn't appreciate it (and don't). Maybe now YOU can understand that tools appropriate for the job can increase safety.

Why would you go below MEA? Because the airports are down there and they have gas and bathrooms.

Why would you operate below the blue line? Because it's hard to load the luggage above it.

Since you never leave IFR protected airspace in your Seneca, how's your OEI performance match up on the KTEX DP? Or even standard TERPS out of any high and hot mountain airport?

Quoting and complimenting yourself in Aviation Safety? Really? Didn't mama tell you if you keep stroking that ego you'll go blind?

If you're sitting there steamin', ask yourself why you just didn't accept this guys polite request to leave it be.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Why would you go below MEA? Because the airports are down there and they have gas and bathrooms.

Why would you operate below the blue line? Because it's hard to load the luggage above it.

Now that's funny, I don't care who ya are!

 

[bbchien]

Do you think someone is going to call up the FSDO and say, "Hi, I just lost situational awareness and almost flew into a mountain. Luckily I had SVT and I noticed the terrain and made a correction, but I thought you should know"?

I would hope a critical thinker like you would already know the answer to that.

SVT on a G1000 system is ~$10K, on an Aspen maybe ~$3K. No where near the cost of a FIKI system install at ~$40-50K+.

Since you brought it up. Known Ice may provide additional safety in your operations, but it's nothing but dead weight in others; like island hopping in the tropics. Just like SVT in mine, you flat landers wouldn't appreciate it (and don't). Maybe now YOU can understand that tools appropriate for the job can increase safety.

Why would you go below MEA? Because the airports are down there and they have gas and bathrooms.

Why would you operate below the blue line? Because it's hard to load the luggage above it.

Since you never leave IFR protected airspace in your Seneca, how's your OEI performance match up on the KTEX DP? Or even standard TERPS out of any high and hot mountain airport?

Quoting and complimenting yourself in Aviation Safety? Really? Didn't mama tell you if you keep stroking that ego you'll go blind?

If you're sitting there steamin', ask yourself why you just didn't accept this guys polite request to leave it be.

Because you are ridiculous and won't reconsider. Worse you won't shut up. You can't find as single FACT to back up a THING you expound, and it goes on for hundreds of posts. Your regard opinion as substituting for FACT.

You had the audacity to say that the solution to AA's problems was MORE devices. Incredible. I already related my observations as to crew in sims....and others see the same thing. The problem is the interaction of the devices with the human crew.

As for KTEX, every heard of "undergross operations?" BTDT.
You know, kid, you get to the bathroom at the airport by approaching it in an IFR protected corridor. IF you want to actually get to the bathroom....if you do that you have an excellent chance of getting to the bathroom. Outside the corridors- not so much.

As I said, it's a waste of time on this forum. Looks like one of the "gate keepers" (yourself) can do no better than come up with a few mocking remarks to justify your thoughts. Bye....

Stay alive.....bye!