Is it cheating

[Jaybird180]

Synthetic Vision during IFR training
-Sythetic vision provides an outside view on a glass cockpit equipped airplane.
Cirrus's LVL function in the Perspective System during PPL training
- LVL function is a 1 button that is advertised to recover the airplane from any attitude and return the aircraft to straight and level.

Thoughts?

I say yes to both, they are cheating.

I read an article about Aspen's CEO getting his IR and he used it during training. I am dubious about the value of Synth Vis during training.

Also, one of the best things about PPL training is gaining the confidence of "yes, I can do this" and knowing that you can bring yourself safely back to earth. LVL command somewhat takes this away by providing an electronic Flight Instructor (so to speak).

 

[Alexb2000]

With regard to Synthetic Vision, I don't think it's cheating, rather an area that could use some focused training.

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

What I am sugesting is that more and more aircraft have SVT and yet few pilots know how to take advantage of it when it counts. 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. This alone could save lives if we practiced it.

With regard to the LVL button in a Cirrus. Why not use it as PART of the unusual attitude recovery (especially in IMC)? Of course practice the skills manually, but why not also train using all of the equipment in the aircraft?

 

[EppyGA]

Don't see why it would be cheating. You're still going to have to fly to PTS standards regardless. It might hamper that effort by being too distracting.

 

[Ted]

Not cheating any more than a glass cockpit in general. Remember, it is not (and shouldn't be considered) equivalent to looking out the window. It would be good for people who have it in their planes to get lessons on its effective and appropriate use.

I think that primary instrument training is most effectively done using a /A aircraft since it builds your situational awareness best. A glass cockpit with GPS, and especially with an MFD that displays your approach plates and even puts the plane on them is arguably cheating since it gives you so many advantages. But the rules say it's not, and experienced instrument pilots I know tend to want all the "cheating" they can get as budget allows - myself included.

 

[dell30rb]

I think that primary instrument training is most effectively done using a /A aircraft since it builds your situational awareness best. A glass cockpit with GPS, and especially with an MFD that displays your approach plates and even puts the plane on them is arguably cheating since it gives you so many advantages. But the rules say it's not, and experienced instrument pilots I know tend to want all the "cheating" they can get as budget allows - myself included.

I am training in a /U airplane. Holding off on buying the georef approach plates feature from foreflight until after I pass my checkride.

 

[Everskyward]

If you want to take it to the extreme, it's cheating for us to be flying at all since we don't have wings. That said, I think you should learn in whatever you intend to fly in the near future. The differences in avionics is so wide now that it would be impossible to be good at everything all at once and new things will need to be learned no matter what you start on if you move to other airplanes. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has learned on glass relate their experience of trying to fly with conventional gauges but so far I have really only heard speculation.

 

[Ted]

I am training in a /U airplane. Holding off on buying the georef approach plates feature from foreflight until after I pass my checkride.

Well done!

 

[TMetzinger]

What Ted said. There's nothing like flying along with nothing but a chart and a VOR or two to improve your skills at visualizing your position, as they get really rusty after using GPS for a while.

Since most of the airplanes I fly now are G1000, I schedule time in a redbird just for the purposes of being /A. I also practice on my home MSFS setup for the same purpose.

 

[Ted]

What Ted said. There's nothing like flying along with nothing but a chart and a VOR or two to improve your skills at visualizing your position, as they get really rusty after using GPS for a while.

You can still do exercises with the GPS, though, and if anything it can be a helpful learning tool since it can verify your guesses.

When I'm flying along, especially on a long trip, I'll dial in VORs along the way even if I'm on a GPS direct routing. First off, it gives me something to do. Second (and more important), it keeps my situational awareness honed.

I'll also make a point of doing instrument approaches when I happen to be straight-in anyway (assuming the day doesn't require an approach). Keeps me fresh on those. Primarily it ends up being ILS and GPS approaches, since those are what most of the airports I go to have.

Since most of the airplanes I fly now are G1000, I schedule time in a redbird just for the purposes of being /A. I also practice on my home MSFS setup for the same purpose.

This is a nice option to do if it's something that be conveniently put in with your normal flying. I find the exercises listed above to be helpful in keeping my skills sharp, without having to fly a different plane or do a mission that isn't in line with something I'm doing anyway.

I'm still a big believer in learning the hard way to get the fundamentals down. I did, and I think that it gave me the better training. But so long as you make a point of practicing hand flying, hand-flown approaches, and do exercises to keep you sharp, I see no reason not to have the extra goodies. I didn't used to feel this way, but I am appreciating the niceties more and more as safety features.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I did all my training in a /A as well with no GPS. I am in the camp that you should do your initial training without a glass cockpit. Afterwards, I'm all about using the best tools at your disposal to ensure safe flight and situational awareness. You just have to be capable of being able to fall back on your steam gauges if your glass panel goes South, that's all.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'm not flying as much as Ted, so I have to schedule proficiency time. Even tracking VORs in the G1000 I find I'm a little spoiled by the HSI/RMI provided.

I've gone off before on the differences between proficiency flying and mission flying. Basically on a mission flight I use every tool the plane has, and may degrade what's being used in some cases for the sake of proficiency, similar to what Ted says he does. But if there's not enough of that to stay sharp (and for a lot of pilots that's the case), going out and doing practice in the fundamentals and then adding the bells and whistles is the way to go. The whole purpose of these flights is to maintain proficiency and do things you probably wouldn't do on a mission flight (like stalls or steep turns or simulated engine failures).

 

[Ted]

I'm not flying as much as Ted, so I have to schedule proficiency time. Even tracking VORs in the G1000 I find I'm a little spoiled by the HSI/RMI provided.

No doubt. And it's harder to self-degrade in the G1000, simply because everything is put into those nice two big screens. What I like about my more modular avionics packages is that 1) one failure results in losing less 2) it's easier to induce failures intentionally.

I've gone off before on the differences between proficiency flying and mission flying. Basically on a mission flight I use every tool the plane has, and may degrade what's being used in some cases for the sake of proficiency, similar to what Ted says he does. But if there's not enough of that to stay sharp (and for a lot of pilots that's the case), going out and doing practice in the fundamentals and then adding the bells and whistles is the way to go. The whole purpose of these flights is to maintain proficiency and do things you probably wouldn't do on a mission flight (like stalls or steep turns or simulated engine failures).

No doubt I have more opportunities per year to include proficiency exercises with my mission flying. But in the interest of being budget conscious, it makes sense (both time-wise and economically) to integrate both when possible. For example, if you're going off on a VFR flight anyway, get to the airport 30 minutes early and knock out a few stalls and turns or the like before you get going on your trip. If IFR, do as described. Even if you're going to do your proficiency flights in addition, it'll help keep you sharper.

I have to go do a test flight on the 310 post-annual later this week (assuming the weather doesn't continue it's pattern of "suck"). Just got the WAAS 530 installed and a bunch of other work. So I'll plan on going up, doing some single-engine work, stalls, test the systems, etc., and then shoot the LPV GPS 30 back into Williamsport at the end. Kill two birds with one stone.

Just one instructor's opinion.

 

[gil_mor]

C/SRM - Use everything you can to help yourself.
If (one day, when I have my IR) I'm in IMC, I'm going to use all the equipment to reduce load.

A good chunk of PPL and IR deals with some sort of emergency - engine failure, radio failure, vacuum system failure etc.

Why? So if you get into that situation, you'd know what to do.

Synthetic Vision during IFR training
-Sythetic vision provides an outside view on a glass cockpit equipped airplane.
Cirrus's LVL function in the Perspective System during PPL training
- LVL function is a 1 button that is advertised to recover the airplane from any attitude and return the aircraft to straight and level.

Know how to use it proficiently, but be damn sure you are proficient without it.

 

[Ghery]

Did my IR ride in a /G aircraft. DPE didn't think that was cheating. As a former F-4 driver he thought using everything available in the aircraft was the proper way to fly.

 

[Jaybird180]

I think the concensus is that for operational to use all available tools. I'm asking about primary training. I've already decided what my course of action will be during IR training. I just hope that my CFII agrees that /A is the way to go initially and then bringing the GPS into the picture, handflying approaches and then as I prepare for the checkride, doing coupled approaches.

 

[TMetzinger]

Jaybird,

As long as you understand that you may spend more time getting this "fuller" education, you should be comfortable insisting on it. If your CFII doesn't want to do that, ask him why, and see what you think. I'd be surprised if this occurs, though.

I imagine there were folks insisting on getting full training on four-course ranges way back when they were starting to phase out.
PS, be sure to spend some time with an ADF and an NDB approach or two. While there are GPS overlays for a lot of the NDB approaches it's a good skill to have.

 

[Ted]

I imagine there were folks insisting on getting full training on four-course ranges way back when they were starting to phase out.
PS, be sure to spend some time with an ADF and an NDB approach or two. While there are GPS overlays for a lot of the NDB approaches it's a good skill to have.

And the thing with NDBs is that they are far from phased out around the rest of the world, so it's something you may actually use at some point.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't know that the FAA has said anything one way or the other, but if you're training for your IR with me, the EVS will be turned off. Likewise, you will not get to use the "blue button" for the Area IV Task B RECOVERY FROM UNUSUAL FLIGHT ATTITUDES task, since your AHRS will be simulated failed (or actually failed by pulling the c/b per the Garmin guide for instructors and examiners) as required for that task -- all you'll have for that will be your three backup instruments.

 

[Alexb2000]

Sounds like quite a few are not in favor of using any of the TAA capabilities for IFR training. I've been there and navigated around with a single nav. head feeling pretty good about things. When I started on TAA aircraft the instructors taught the transition course just like a /A aircraft except with GPS (because at the time they didn't know any better). It took a few hundred hours of flying a TAA aircraft before I began to change my operations to take advantage of the capabilities. In doing so I'm 100% confident that I have greatly increased my safety.

Why would we want new IFR pilots operating without the knowledge to use the TAA information/capabilities in a way that will keep them the safest?

 

[poadeleted20]

Sounds like quite a few are not in favor of using any of the TAA capabilities for IFR training.

Don't misunderstand -- you will learn how to use everything in the plane if you train with me. But you'll also learn how to continue flying safely without each of those features, too, just so's I know a single failure won't kill you. I do the same with non-TAA planes, e.g. you learn raw VOR without the GPS first, then you learn to integrate the GPS, and you learn to hand-fly everything before you get to use the autopilot.

 

[Alexb2000]

I don't know that the FAA has said anything one way or the other, but if you're training for your IR with me, the EVS will be turned off.

OK, I was just taking your statement as it was written.

Do you believe that an aircraft with TAA features like synthetic vision make for a safer IFR pilot?

 

[Jaybird180]

Don't misunderstand -- you will learn how to use everything in the plane if you train with me. But you'll also learn how to continue flying safely without each of those features, too, just so's I know a single failure won't kill you. I do the same with non-TAA planes, e.g. you learn raw VOR without the GPS first, then you learn to integrate the GPS, and you learn to hand-fly everything before you get to use the autopilot.

I like it.
BTW- I didn't get the Perspective SR-22G3 that you're describing

All I have are dual VORs (1 GS), a KLN94 coupled to a KAP 140 in single axis only and an ADF. Round gauges in a C-172SP.

 

[Ted]

Why would we want new IFR pilots operating without the knowledge to use the TAA information/capabilities in a way that will keep them the safest?

Ron summarized it well. It sounds like the transition training you received wasn't what it could have or should have been, if it took you that long to change your habits.

For initial training, getting the fundamentals down with a /A or /U aircraft is important. If you happen to be training in an aircraft that is /G then you should get both and know how to use it all with a reasonable comfort level.

Do you believe that an aircraft with TAA features like synthetic vision make for a safer IFR pilot?

A pilot who has extra features and knows how to use them (and when not to use them) I think is safer. If you're focusing on the traffic alert display and not looking out the window for the plane it's calling as 100 ft away and <1 mile, then you're using it improperly. Similarly if you're fixated on the big red blob of weather on your radar, but not looking out the window to identify it visually.

If you use synthetic vision to try to fly your way through a cliff, don't be surprised when you hit it. But if you use it to give you some extra situational awareness, good. I'd like it for the Aspen in the 310, but it's low on the priority list compared to other items.

 

[Jaybird180]

Jaybird,

As long as you understand that you may spend more time getting this "fuller" education, you should be comfortable insisting on it. If your CFII doesn't want to do that, ask him why, and see what you think. I'd be surprised if this occurs, though.

I imagine there were folks insisting on getting full training on four-course ranges way back when they were starting to phase out.
PS, be sure to spend some time with an ADF and an NDB approach or two. While there are GPS overlays for a lot of the NDB approaches it's a good skill to have.

I had to previously look this up so correct me if I got it wrong.
ADF is the equipment in the airplane that receives a signal to point to an NDB, providing Relative Bearing.

 

[bbchien]

OK, I was just taking your statement as it was written.

Do you believe that an aircraft with TAA features like synthetic vision make for a safer IFR pilot?

No, it does not do that. It makes you a more capable IFR pilot, but not safer.

But, you will encounter many /A aircraft in your flying and some of that capability requires working knowledge of NDB approaches, so best to learn them too....or you will actually be a less capable pilot.

 

[Alexb2000]

No, it does not do that. It makes you a more capable IFR pilot, but not safer.

I thought my last one might wake some people up this morning.

It amazes me that regardless of discipline there are always those that say better, easier to use technology, offers no advantage. I spent many hours getting up to change the channel on a B&W TV, using a rotary dial phone, reading 10 year old encyclopedias (that I was still paying for), but I sure wouldn't want anyone to do that today.

I believe I could give scenarios where any feature of a TAA bird would increase safety over /A /U.

 

[bbchien]

I thought my last one might wake some people up this morning.

It amazes me that regardless of discipline there are always those that say better, easier to use technology, offers no advantage. I spent many hours getting up to change the channel on a B&W TV, using a rotary dial phone, reading 10 year old encyclopedias (that I was still paying for), but I sure wouldn't want anyone to do that today.

I believe I could give scenarios where any feature of a TAA bird would increase safety over /A /U.

Safety and capability are two different things. "Simpler and better" is subjective. For example, if all you have is an ADF approach, no overlay, and you don't have an ADF receiver, the TAA aircraft is SOL. The ancient /A aircraft has the advantage. The TAA aircraft runs out of fuel, the /A aircraft driver is on the ground, having lunch.

The point is, as we all realizzed with AF 447, the interface between the user and the machine (/navaid) is what creates capability. If that interface isn't happening, your "simpler and better" doesn't carry any water(Sarajevo AF 737).

Farmers, given a wider tractor, simply drive further up the hill. Synth. vision, though I have experience with it, is no subsitute for staying in protected corridors. Now if you're flying a blackhawk, that's a different story. No Corridors.

I think you mean "capability". That, or you have "bright and shiny syndrome". Synthetic vision is in no way cheating. It's a tool. the G1000 is in no way cheating. But I am reminded of the G1000 guy who ran his SR 22 off the end of a downwind approach, because the opposite approach was not in the database and he was precautionarily landing for fuel. Not safer.

 

[Alexb2000]

Safety and capability are two different things. "Simpler and better" is subjective. For example, if all you have is an ADF approach, no overlay, and you don't have an ADF receiver, the TAA aircraft is SOL. The ancient /A aircraft has the advantage. The TAA aircraft runs out of fuel, the /A aircraft driver is having lunch.

The point is, as we all realizzed with AF 447, the interface between the user and the machine (/navaid) is what creates capability. If that interface isn't happening, your "simpler and better" doesn't carry any water(Sarajevo AF 737).

Farmers, given a wider tractor, simply drive further up the hill. Synth. vision, though I have experience with it, is no subsitute for staying in protected corridors. Now if you're flying a blackhawk, that's a different story. No Corridors.

I think you mean "capability". That, or you have "bright and shiny syndrome".

Any aircraft trying to fly an approach without the equipment and fuel required for the approach is SOL from the start. However, I would just fly the approach using GPS in OBS mode. Now if the ADF goes down, then who's having lunch?

Re Protected airspace: Let's say you have an engine failure, or you're on vectors near terrain and loose radio contact, or you are departing an airport in uncontrolled airspace at night, or you are denied a night IFR departure and have to go out VFR and stay low to avoid airspace (like in Phoenix recently), or...

Let's see: VSI's, DG's, AI's, Nav. heads, Loran, radar altimeters, autopilots, HSI's, strikefinders, GPS, XM, electronic charts, SVT, AHRS... none of it increases safety if you just ask the right pilot.

If that's "bright and shiny syndrome", OK.

 

[Ted]

Any aircraft trying to fly an approach without the equipment and fuel required for the approach is SOL from the start. However, I would just fly the approach using GPS in OBS mode. Now if the ADF goes down, then who's having lunch?

Well, if you're doing that and there's not an overlay that allows that, then you're violating the regulations. While that is definitely a good backup in case you do have an ADF failure and it becomes an emergency (at which point you invoke 91.3), it's not a good idea to make a habit of violating the rules.

Re Protected airspace: Let's say you have an engine failure, or you're on vectors near terrain and loose radio contact, or you are departing an airport in uncontrolled airspace at night, or you are denied a night IFR departure and have to go out VFR and stay low to avoid airspace (like in Phoenix recently), or...

Let's look at each of those situations differently. Your first couple (engine failure, vectors near terrain and lose radio contact) are emergencies. That is where extra tools are very useful for helping you turn what could be a very bad day into just a mildly bad day. So here, it enhances your ability to deal with the situation.

Departing a non-towered airport at night (or flying uncontrolled airspace at night) would be more of a normal operation during which the tools are definitely an aid. However, they are no substitute for following the legal, established procedures that you are supposed to be following. For example, when departing a field at night, even if VFR, I will tend to follow the instrument departure procedures.

Your last one is perhaps an example of using the technology as a crutch. "Denied an IFR departure and have to go VFR." I'm not quite sure when that would happen, since it's never happened to me. At that point you are choosing to take off under a situation that may potentially have degraded safety situations. If you are then using the shiny toys to say "I'm not worried about flying VFR around these mountains at night - after all I have synthetic vision," then I would argue that's an improper use of them. You are then making the shiny tool a required flight component. Synthetic vision is not to be confused with military NVGs. One of my friends flies military contracts going into remote airstrips at night with NVGs, no landing lights (state-side, training). He's received special training and approval for this. Keep in mind, your synthetic vision is not NVGs. It's not SAR radar that can actually paint a picture of terrain up ahead (note: I would not use my RDR-130 or KWX-56 for this - they aren't intended for that).

This is why I said the pilot needs to know how and when to use them, and when not to.

Let's see: VSI's, DG's, AI's, Nav. heads, Loran, radar altimeters, autopilots, HSI's, strikefinders, GPS, XM, electronic charts, SVT, AHRS... none of it increases safety if you just ask the right pilot.

For some pilots, those items don't increase safety. All the features in the world don't increase safety if:

1) You don't know how to use them
2) You use them in manners that are inappropriate

Example: The planes I fly these days have de-ice equipment on them. That makes flying in icing conditions something that I can do legally, and in many cases, safely. That does NOT mean that it's an invitation to go out flying in any kind of icing conditions. To do so would be foolish.

If that's "bright and shiny syndrome", OK.

"Bright and shiny syndrome" has less to do with liking equipment (I like equipment) and more to do with a failure to understand the capabilities and limitations, both legally and practically, of that equipment.

 

[poadeleted20]

OK, I was just taking your statement as it was written.

EVS is a whole 'bother story. I'm not letting you watch on TV what your vision restricting device is hiding.

Do you believe that an aircraft with TAA features like synthetic vision make for a safer IFR pilot?

They can, if used properly.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'll say that TAA give a pilot more information and capabilities, and the ability to be safer as a result. Whether the pilot properly uses those capabilities and that information in order to BE safer is another issue.

 

[denverpilot]

...failed by pulling the c/b per the Garmin guide for instructors and examiners)...

Why doesn't Garmin just add a "training mode" to their products with a big fat annunciator that says it's in that mode (so accidents won't be caused by leaving it in that mode in IMC), instead of having people pulling and resetting (and wearing out) a device that was installed for electrical SAFETY and is typically NOT meant to be a power switch?

(I know flight clubs who have "no breaker pulling" in their operational rules...)

 

[denverpilot]

Loran

...???...

 

[poadeleted20]

Why doesn't Garmin just add a "training mode" to their products with a big fat annunciator that says it's in that mode (so accidents won't be caused by leaving it in that mode in IMC), instead of having people pulling and resetting (and wearing out) a device that was installed for electrical SAFETY and is typically NOT meant to be a power switch?

My guess is that like cutoff switch for vacuum systems, the FAA won't permit it.

 

[RotorAndWing]

A "training mode" would make sense since it could be accomplished via software ( a simulated displayed failure) rather than actually failing the component.

The Eurocopter twin engine helicopters (and Sikorsky's) have a training mode selector to simulate an engine failure. When selected the computer shows an engine failure on the CPDS as well as the annuciator panel and the pilot responds accordingly ( staying in the power bands of OEI).

 

[Ted]

A "training mode" would make sense since it could be accomplished via software ( a simulated displayed failure) rather than actually failing the component.

The Eurocopter twin engine helicopters (and Sikorsky's) have a training mode selector to simulate an engine failure. When selected the computer shows an engine failure on the CPDS as well as the annuciator panel and the pilot responds accordingly ( staying in the power bands of OEI).

That's just what I was going to point out. Aside from the OEI training mode, the SK92 even has a mode where it can simulate a heavier load on a light aircraft through software. It indicates that it's in a training mode.

So I doubt that the FAA won't allow it, it's probably just that Garmin didn't want to put it in. It would then have to be an extra piece of software to go through DO-178 and FAA certification.

 

[Wingsofglass]

I think the answer here depends on whether or not you are cheating yourself. I got my IR in a G1000 with SVT. This made a lot of sense for me since it was my plane and some four years later, 99% of my hours are in that plane behind the same avionics package. IR training is a fantastic opportunity to gain proficiency with a G1000 since so much time is spent learning how to deal with failure modes. I think the pilot flying behind a G1000 with say an AHRS failure is better off if they are trained to land safely with that failure than a pilot with more limited G1000 experience but proficient with a six pack.

There is a big HOWEVER here. Because almost all my training and flight time is with SVT, I am in no way proficient to fly a six pack plane in IMC. I can fly a G1000 plane with SVT and any failure you can think of including two black screens, but that s not the same thing. I don't even think I would want to fly behind a G1000 without SVT in IMC unless I practiced a little before.

So my answer to your question is if you think you are going to fly a plane without SVT in the clouds and fly approaches in actual conditions, yes you are cheating yourself in a very dangerous way. If the answer is no, then the more practice you have with the equipment you will fly, the better.

 

[bbchien]

Any aircraft trying to fly an approach without the equipment and fuel required for the approach is SOL from the start. However, I would just fly the approach using GPS in OBS mode. Now if the ADF goes down, then who's having lunch?

So you prove the point. The equipment itself doesn't make you safe, it's what you do with it. It may give you more capability but you can easily just farm up the back 40 and run the same risk you had before.

Re Protected airspace: Let's say you have an engine failure, or you're on vectors near terrain and loose radio contact, or you are departing an airport in uncontrolled airspace at night, or you are denied a night IFR departure and have to go out VFR and stay low to avoid airspace (like in Phoenix recently), or...

Classic example of how equipment doesn't prevent a pilot fu__ up. They after all, knew the mountain was there, they didn't go to the fix themselves that would have protected them.

Let's see: VSI's, DG's, AI's, Nav. heads, Loran, radar altimeters, autopilots, HSI's, strikefinders, GPS, XM, electronic charts, SVT, AHRS... none of it increases safety if you just ask the right pilot.

If that's "bright and shiny syndrome", OK.

And what increases safety is what the pilot does with all that stuff.

And if you're the wrong pilot you're SOL.

 

[Alexb2000]

Well, if you're doing that and there's not an overlay that allows that, then you're violating the regulations. While that is definitely a good backup in case you do have an ADF failure and it becomes an emergency (at which point you invoke 91.3), it's not a good idea to make a habit of violating the rules.

It was the scenario I was given. Of course no competent pilot would ever willing get themselves into that kind of situation except in some dire emergency. I was just pointing out that a well equipped aircraft gives you options.

Let's look at each of those situations differently. Your first couple (engine failure, vectors near terrain and lose radio contact) are emergencies. That is where extra tools are very useful for helping you turn what could be a very bad day into just a mildly bad day. So here, it enhances your ability to deal with the situation.

Agreed

Departing a non-towered airport at night (or flying uncontrolled airspace at night) would be more of a normal operation during which the tools are definitely an aid. However, they are no substitute for following the legal, established procedures that you are supposed to be following. For example, when departing a field at night, even if VFR, I will tend to follow the instrument departure procedures.

I always follow them as well if they have one. Let's say they don't have a departure?

Your last one is perhaps an example of using the technology as a crutch. "Denied an IFR departure and have to go VFR." I'm not quite sure when that would happen, since it's never happened to me. At that point you are choosing to take off under a situation that may potentially have degraded safety situations. If you are then using the shiny toys to say "I'm not worried about flying VFR around these mountains at night - after all I have synthetic vision," then I would argue that's an improper use of them.

I have been denied an IFR departure at night in VFR conditions coming out of Las Vegas. I had them call approach twice, denied, my choice came down to VFR with a pickup in centers airspace or shut-it-down. I have not experienced this in Phoenix, but I have heard it happens there as well. Possibly a factor in the recent crash into the mountain.

This is why I said the pilot needs to know how and when to use them, and when not to.


For some pilots, those items don't increase safety. All the features in the world don't increase safety if:

1) You don't know how to use them
2) You use them in manners that are inappropriate

Example: The planes I fly these days have de-ice equipment on them. That makes flying in icing conditions something that I can do legally, and in many cases, safely. That does NOT mean that it's an invitation to go out flying in any kind of icing conditions. To do so would be foolish.

Maybe this is semantics. I would say if you fly in IMC anywhere near freezing you are going to encounter ice sooner or later, period. Therefore, I would say a FIKI aircraft increases safety in IMC conditions. Using it appropriately should be a given.

 

[Alexb2000]

I'll say that TAA give a pilot more information and capabilities, and the ability to be safer as a result. Whether the pilot properly uses those capabilities and that information in order to BE safer is another issue.

Well said. Much more concise and it doesn't ruffle feathers.

I might have to steal that.