Skyview classic for IFR training

[freerangequark]

I haven't used my instrument rating as PIC in over 20 years, when I was flying on steam gauges.
I am interested in getting back to instrument flying. I have sim and aircraft time scheduled to start to bring me back up to speed on IFR Flying.

I also have access to a Pipistrel Virus SW with a Dynon Skyview and 2 axis AP

I am aware that this plane is not equipped for IFR flight and that the Skyview is not IFR legal. I do not intend to use it as such.

My question is, with the addition of Seatlle Avionics charts and plates, along with a safety pilot... can Skyview serve as worthwhile training aid towards getting me back to instrument/IFR basics?

My understanding is that is that I can't pull up an approach... just the georeferenced plate, however I could sequence waypoints to simulate a GPS approach for example. Is this correct? What is the limitation of the VNAV when doing this? Command bars? Autopilot on a coupled approach?

Are there any online resources on the topic of using the Skyview as an IFR training aid?

Thanks,
Glenn

 

[airguy]

You are correct on the georeferenced plate, it will display the plate on the screen and you can hand fly that, or autopilot through the GPS points that you will have to program in, and fly the "step-down" altitudes using the AP vertical descent commands. There will be no VNAV in the "IFR-protected" sense of VNAV. You may still see a VNAV arm mode and a glideslope indicator on the screen to the right of the HSI, but it will be the "VFR VNAV" function as described in the manual, and will NOT be the same as the IFR glideslope - it also will NOT put you in "protected" (meaning obstacle-free) airspace - the VFR VNAV function will quite happily fly you into a building or mountain side or antenna.

But as for getting back into the basics of it, for hand-flying and even using the AP and step-down altitudes, sure. The safety pilot will be a critical piece of that puzzle.

 

[CanardMulti]

I've seen various articles speculating that when the new MOSAIC rules become effective that IFR training *in VFR conditions* will be legal using LSA aircraft. Whether they will or wont allow actual operations in IMC is unclear. If your Pipistrel has an IFR GPS navigator, be aware some brands - Avidyne for sure - can purchase modestly less expensive data subscriptions that contain the IFR approach data without the actual approach charts. That allows approaches (and SIDS, STARS, etc.) to be loaded, displayed, and flown on your Skyview map when the navigator is selected as the map source. Even without an IFR GPS unit, a simple VHF NAV radio will allow practice of victor airway enroute navigation and basic VOR and ILS approaches when properly connected to Skyview.

Just my take on it: IMHO, you will have a definite advantage having learned your initial IFR procedures on steam gauges when re-learning IFR on glass, as opposed to "children of the magenta line" who began their training on glass. Steam gauge IFR requires a pilot to learn how to build the entire map and situation in their mind and better equips them to anticipate what is coming for more complete situational awareness.

Ken

 

[airguy]

Steam gauge IFR requires a pilot to learn how to build the entire map and situation in their mind and better equips them to anticipate what is coming for more complete situational awareness.

Ken

A skill that, sadly, is largely lost in todays pilots.

 

[freerangequark]

I've seen various articles speculating that when the new MOSAIC rules become effective that IFR training *in VFR conditions* will be legal using LSA aircraft. Whether they will or wont allow actual operations in IMC is unclear. If your Pipistrel has an IFR GPS navigator, be aware some brands - Avidyne for sure - can purchase modestly less expensive data subscriptions that contain the IFR approach data without the actual approach charts. That allows approaches (and SIDS, STARS, etc.) to be loaded, displayed, and flown on your Skyview map when the navigator is selected as the map source. Even without an IFR GPS unit, a simple VHF NAV radio will allow practice of victor airway enroute navigation and basic VOR and ILS approaches when properly connected to Skyview.

Just my take on it: IMHO, you will have a definite advantage having learned your initial IFR procedures on steam gauges when re-learning IFR on glass, as opposed to "children of the magenta line" who began their training on glass. Steam gauge IFR requires a pilot to learn how to build the entire map and situation in their mind and better equips them to anticipate what is coming for more complete situational awareness.

Ken

I just rewatched "Children of the Magenta Line".

Sadly, stick and rudder skills are becoming a scarcity among so many pilots training to be button pushers.

I always recommend getting time in tailwheel, gliders, aerobatics, and for fun, some formation flying. Great skill builders!

 

[Marc_J._Zeitlin]

Sadly, stick and rudder skills are becoming a scarcity among so many pilots training to be button pushers.
I always recommend getting time in tailwheel, gliders, aerobatics, and for fun, some formation flying. Great skill builders!

And yet, accident rates, both fatal and non-fatal, have been trending down for many years and continue to do so, even in the face of these claims that "the old days were better". GA accident statistics/facts do not support this claim.

I agree with you 100% that all the things you mention are good for pilots to do. But we really need to stop claiming that things were better/safer in the old days of steam gauges, flying by the "seat of the pants", no transponders/ADS-B, etc.

The video referenced is from 1997. 28 years ago. Flying is far safer now than it was then. Want to go back? No thanks.

And btw, I'm 67 (crap - almost 68) and learned to fly in 1974 - no headsets, fewer rules, steam gauges - got my instrument rating in 2004 in my COZY MKIV with steam gauges and a single VOR/LOC/ILS. So I've flown both.

 

[freerangequark]

I just mentioned I learned on IFR steam gauges and hand flying. I do like glass though!

Absolutely agree that accident rates have gone down over the years, and there's a good case to be made that better automation and system design has helped a lot with that. while automation's probably a big part of it, its not the only thing going on. what really matters is, when accidents do happen now, its usually when the automation breaks, acts weird, or gets used wrong. and even though that doesn’t happen often, when it does, it’s a big deal. the whole thing comes down to the crews ability to fly the plane without all the gadgets. so yeah, automation cuts workload and stops a lot of small mistakes, but it don’t replace actual flying skills. when the tech trips up, you gotta know how to fly.

 

[Marc_J._Zeitlin]

what really matters is, when accidents do happen now, its usually when the automation breaks, acts weird, or gets used wrong.

Do you have an data to back that up? The 2022 McSpadden (nee, Nall) report here (last year for which non-preliminary data is available):

Richard G. McSpadden Report Figure View

does not show any data supporting that claim.

the whole thing comes down to the crews ability to fly the plane without all the gadgets. so yeah, automation cuts workload and stops a lot of small mistakes, but it don’t replace actual flying skills. when the tech trips up, you gotta know how to fly.

This is true, and it's a known problem on the big iron as well, with no obvious solution (yet).

I do not argue that there are no issues with all the new gadgets - any new technology, while solving some problems, creates others. But on the whole, things are better/safer than they used to be, and I'm just tired of the whining (which you may not have inplied, but that I inferred) that "things were better in the old days" and "you kids, get off of my lawn".

 

[swatson999]

Do you have an data to back that up? The 2022 McSpadden (nee, Nall) report here (last year for which non-preliminary data is available):

Richard G. McSpadden Report Figure View

does not show any data supporting that claim.

What's this? Actual DATA? Surely you must be kidding!

 

[Rhino]

...when accidents do happen now, its usually when the automation breaks, acts weird, or gets used wrong...

Not true. It's more reliable than the old stuff. And as the rest of your comment suggested, it's the lack of skill or judgement that gets them in trouble, not any instrument or system failure. That's true whether you have steam or glass. That's mainly why I did most of my initial training in taildraggers. You have to learn stick and rudder that way, and there's little in the way of instrumentation. But then you have to be diligent to retain those skills afterward.

 

[swatson999]

Not true. It's more reliable than the old stuff. And as the rest of your comment suggested, it's the lack of skill or judgement that gets them in trouble, not any instrument or system failure. That's true whether you have steam or glass. That's mainly why I did most of my initial training in taildraggers. You have to learn stick and rudder that way, and there's little in the way of instrumentation. But then you have to be diligent to retain those skills afterward.

I know taildragger pilots like to assert that they're better than us lowly nosegear pilots , and no doubt their skills *on the runway* with rudder control and such are better, but...once you're in the air, how does the position of the 3rd wheel factor into one's airmanship skills?

Not criticizing, mind you... . But to go back to data-driven stuff...do we have data that shows pilots with tailwheel endorsements have fewer accidents (either loss of control on the ground, or some other cause during other phases)? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Marc_J._Zeitlin]

...do we have data that shows pilots with tailwheel endorsements have fewer accidents (either loss of control on the ground, or some other cause during other phases)? Inquiring minds want to know!

The data is very thin, but we actually have data showing the opposite:

Taildraggers and turmoil — General Aviation News

General aviation has long faced challenges with landing-related mishaps, but the study underscores the disproportionate role of tailwheel aircraft in these incidents, according to the researchers.

generalaviationnews.com

not surprisingly, aircraft that are harder to control on the ground have higher ground based accident rates (duh).

Now, is this due to the plane or to the pilot? We don't know - could be either or both.

But it sure as sh*t isn't due to the glass cockpit instrumentation.

 

[swatson999]

The data is very thin, but we actually have data showing the opposite:

Taildraggers and turmoil — General Aviation News

General aviation has long faced challenges with landing-related mishaps, but the study underscores the disproportionate role of tailwheel aircraft in these incidents, according to the researchers.

generalaviationnews.com

not surprisingly, aircraft that are harder to control on the ground have higher ground based accident rates (duh).

Now, is this due to the plane or to the pilot? We don't know - could be either or both.

But it sure as sh*t isn't due to the glass cockpit instrumentation.

That doesn't surprise me a bit. Now...what about the other 99% of flight time...the airborne part? Any difference in accident stats there? Those tailwheel bros all insist that getting that endorsement made them "a better pilot" . Do the stats bear it out?

 

[Rhino]

I know taildragger pilots like to assert that they're better than us lowly nosegear pilots , and no doubt their skills *on the runway* with rudder control and such are better, but...once you're in the air, how does the position of the 3rd wheel factor into one's airmanship skills?

In the air, usually more coordinated turns. On the ground, a taildragger is definitely worse. But in the context of instrument failure being discussed here, ground handling or RLOC isn't what I was talking about. I'm a nosegear pilot too. I just did initial training in taildraggers, where stick and rudder was more emphasized. You tend to learn the feel of the airplane more. But there are no absolutes either way. Too many people rely too heavily on automation, whether it be steam or glass, though it's more prevalent with glass. The better your stick and rudder skills, the better your chances at getting through instrumentation loss unscathed. Learning in a taildragger tends to instill those skills more heavily, but it doesn't mean you'll necessarily keep them. As I said, there are no absolutes. I only mentioned that anecdotally, to emphasize the skill factor. Budd Davisson talks about it all the time.