The aeronautical abbreviation CFIT has been around for quite some time. Many of us who have lived on this planet for a number of years can remember the horrific accident of an airliner that descended in a controlled descent into the ground while the crew attempted to change a light bulb.
We have now added CFIT into our aviation vocabulary, and it has become one of the training requirements for the instrument rating. Now, we have added Technically Advanced Aircraft (TAA) to our vocabulary, along with “button ology” as part of (TAA).
About a year ago, I wrote an article about my experience using a touch screen navigator in heavy turbulence trying to program an amended flight plan into the navigator. I almost became an example of CFIT.
After a three-month absence from flying due to a broken knee and a leg brace that kept me from being able to fly, I spent 50 hours flying a Cessna 185 with a Garmin 750 and a GFC 500 autopilot. It is amazing how quickly a person can forget the button ology on other navigators, as well as the one in my own Bonanza. A few days after my marathon flying session in the Cessna 185, I found myself back in my Bonanza on an IFR flight plan in IMC conditions heading to a familiar destination with the approach all loaded in the navigator. As we know, an instrument approach can have numerous initial approach fixes, and ATC gave me that dreaded call “38 Yankee, we have an amendment to your clearance… advise when ready to copy.” If you have been flying instruments long enough, you know that ATC is sometimes late in issuing clearances or amendments due to heavy traffic volume. The pilot must adjust his / her priorities to compensate, as you cannot stop the aircraft to accomplish the new tasks in a logical order.
For example, you may need to start a turn or descent prior to reading back a complicated reroute. This amendment caught me off guard and I needed to begin my descent, start a turn, reprogram the navigator, and read back a clearance — all at the same time. Humans are not good at multi-tasking. We can say we are task saturated.
I handled the descent and turn along with the clearance readback okay, but not the reprogramming of the navigator. I could not remember how to do the route change in my own navigator, which uses a flight management system (FMS) architecture. My button ology confusion in getting the reroute change made in the navigator in a timely fashion and lack of prioritizing tasks allowed me to descend below my assigned altitude on my way to a CFIT accident. I do not have altitude preselect on my autopilot, which did not help.
Evaluating my situation, it is important for pilots and instructors to learn from past experiences and share them with others to enhance their knowledge base. The airlines over the years have been following this philosophy and developed a good safety record. They have been adamant to keep the equipment in all of their aircraft identical, so pilots are not confused by going from one airplane to another. Airline manufacturers when designing aircraft will try to have similar, if not identical, equipment and performance numbers, as there is a large expense to the airlines in keeping pilots well trained and current.
For example, the Boeing 757 and 767 were designed so pilots only needed differences training, rather than a separate type rating. In general aviation, it is just the opposite. A Garmin G-1000 package in a Piper may not function the same as a G-1000 package in a Cessna. When we consider an update to our avionics, we often want to keep some of the equipment that was recently installed.
For example, two years ago you had an S-tec 3100 autopilot installed and want to keep it, and you are planning for a Garmin 750 navigator. How will these boxes play together?
When instructing with different avionics, I treat each aircraft as totally different until I know otherwise. Many pilots shop for price when choosing an installer, and there are horror stories about many of these low-price installations.
It has been an issue from beginning of TAA, and the FAA, as well as pilots, feel that additional training is necessary when getting new avionics. But who would believe there would be so many retrofits and different responses from similar equipment as to what a pilot expects to happen.
At the request of our local FAA safety team manager, I developed and presented a 35-minute seminar on August 6th that covered some of the issues associated with “Moving From Legacy Avionics,” which was viewed by some 900-plus pilots and instructors. The presentation was split between tailwheel flying and avionics and can be viewed by clicking on this hyperlink https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7ILzRBlkh4.
In my presentation, I talk about Glitches and Gotchas with Glitches being items from manufacturers or installers that are definitely a problem and not correct, whereas Gotchas are correct items but not expected by the pilot because of previous experiences. I hope this article allows pilots to be cautious while flying instruments in aircraft they have never flown before or with avionics they have never used, and it gives them more knowledge.
Wisdom is how you use the knowledge you have acquired. FLY SAFE!
DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this column is the expressed opinion of the author only, and readers are advised to seek the advice of their personal flight instructor and others, and refer to the Federal Aviation Regulations, FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, and instructional materials before attempting any procedures discussed herein. © Copyright 2025. All rights reserved!
