Small Aircraft
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Workload; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Software and Automation; Procedure; Human Factors
I was cleared on the RNAV departure to maintain 3;000 feet. When loading the departure an additional fix not noted on the chart was loaded in. I reloaded the departure to ensure I had the proper transition and the fix appeared again. This fix is not on the RNAV departure. I later realized that this is how the G1000 creates additional heading legs; but at the time I did not realize this and so I deleted the extraneous fix to have the flight plan reflect the proper departure.  After reaching 1;000 feet the departure states to turn left heading 295; which I had briefed. I began turning right and was adjusting the heading bug and noted it was taking a long time to reach 295 before I realized that I was turning the wrong direction. I corrected and initiated the turn back to the left heading 295. I was about 20 to 30 degrees off from the heading when ATC called and asked if I was VFR or IFR. I responded with that I was IFR and turning left to 295.There are a few contributing factors that lead to my error. First was my general lack of recency with the G1000. In the last 120 days I had amassed a total of only 6.7 hours in the aircraft. Additionally I only have a total of 24 hours in the aircraft since my check-ride last summer. This lack of familiarity; currency and comfort in the aircraft contributed to the error.  After passing 1;000 feet the G1000 was showing a magenta line to the right which is probably partially why I turned the wrong direction. An additional contributing factor was that I was operating single pilot IFR in icing conditions with little experience in the aircraft. This was a Part 91 flight and the 100 hour rule for commuter passenger operations did not apply.   While the General Operations Manual has a dual qualification policy it does not adequately address low time pilots. When a pilot is only qualified in one aircraft type they are afforded an opportunity immediately after completing their check-ride and Operational Experience to gain significant flight time and consolidate their knowledge and skills in the aircraft over the course of a few months.  In my scenario I have accumulated only 9 hours since the completion of Operational Experience. I am in full compliance with the policy and have been active in ensuring I fly the aircraft within the 90 days and make an effort to coordinate a flight when I haven't flown in over 30 days. As is evidenced by my low hours recently this does not afford a pilot new in the aircraft any significant flight time; nor the ability to consolidate their knowledge. While all aircraft are of the general purpose multi-engine variety this aircraft is the only Technically Advanced Aircraft (TAA) in the fleet. This adds a significant amount of complexity to it's operation.I would suggest that when a pilot is qualified on any aircraft we afford them the necessary time and hours to consolidate their knowledge and skills. Part 121 recognizes this issue and has the requirement for consolidation of knowledge and skills in new type aircraft. While again our aircraft are of the same type I feel with dramatic difference in this aircraft particularly; being a TAA; there should be a similar effort. Under Part 121 a pilot would be required to obtain 100 hours within 120 days of becoming qualified in the aircraft. I think we should model a policy to have similar protections. Consolidation was identified in a joint government/industry task force in 1993 to be of concern. One primary reason was 'in recent years manufacturers have introduced a greater number of new aircraft containing more equipment and systems variations within type. Pilots must not only learn different aircraft handling characteristics but they must also be able to work with a variety of aircraft equipment such as automated flight control and flight management systems.' (Federal Register Vol 60 No 81). As this aircraft aligns closely with the concerns listed here that resulted in the regulatory change (advanced aircraft systems)I think a policy to ensure a similar amount of experience is obtained in each aircraft a pilot is qualified in. This would not be to change the dual qualification policy; however; it would most often be triggered and impact pilots who are dual qualified. If a pilot were unable to accomplish the consolidation of knowledge and skills then I think it would be best to enter them into a recurrent training program. As a direct result of this deviation and review of my recent experience I have requested a training event from the flight training department to ensure that I have the requisite proficiency and after that I will make a concerted effort to add shifts to ensure I can achieve my consolidation of knowledge and skills.
Pilot reported they turned the wrong direction on a SID due to unfamiliarity and lack of proficiency with the navigation equipment in their aircraft.