Glass or traditional gauges?

[pilotyip]

Interesting note on the C-5 that went in at Dover, they were near gross weight, full flaps, engine out, plus other problems and they were busy programing their glass cockpit for the approach to the runway which they landed short of, were they distracted by the "gee wis" FMS stuff in the cockpit? I don't know, but I have seen a lot of heads down at the wrong time with all this programing stuff. See the C-5 thread for more info

 

[Lazy8]

There's been plenty of accidents with pilots flying traditional panels, head(s) in the cockpit, and flying low-level. This isn't a glass panel issue. If both their heads were in the flight deck then C-5 accident sounds like an example of poor CRM.

You can program a flight plan in GA glass if you want to; however, I would hope most people would do that on the ground prior to takeoff. A little common sense and glass panel training from an experienced glass panel instructor goes a long way.

Grove

 

[Say Again Over]

This isn't a glass panel issue. If both their heads were in the flight deck then C-5 accident sounds like an example of poor CRM.
by Grove

I agree, and if you believe the propaganda on the news it says the AC was the only one familiar with the new glass cockpit, that's hard to believe.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The less instrumets the better for the first 50 to 100 hours. Nothing more than A/S, Altimeter and compass so the pilot learns the relationships of attitude, power, airspeed and direction.

After the above goals are met then the full glass G1000 or other similar panels are the way to go.

 

[troy]

Like it or not glass is the way of the future for primary thru advanced training. Last I read Cessna has already ended production of 'steam gauge' 182s and 206s and I believe 2007 is the last year for 'steam' 172s to be ordered.

I've taught several students in both glass and steam. While glass panels do display a plethora of information there is no reason why a Private student cannot learn on it. In fact, it's been easier for most of my students with the G1000 panel. It's not like you need a computer science degree. The panel is very intuitive and pilot friendly. If anything, transitioning from glass to steam is MUCH easier than vice-versa because steam displays less information.

Worried about not being able to teach pilotage or dead reckoning with the pretty moving map? Easy- do alot of your training with the DISPLAY BACKUP engaged (which turns both screens into a PFD with no moving map) or simply dim the MFD to 0%.

Every time GA panels get higher-tech the aviation community has this argument that it's 'too much' or 'overkill' for training. I'm sure people were saying the same things when LORAN, VORs, ADF's, RMI's HSI's, etc.. were being introduced into GA cockpits. Folks, this isn't the dark ages anymore. Train on the latest technology, because chances are you won't be flying that piper cub with no electrical system and a jar of oil for a attitude indicator in the future.

Grove

I don't think that it's overkill to put primary students in glass, the point is that they need to learn the stick and rudder stuff before everything else. If that is the only trainer, so be it. If a choice is to be made between two aircraft, one should probably start them out in the traditional type. No doubt that it's easy for a student to learn in a glass system, but the basics need to be taught before the advanced stuff. There are plenty more traditional type cockpits out there than glass, would be nice if a private pilot could fly one of them (single VOR??) as well as glass, dual gps, fms, etc.

 

[papanovember]

In my opinion glass has it's place but it is not in small general aviation cockpits. The electrical systems of today's trainers are just not reliable enough for me to want to go playing in the glouds with my Avidyne/G1000 boob tube.

A buddy of mine instructed at a flight school with SR20/SR22s and had three separate electrical problems the most severe being a complete electrical failure. Luckily he was VFR and in a position to make a normal descent and landing to a non towered airport.

The other problem that I have found just with the moving map on a GPS is the lack of situational awareness when the map is gone. I try to get my students to master full procedure VOR approaches, ILSs, and tracking airways using only the VORs before even using the 430s.

This quote is in my Skyroamers training manual "Flying without an attitude indicator, with only one navigation radio, and with a hand mike while dealing with last minute clearances must be a natural act."

I know a few 135 freight dogs that would agree with the above statement. Problably want to add on one engine while picking up severe clear icing.

 

[Lazy8]

I don't think that it's overkill to put primary students in glass, the point is that they need to learn the stick and rudder stuff before everything else. If that is the only trainer, so be it. If a choice is to be made between two aircraft, one should probably start them out in the traditional type. No doubt that it's easy for a student to learn in a glass system, but the basics need to be taught before the advanced stuff. There are plenty more traditional type cockpits out there than glass, would be nice if a private pilot could fly one of them (single VOR??) as well as glass, dual gps, fms, etc.

Why do you assume a student can't learn basic stick and rudder skills with a glass panel? A 172 glass panel flys exactly the same as a 172 traditional panel.

Grove

 

[Lazy8]

In my opinion glass has it's place but it is not in small general aviation cockpits. The electrical systems of today's trainers are just not reliable enough for me to want to go playing in the glouds with my Avidyne/G1000 boob tube.

A buddy of mine instructed at a flight school with SR20/SR22s and had three separate electrical problems the most severe being a complete electrical failure. Luckily he was VFR and in a position to make a normal descent and landing to a non towered airport.

This is a Cirrus issue, not an Avidyne issue. Cirrus is notorious for having panels overheating on long flights causing complete panel failures. There simply isn't enough ventilation and cooling going on behind the panel (especially in the warmer climates). Also, alternator failures on the Cirrus, even though there are two, seem to be too frequent. Again, aircraft issue, not panel.

I've flown several hundred hours in G1000 182s and 172s with not a single glitch. If we did lose the alternator and main batter in a G1000 equipped airplane they all have a standby battery than can power the panel for 45 minutes.

Grove

 

[snowman]

grove is spot on.
Stick and rudder skills are taught regardless of the panel. Teach the students to fly the plane that is on the ramp, and instill good habits. If you do your job as an instructor then it doesn't matter which panel they fly..
Cirrus is crap.
adios

 

[Cessnut]

Grove hit the nail on the head.

As far as the G1000 is concerned: The issue that is often overlooked with new TAA aircraft are the ability to provide a safer environment through better situational awarness. This reduces the number of accidents. I think I read the word "spoon fed" in here somewhere. Trainning needs to be scenario based. Good situational awarness skills can still be learned in a TAA aircraft. Technique is key. CFIT is a huge concern that is very well combated by TAA aircraft with terrain awarness and moving map displays. They also reduce pilot work load which allows the pilot to further concentrate on situational awareness.

Now that I've said that, the problem that a pilot may find themselves in, is the transition from glass to the steam gauge with no additional training. This wouldn't be any different than transitioning from a steam gauge to glass without any additional training. It's a mixture for trouble. Without the appropriate trainning, a skilled pilot without glass training will soon find themselves every bit as "lost" due to unfamilar equipment. The bottom line is to be thoroughly trained on the equipment you intend to fly.