Glass or traditional gauges?

[woofer_77]

Out of the five flights that I've done a different flight schools, two of them have been with G1000 glass cockpits. While it seems like it's a really cool system, I have enjoyed my flights without it more than with it. The right side of the cockpit on the other flights did have a GPS system, but the primary gauges were traditional. If I had the money to buy a plane after I earn my ratings, I would probably get it, but for right now I like flying the traditional cockpit better. Plus, it is cheaper to rent planes without the G1000.

Is there any significant reason why I really need do my primary flight training or instrument flight training with a glass cockpit? Or would I just be able to learn it later, say like when I'm time building for my commercial?

Thanks.

 

[paulsalem]

I've taught in both Glass and steam gauge aircraft. LEARN TO FLY ON STEAM GAUGES. Its mainly due to the moving map. If you learn to figure out where you are without a giant color moving map, then it is that much easier to transition to an aicraft with a moving map.

 

[Gutenberg]

Learn in the airplanes with the most availability. That way, you won't have to keep switching mindsets from glass to steam. If the club/school has 3 G-1000 skyhawks and one with steam, go with the glass. The reverse is more likely and equally true.

 

[acaTerry]

I am a fan of learning on the traditional stuff. The gee-whiz stuff can come later. Here are my main reasons:
1. The glass is based upon the steam guages. It has the same six instruments, just displayed in a different format.
2. Primacy. If you learn to FLY THE AIRPLANE, not to fly flight directors and autopilots, you will turn out a safer, more competent pilot. Along with the many ways this will benefit your flying skills, you will be able to produce your own situational awareness and judgement skills rather than counting on the glass to do it for you.
3. The glass presents too much information for a new pilot to absorb (trends, color coding, and also having to change displays, formats, etc becomes too much for the greenhorn). You must be an airplane pilot first, then a tech geek later.
4. It is more cost effective to learn in the old world.
5. Moving maps. As a professional pilot, I love them. As a flight instructor, I hate them. Too many pilots bust airspace and fail to learn how to navigate properly. In fact, airspace violations have gone UP since the glass has come out (and that was well before those crazy TFRs too).
6. If you learn on steam, and the glass fails, using the peanut gyro and stby ASI is old hat. If you learned on glass and the glass fails, you are in for trouble.

Just my observations based on 2000+ hrs of instruction and an additional 2500+ as sim instructor (including CRJ sim - which is glass).
Fly safe!
Terry

 

[Say Again Over]

Well some valid points have been made but I would recommend learning on the most technologically advanced aircraft available if you have a choice, it's much easier going back to learn steam gauges than the other way around. I remember transitioning to "glass", in the interview they asked me if I had any "glass" time, like it was something magic. Nowadays corporate and airline equipment is pretty much all glass, I would say learn early.

 

[paulsalem]

Nowadays corporate and airline equipment is pretty much all glass...quote]

I would agree; however unless your going to gulfstream academy you're first and maybe second job (CFI, then possibly piston cargo) will be on steam gauges.

Imagine giving instrument instruction on steam gauges if all you've ever used is glass.

However take my advice with a grain of salt, as I have about 12,000 hours less than SayAgain

 

[troy]

If you learn on traditional type gauges, you will learn situational awareness better than relying on glass type. Anyone can look at a map on the glass and see where you are at. It takes some skill to look at a VOR or two and "see" where you are. Learn the basics, then transition to the glass. Plenty of time to goof-off later.

 

[Say Again Over]

Goof off, lol, I have had the opportunity of transitioning many 727 pilots to the Airbus, it was anything but a walk in the park, there were several casualties.

 

[troy]

I hear what you are saying. But, the student (assuming pvt or inst) should be able to fly traditional type first, then enhance their learning by utilizing the glass. Unless the student has flown in traditional type aircraft, they will be lost when working on instrument work. For the private, glass is fine. It's all visual anyway. The VOR/HSI/etc is there for "secondary" navigation.

Hell, from what I've been told, the aircraft will fly itself, shoot the approach, land, and roll to a stop on the centerline anyway. What's the problem? (J/K!!!)

 

[groundpointsix]

Goof off, lol, I have had the opportunity of transitioning many 727 pilots to the Airbus, it was anything but a walk in the park, there were several casualties.

Just pure speculation on my part, but wouldn't the majority of those 727 pilots you speak of be older guys? People who didn't necesarilly grow up with computers? I know there's not a direct comparison between using my PC and programming and FMS or even a basic GPS, but if you've grown up using computers I think you have less of a fear of technology and have an easier time adapting.

As an instructor who has taught in both styles, fly the real gauges, the transition to glass goes a lot smoother than the transition back.

When I left my last instructing job (where I spent 80%+ of my time in glass cockpits), I had a hell of a job when I had to transition back to old-style cockpits for my new job. I was miles behind the airplane trying to readapt, and I had about 80 hours of actual and simulated instrument at the time.