Glass or traditional gauges?

[DrewBlows]

I don't recommend glass for primary training. There is enough to learn already without having to worry about programming a flight plan, learning system logic, ect. Learn how to fly first then transition to glass.

I have a hunch that instrument students who learn on glass will be more precise pilots, for the simple reason that electronic depictions are more precise. If your altitude is off by 50' you will see it, and pitch changes as little as 1/2 degree are visible on the Attitude indicators. With the old equipment you are lucky to see 2 1/2 degree pitch changes, and while the student is trying to figure whether or not he is level the altitude changes (arrrrggghhhh!). Then your instructor says "altitude", you finally find level but it's 100' high...

Anyway, my point is that some glass time will do you good (training will go much smoother when you do get a job), but at the primary stage it's unnecessary.

 

[Lead Sled]

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 judgment 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

I probably would agree with Terry, at least for the time being.

I can imagine that our grandparents probably had this same conversation back in the 30's, 40's, and early '50s - only instead of talking about glass they were talking about the merits of allowing a student to use one of those new fangled artificial horizons. (Those were the same guys who flew hand flew their DC-2s and Boeing 247s down to 200-1/2 on the old 4-course range approaches with nothing but needle, ball, and airspeed.) Our fathers had a similar discussion on the virtues of using flight directors and autopilots (and even tricycle landing gear). Don't misunderstand me, I understand that you've got to be proficient at raw data flying; however, I've heard more than one old-timer tell me that real pilots fly taildraggers and don't use autopilots or flight directors.

Personally, it's getting more difficult for me to see where there is virtue to be gained in training on steam gauges - it's getting progressively harder to find them in the "working" airplanes - military, airline or corporate - that most of us aspire to fly. About the only place you encounter them any more is in civilian training aircraft. I doubt if there's been a jet manufactured in the past 25 years that wasn't glass. As far as piston-powered aircraft go, every manufacturer is selling glass airplanes - I read some where that Mooney hasn't built a steam gauge plane in a couple of years. Look at the airplanes (turbojet, turboprop, or piston) that are being sold today - essentially they're all equipped with glass.

After all is said and done, I guess that I am a proponent of the "train as you fly and fly as you train" philosophy. It wouldn't take of lot of imagination to come up with a scenario where a new pilot went his/her entire career and never flew a steam gauge airplane. (I haven't flown one in 15 years.) If that were to be the case, what benefit would training on steam gauges provide? We're not to that point yet, but it won't be much longer.

'Sled

 

[troy]

I think glass is even worse for the private. I don't see anyone can learn how to navigate with a huge moving map spoonfeeding you your position the whole time.

I like to shut off the map sometimes. It makes the student think instead of just looking at the screen and pointing. Also, I make the X-countries consist of different forms of navigation. One leg with a VOR, one pilotage, one GPS. That way, they get all the neccessary forms of navigation, and are not just hitting "direct" on the GPS and watching the landscape go by.

 

[CapnVegetto]

Train on whatever's cheaper. If price is not an object, stay away from the gee-whiz stuff until you actually learn how to fly. I got my instrument rating in a CE-152 with one VOR/ILS and one NDB. Flipping back and forth between VOR's to figure out an intersection, cross checking VOR and NDB radials, shooting a partial panel NDB approach, all of it makes you a BETTER pilot. Hell, I remember when I though DME was ultra cool. Learn it the hard way, and everything else will just be gravy. To this day, I can fly a full procedure approach with minimum equipment, no GPS, no moving map, anything, and always look right at an approach chart anytime during it (even while being vectored) and point to exactly where I am. I was surprised how many students I had couldn't do that.

Learn it the hard way for sure. Practice it when you're on line. I hand fly at least 75% of my approaches, and try to do at least one actual raw data approach a week. It's never a bad idea, because you'll never know when you'll need it. I have a regional buddy that's had to shoot an ILS into IAD on the peanut gyro. Last time I was at Simuflite, I had to do a single engine mins ILS on emergency instruments only. (Copilots airspeed, alt, atttitude indicator, and HSI). Of course, this was after telling the instructor to "try and kill me."

OK, enough rambling. You get the jist of it.

 

[Lazy8]

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

 

[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.