Opinion on automation/glass cockpit

[ALIMBO]

I'm writing a paper for a college aviation management class and need your inputs. The subject matter is automation in the cockpit. What are your feelings on students starting the initial training in a traditional steam gauge cockpit compared to that of an all glass cockpit like the G1000? Also this applies to airline pilots how do you feel when you used to fly a mainly steam gauge cockpit to now all glass? I need comments on safety enhancements from the systems but deficiency's also and set backs from it. In addition to all that if you can include in your post your current employer the type of plane you fly and flight time that would greatly help me out thank you very much. If anyone wants to proof read the final draft just let me know.

 

[say again]

Personally, I feel that students should start out in the basic "six pack". Getting the fundamentals early in training is key. Remember that initial training is flying the aircraft by outside references, and not the instruments (except for a few hrs). With the glass/automation, a students focus will be on those 2 items, where as it should be looking mostly outside, with the occasional look inside to make sure things are still what/where you want them. As the students becomes more advanced, then I feel you can introduce them to more automation and glass. Once they get into instrument training, I feel the basic six pack will also help them to concentrate more and learn basic instrument flying, instead of them fumbling around with the automation/glass. In short, keep the basics six pack until they become more comfortable, confident, and skilled. Automation/glass transition will be much easier.

 

[ALIMBO]

Thank you for your response can you give your current position captain i assume with 5500 tt right?

 

[Princedietrich]

I agree with say again. Pilot trainees need to be competent in flying BOTH steam gauges and glass. Start out with the 6-pack and the round dials to get the fundamentals down and establish instrument scan skills, then move into the glass. I know it's unlikely given the redundancy and reliability of today's equipment, but pilots need to be able to use both.

What happens to someone who has only flown glass and suddenly has to take a plane with traditional dials? Maybe they just took a new job, or their usual trainer is tango-uniform, or they just bought an older model plane. What happens when your electrical system has a complete meltdown and those screens go black? What happens if something causes that extremely weak GPS satellite signal to go away temporarily?

I've seen pilots that only know one thing: how to stare at a screen and push the "direct" button so they can follow a magenta line. Take that magenta line away, and they come completely unglued with nary a clue of how to aviate. It's not the pilot's fault, it's just the way they were trained.

I'd be willing to lay cash on the barrelhead that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone out there who was born after Carter left office who can fly a DME arc or track an NDB bearing or even dead-reckon a straight line.

 

[Paradoxus]

Yeah, about that....

Hope you've got alot of cash to lose on the barrelhead. I can name ten easily off the top of my head, self included, who were born when Reagan took office and only very recently have gotten to fly aircraft that were built in our lifetime. :-D

Barring those who started in this biz late and those who have shifted careers, I think those born into Reagan's second term and after would be a more accurate criteria for summation.

 

[Princedietrich]

Yes but pick just about any RJ cockpit at random and look at who's sitting in there. Odds are, they won't even know what an ADF is, let alone how to use one.

 

[ALIMBO]

Can we please stay on topic this is for an educational purpose thanks for the comments tho and I agree about people not knowing how to do ADF/NDB work but if you cannot do a DME Arc you have no business in the cockpit of commercial airline that is some of the easiest maneuvers to learn.

 

[woutlaw]

For primary training, I don't think it matters much although I prefer as simple an airplane as possible so the student is looking outside and really developing their stick and rudder skills.

I get so frustrated teaching the Cirrus because folks just can't take their eyes off those big, fancy displays. It's a problem with low-time and high-time pilots alike, they just spend too much head down time in the airplane.

For instrument and advanced training, I think it depends on what the student's goals are.

If they're heading straight to an RJ there's an advantage to be had with more exposure to glass, flight directors, autopilots, MFDs, etc... and putting all the systems to best use.

We have some foreign students sponsored by an airline coming soon. They'll never see a steam gauge professionally as their next job is going to be right seat in an Airbus.

I'm as old school as the next guy but I can't really see any reason not to get them looking at glass and deploying automation as soon as possible.

Likewise, if the student has plans to buy, or has already bought, a TAA (glass Cirrus, Cessna, etc...) and is going to be flying that airplane, by all means glass and automation should be stressed as early as possible.

Conversely, for your average GA pilot who may never see a glass cockpit it would be silly for them to train in one then have to transition back to steam gauges.

It's the old "train like you'll fly, fly like you've trained" adage.

The key is to ensure that in their training the glass and automation available to them is not a crutch, but a tool to allow a safer, more efficient flight.

Glass is just so much better and ultimately simpler to use than the old steam gauges, VOR to VOR systems of the past.

But the key is that the student needs a complete understanding of the system. 90% of instrument flying is mental and that's the biggest challenge I've found in training: Getting pilots used to thinking like an instrument pilot.

What instruments they look at aren't as big a factor as what they're thinking about.

If they have a good understanding of the system they should be able to jump back and forth without too much difficulty. I know this because I fly both glass and steam gauges (usually in the same day) and it's just not a big deal.

I love automation because it frees the pilot up to spend more time managing the flight, reduces stress and workload and ultimately should result in a safer flight.

I'd much prefer to fly a glass Cirrus IFR than a steam-gauge Skyhawk without a GPS or autopilot because it's easier, but I'm just as comfortable in both.

All that being said, the "old school" skills are still critical and when the screens go dark they need to know how to fly an approach with a few, poorly located round gauges.

And I agree: Knowing how to fly a DME arc properly or a raw data NDB approach is still a key skill that folks have to know.

As for background, I'm a full time CFI/CFII and Cirrus instructor with 1,100 hours or so. And I learned to fly out of a grass strip in an old 172 and did my instrument rating looking at steam gauges.

Good luck! I'm sure you'll get a variety of opinions.

 

[ALIMBO]

Thank you very much

 

[JAFI]

What are your feelings on students starting the initial training in a traditional steam gauge cockpit compared to that of an all glass cockpit like the G1000?

--- I really do not think it matters. How many “Regan era babies” learned to “fly” on a computer program vs. a real “steam gauge” aircraft? Knowing how the flight display system works is the key. However, I have noticed pilots who have more “glass” time do have some trouble getting into a steam gauge aircraft. Their scan is too narrow from all the glass display info on one display compared to round gauges more spread out on the panel.


Also this applies to airline pilots how do you feel when you used to fly a mainly steam gauge cockpit to now all glass?

It is all what you have been trained in or what your experience is. Your question is about as valid as “Which is better: Flour or Corn taco shells” – A matter of your taste……

How did I “feel” flying round gauges - - YOUNGER…Stronger, able to leap tall buildings……….


I need comments on safety enhancements from the systems but deficiency's also and set backs from it.

Glass keeps working when the vacuum pump fails (usually more often than the electrical power)…. Also a vacuum gauge can fail with no immediate indication; on glass you will have a flag of some sort.


In addition to all that if you can include in your post your current employer the type of plane you fly and flight time that would greatly help me out thank you very much.

FAA Inspector – prior titles: Instructor (ground, flight, simulator), Check Airman, Designee, Chief Pilot, dish washer, cook, ditch digger, oh sorry, too much info…. Currently flying a desk – prior aircraft were pistons, turbo-prop, and jet.

 

[Tired Soul]

Garmin just certfified Synthetic Vision.
It's absolutely stunning.
Should everybody fly it? Probably not.
Doesn't matter for a student what they start on.
Their problems are the same. Six pack or Glass, you have to beat them with a stick to look outside regardless.
Primary students have less trouble with this then experienced pilots transitioning in my opinion.
Student assumes this is the norm and acts accordingly if instructed properly.
I have seen many a grown man look like a dog watching TV and not being able to break the habit.
There is simply more personal discipline required in order not to become a slave to the machine.

Remember the old " identify and verify"?

The PFD is to identify, the MFD (if required) to verify, but train to not rely on it for help.
If you can't fly on the PFD only, you need help.

 

[pilotyip]

We fly old steam gauge airplanes. We find it is more difficult to train a glass experienced pilot in our DA-20's or DC-9's than a pilot who has been looking at steam gages. The glass pilots have weak scans; they are looking clues that are not present, such as the 10-sec future speed calculation. We had a 10,000 RJ pilot who could not shoot a raw data ILS, then there is the 250 hour "All ATP" pilot flew it to ATP standards. In the standard six-pack you have to use all six instruments to fly the airplane, with glass you can look a one gauge and do everything. Many have not flown raw data approaches since they started glass, even worse many have not flown a non-coupled approach in years. I have also have a concern, how can you do a cross-country in G-1000 C-172 and have any practical experience in developing the skills to read charts? To do DR calculations to keep track of your location and most of all keep your head out of the cockpit in VRF conditions. I have noticed this in some students who have logged 1000 hours of PC sim time prior to starting flight training; their eyes are always in the cockpit. Having flown glass I will say it easier, but it does let your scan deteriorate, and since I have the old C-47 IFR, with less instrumentation than the standard C-172, I got to keep my scan working.

 

[Tired Soul]

There is simply more personal discipline required in order not to become a slave to the machine.

That's what I said.
As a CFI you have even more responsibility to teach somebody right.

G-1000 C-172 and have any practical experience in developing the skills to read charts

By the CFI taking away your MFD and forcing you to go "old school".

 

[ALIMBO]

We had a 10,000 RJ pilot who could not shoot a raw data ILS, then there is the 250 hour "All ATP" pilot flew it to ATP standards. In the standard six-pack you have to use all six instruments to fly the airplane, with glass you can look a one gauge and do everything. Many have not flown raw data approaches since they started glass, even worse many have not flown a non-coupled approach in years. I have also have a concern, how can you do a cross-country in G-1000 C-172 and have any practical experience in developing the skills to read charts? To do DR calculations to keep track of your location and most of all keep your head out of the cockpit in VFR conditions.

It seems ridiculous that pilot with 10,000 hours cannot shoot an ILS but then again once you do something long enough its second nature and he has obviously become accustomed to coupled approaches. I was talking with a gentleman who fly's a G1000 Skyhawk and he says its no fun because its nearly impossible to get lost and makes flying almost effortless. To me this is bad I think it can lead to the pilot being complacent.

 

[Tired Soul]

Pilot complacency is human factors and has nothing to do with EFIS
The pilot will always remain as the strong or the weak point.
Glass is meant to make flying safer, despite the pilot's efforts.

 

[JAFI]

It seems ridiculous that pilot with 10,000 hours cannot shoot an ILS but then again once you do something long enough its second nature and he has obviously become accustomed to coupled approaches.

When you do the same thing for 10,000 hours using one way you may find how diffulcult it is to do another way. As you age your brain becomes "hard wired" to specific pathways and "new" ways of doing things become harder. It can be so hard as to make it impossible. My favorate quote from a Captain going from round gauges to a full EFIS aircraft: "I now know what a dog is thinking as he stares at a TV set, I have no Idea what this thing is....." Most can make the transition but some can not. I knew a pilot who had 10,000 hours in a Twin Otter. When his company went to the Beech 1900 he was unable to handle the speed difference. He retired shortly after.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I get so frustrated teaching the Cirrus because folks just can't take their eyes off those big, fancy displays. It's a problem with low-time and high-time pilots alike, they just spend too much head down time in the airplane.

.

Can you put 'post it' notes over the "guages"?

In a faster jet, one HAS to look inside allot. So much is happening so fast, and there is so much information that looking outside too long can be hazardous! Even on VMC approaches.. one has to see the trends...

As far as learning on steam guages or glass... do we teach/learn navigation with sextants!?

 

[woutlaw]

Can you put 'post it' notes over the "guages"?

In a faster jet, one HAS to look inside allot. So much is happening so fast, and there is so much information that looking outside too long can be hazardous! Even on VMC approaches.. one has to see the trends...

As far as learning on steam guages or glass... do we teach/learn navigation with sextants!?

I totally hear you.

Yeah, I usually cover up the PFD with a sheet of paper when we're doing steep turns and my guy is looking inside. I'll do it on landings too if they're having trouble getting the sight picture down. If they're looking inside constantly I fail the PFD and let 'em fly it on the backup gauges and that lovely big window out front.

Running them through the commercial maneuvers is great as well. There's no good way to fly a lazy eight or Chandelle looking inside.

If we're doing instrument stuff, no problem, 2.5 degrees of nose-up pitch and hold on the PFD gets you a level steep turn, but for basic airwork it's easy enough to fly a Cirrus properly looking outside.

I totally get the need to look inside, but unless you're IMC those eyes need to be outside 90-95% of the time. Sadly, they're eyes inside fiddling with something 90-95% of the time.

I had one guy break out his laptop in cruise and start looking at e-mail. WTF?

It's like watching a kid in front of a television, they just can't take their eyes off the display and look outside for what's going to hurt 'em.

In some respects the Cirrus is a little more "jet like" than "piston like" given how we teach it: Standard profiles and procedures, much closer attention to airspeeds, power settings and pitch attitudes along with a large reliance on automation. But in the end, it's still just a piston single and there's no reason to be looking inside 95% of the time.