Instrument Rating Question

[Darkwing]

Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye candy!
They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old) but they
have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam gauges for
my private but not sure which way I should go for my instrument. As time
goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more and more common but I
don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 24, 11:41*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
> Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
> biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
> G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
> because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye candy!
> They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old) but they
> have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam gauges for
> my private but not sure which way I should go for my instrument. As time
> goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more and more common but I
> don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?

Even if you fly glass cockpit there are backup partial panel gauges
you're going to have to learn to use, so go for the more advanced
cockpit. I trained mostly in 172s, but for XC in real IMC you may
find, as I did, that they just don't have the legs you'll want. Even
if it's soft IFR if you're under a big weather system you'll have to
refuel after 90 minutes just to have legal reserves. The point is,
you'll probably move on to different SELs with a more complete suite
of advanced instrumentation, so why not deal with the glass cockpit
now?

Good question, it'll be interesting to read other opinions.

[BDS]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
> Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
> biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
> G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
> because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye
> candy! They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old)
> but they have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam
> gauges for my private but not sure which way I should go for my
> instrument. As time goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more
> and more common but I don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with
> or not. Any thoughts?

Learn on the equipment that you're likely to be flying.

[Ron Garret]

In article >, "bds" > wrote:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
> > Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
> > Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
> > biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
> > G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
> > because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye
> > candy! They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old)
> > but they have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam
> > gauges for my private but not sure which way I should go for my
> > instrument. As time goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more
> > and more common but I don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with
> > or not. Any thoughts?
>
> Learn on the equipment that you're likely to be flying.

I have to disagree with this. I'd go for the steam gauges. I think it
will make you a better pilot. When you don't have a moving map, you
have to learn to build and maintain a much more complete mental picture
of your situation in your head. Also, having to tune and ident VORs all
the time adds to the workload and makes it that much harder. If you
learn to do that, switching to a moving map is very easy. But going the
other way is nearly impossible. One day when you're in the soup and you
lose your MFD you will have a much easier time dealing with it if you
got more practice flying VOR needles back in the day.

rg

[Tauno Voipio]

Darkwing wrote:
> Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for
> my Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics
> is my biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's
> with G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent
> for VFR because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I
> like eye candy! They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4
> years old) but they have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I
> trained on steam gauges for my private but not sure which way I should
> go for my instrument. As time goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft
> will be more and more common but I don't know if that is a crutch for
> learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?

It is later easier to transition from steam gauges
to G1000 than the opposite direction. If I were you,
I'd start with the traditional ones.

--

Tauno Voipio (CPL(A), CFII)
Steam gauges: OH-PYM, PA-28RT201T
G1000: OH-STS, DA-42

[Ricky]

On Aug 24, 10:41*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
> Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
> biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
> G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
> because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye candy!
> They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old) but they
> have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam gauges for
> my private but not sure which way I should go for my instrument. As time
> goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more and more common but I
> don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?

You should train on traditional instruments (steam gauges). The
transition from traditional to glass is much easier than going from
glass cockpit to traditional instrumentation. If a good simulator is
at hand, why not train on both, whilst focusing on the steam gauges?
Speaking of simulators, I spent A LOT of time in them during my
instrument training and it was a huge benifit to my training. The sim
is more difficult to fly than the real thing, which makes for good
training & practice, failures than are not practical in the air can be
safely practiced, and the sim is a lot less expensive to "fly." I
would suggest spending lots of time in a simulator. Do train on "steam
gauges," though, and the switch to glass will be easy. 172s with
traditional instrumentation are probably less expensive in rental than
the glass ones, too.

Ricky

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Aug 24, 10:41*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
> Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
> biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
> G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
> because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye candy!
> They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old) but they
> have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam gauges for
> my private but not sure which way I should go for my instrument. As time
> goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more and more common but I
> don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?

Not trying to hijack this thread - good subject, IMO, but please:
When VFR (and IFR in VMC), LOOK OUT THE BLEEDING WINDOWS!!!! Eye
candy is nice, but a midair really, really sucks.

Kirk
LS6-b "66"

[Darkwing]

> wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 10:41 am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
> Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
> biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
> G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
> because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye
> candy!
> They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old) but
> they
> have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam gauges
> for
> my private but not sure which way I should go for my instrument. As time
> goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more and more common but
> I
> don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?
>
>Not trying to hijack this thread - good subject, IMO, but please:
>When VFR (and IFR in VMC), LOOK OUT THE BLEEDING WINDOWS!!!! Eye
>candy is nice, but a midair really, really sucks.
>
>Kirk
>LS6-b "66"
>

Actually the #1 thing that worries me the most in flying (just for the
record, I know it IS illogical % wise but I tend to worry about the least
likely scenarios in most things in life) is a mid-air so even with cool eye
candy I am very vigilant for traffic. Eye candy or no eye candy I am VERY
vigilant for traffic outside the windows. It has been the #1 thing that
concerns me when flying since the day I started, engine out, onboard fire,
electrical failure, all these things take a back seat in my brain to a
mid-air.

In response to the other threads, I kind of figured the consensus would lean
toward steam gauges and I do agree for a lot of reasons. I think the G1000
will actually make IFR that much easier once I get proficient with steam
gauges.

[BeechSundowner]

On Aug 24, 4:28*pm, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

>eye candy or no eye candy I am VERY
> vigilant for traffic outside the windows. It has been the #1 thing that
> concerns me when flying since the day I started, engine out, onboard fire,
> electrical failure, all these things take a back seat in my brain to a
> mid-air.

When you are IMC, guess your priorities will change LOL. In this case
you have no choice but put your faith into the ATC system.

With regards to your original question, I am so glad I learned on
steam gauge. Immediately after getting my 430 installed, on my 2 or
3rd IFR flight, guess what stopped working? Wasn't my Nav1 or Nav2.

Antenna to the back of the 430 was not secured on and vibrated off the
unit. COMS worked great though! Ended up having to pull out my IFR
enroute map, amend my flight plan and file airways when picking up my
clearance. So things do happen :-))

[VOR-DME]

Good question - good thread.
Lots of divergant responses, with good reasoning behind them.
For what it's worth, I chose to do my IR on the traditional panel, for the
reasons mentioned by other contributors. I figured it would be easier to
transition from gauges to glass than the other way around, also as a
non-owner there is always a strong possibility that a plane I rent (at
least in the immediate future)would not be glass, so good IFR familiarity
on the traditional panel seemed a must for me. Finally, I figured the
transition from steam to glass meant more dual instruction, and I take that
as an advantage, even if it comes at a cost.

Related question : Autopilot or no. I chose to do my IR without autopilot,
for similar reasons to the above, however I am a strong believer in
autopilots, have studied their use, and consider them to be an important
safety feature in single-pilot IFR. Others aill disagree.

[Stubby[_3_]]

On Aug 31, 7:37*am, VOR-DME > wrote:
> Good question - good thread.
> Lots of divergant responses, with good reasoning behind them.
> For what it's worth, I chose to do my IR on the traditional panel, for the
> reasons mentioned by other contributors. I figured it would be easier to
> transition from gauges to glass than the other way around, also as a
> non-owner there is always a strong possibility that a plane I rent (at
> least in the immediate future)would not be glass, so good IFR familiarity
> on the traditional panel seemed a must for me. Finally, I figured the
> transition from steam to glass meant more dual instruction, and I take that
> as an advantage, even if it comes at a cost.
>
> Related question : Autopilot or no. I chose to do my IR without autopilot,
> for similar reasons to the above, however I am a strong believer in
> autopilots, have studied their use, and consider them to be an important
> safety feature in single-pilot IFR. Others aill disagree.

I define risk as the number of things that can go bad. It's lots
higher with the glass cockpit. Lightning, electrical problems, etc
are more likely with the electronics.

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
Stubby > wrote:

> I define risk as the number of things that can go bad. It's lots
> higher with the glass cockpit. Lightning, electrical problems, etc
> are more likely with the electronics.

This is a poor picture of risk. Compare jumping off a cliff with no
parachute to baking a cake. Very few things can go wrong during the
former operation, but the risk is extremely high. Many things can go
wrong during the latter, but the risk is extremely low. For a complete
picture, you need to multiply each potential problem by its danger and
its probability.

This is not to take away from your overall point. I'm sure that the risk
is higher even taking these into account, which is why glass cockpits
still have old-style backup gauges.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[-b-[_3_]]

In article
>,
says...

>
>I define risk as the number of things that can go bad. It's lots
>higher with the glass cockpit. Lightning, electrical problems, etc
>are more likely with the electronics.

I think many pilots will take exception to your definition of risk.
Even if we do look at it your way, the total number of things that can go
wrong an any flight would probably indicate a strong preference for the
increased sutuational awareness afforded by the glass cockpit environment. The
unlikely eventuality of a failure of the glass cockpit itself, while low on
the list of probabilities, is managed by the inclusion of traditional
instruments for backup.

[C Gattman[_3_]]

> It is later easier to transition from steam gauges to G1000 than the opposite direction. If I were you,
>I'd start with the traditional ones.

Exactly. A G1000 is just an electronic device. And, there are people
on this forum (still, I think) who have had G1000s fail in IMC, at
night, over water. If your G1000 fails and you have to rely on steam
gauges, it would be one hell of a bad time to have to learn what
virtually ever other instrument pilot already knows. We've also seen
Garmin 430s fail. (Cell phone!)

With gauges, if you lose, say, your attitude indicator, whatever. You
can get all the info you need from the other instruments and it's
unlikely you're going to lose them all. If your Garmin fails, you have
a problem.

Plus, if you're ever flying in a non-equipped airplane and you get
stuck in IMC, you can't just flip on the G1000. You don't want your
flying to be dependent upon one type of system unless you're only
going to fly that type of system.

My .02. Cheers!

Chris Gattman
CFI, KTTD

[C Gattman[_3_]]

On Aug 31, 4:37*am, VOR-DME > wrote:

> Related question : Autopilot or no. I chose to do my IR without autopilot,
> for similar reasons to the above, however I am a strong believer in
> autopilots, have studied their use, and consider them to be an important
> safety feature in single-pilot IFR. Others aill disagree.

Whoops. Forgot to mention autopilot. It's disabled in almost all of
our company aircraft but the twin. We don't want instrument students
(or -especially- students) getting lazy or dependent upon it.

Autopilot for real-world single-pilot IFR is very useful but we want
instrument students to be able to fly without it, exactly as is
required during the checkride. It's trivially easy to show them how
and when to use it once they've mastered instrument flying.

-c

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"C Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
>> It is later easier to transition from steam gauges to G1000 than the
>> opposite direction. If I were you,
>>I'd start with the traditional ones.
>
> Exactly. A G1000 is just an electronic device. And, there are people
> on this forum (still, I think) who have had G1000s fail in IMC, at
> night, over water. If your G1000 fails and you have to rely on steam
> gauges, it would be one hell of a bad time to have to learn what
> virtually ever other instrument pilot already knows. We've also seen
> Garmin 430s fail. (Cell phone!)

Hmmm... when I was learning the G1000, much of the lesson plan entailed
transition to the backup steam gauges.

> With gauges, if you lose, say, your attitude indicator, whatever. You
> can get all the info you need from the other instruments and it's
> unlikely you're going to lose them all. If your Garmin fails, you have
> a problem.
>

Just curious: What is the MTBF for G1000 vs steam gauges?

> Plus, if you're ever flying in a non-equipped airplane and you get
> stuck in IMC, you can't just flip on the G1000. You don't want your
> flying to be dependent upon one type of system unless you're only
> going to fly that type of system.
>

Agreed that unless you're going to utilize one aircraft or one series, you
need to learn the "stick shift" method. At least with such systems as the
G1000, the vast majority of your failure contention training can be done in
a sim.

Matt

[Matt Barrow[_8_]]

"C Gattman" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 31, 4:37 am, VOR-DME > wrote:

> Related question : Autopilot or no. I chose to do my IR without autopilot,
> for similar reasons to the above, however I am a strong believer in
> autopilots, have studied their use, and consider them to be an important
> safety feature in single-pilot IFR. Others aill disagree.

: Whoops. Forgot to mention autopilot. It's disabled in almost all of
: our company aircraft but the twin. We don't want instrument students
: (or -especially- students) getting lazy or dependent upon it.

You mean like the ATP guys are dependant on it?

: Autopilot for real-world single-pilot IFR is very useful but we want
: instrument students to be able to fly without it, exactly as is
: required during the checkride. It's trivially easy to show them how
: and when to use it once they've mastered instrument flying.

I'd think you want them to have good familiarity with using it under all
conditions.

[C Gattman[_3_]]

On Sep 16, 7:33*am, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> : Whoops. Forgot to mention autopilot. It's disabled in almost all of
> : our company aircraft but the twin. We don't want instrument students
> : (or -especially- students) getting lazy or dependent upon it.
>
> You mean like the ATP guys are dependant on it?

The ATP pilots around our shop would be the first to agree. There are
a few regulars including UPS pilots and a couple who both fly FedEx
heavies and they joke about their own stick and rudder skills all the
time. One of them, a retired Air Force pilot who currently flies for
UPS, is putting his son through flight school and hangs out with us
when his son is flying. One thing you learn is that ATP pilots are
people too.

Another hired me to take him and his son in a "real airplane" so while
we were circling over their house in a 172, I told the son "Most CFIs
just want to fly jets, and the jet pilots say they long to fly small
planes again" and his father told him "You don't know how true that
is." I asked him carefully why he didn't take his own son flying and
he said "no way."

> : Autopilot for real-world single-pilot IFR is very useful but we want instrument students to be able to fly without it, exactly as is
> : required during the checkride. It's trivially easy to show them how and when to use it once they've mastered instrument flying.
>
> I'd think you want them to have good familiarity with using it under all conditions.

Sure, but, if you have a teenage son and a new truck, you're probably
going to make sure he can drive himself before teaching him how to use
the cruise control. It's usually best to start with the fundamentals
and incorporate the shortcuts once the student has mastered the
required basics like straight-and-level flight in IMC. Having said
that, you definitely don't want somebody operating autopilot unless
they know how to use. During a checkride, an examiner would probably
expect you to discuss or demonstrate its use if the airplane was so
equipped.

-c

[capitanleo]

On Aug 24, 11:41*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
> Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
> biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
> G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
> because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye candy!
> They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old) but they
> have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam gauges for
> my private but not sure which way I should go for my instrument. As time
> goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more and more common but I
> don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXybnTbjBl8

[capitanleo]

On Aug 24, 3:39*pm, Tauno Voipio > wrote:
> Darkwing wrote:
> > Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for
> > my Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics
> > is my biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's
> > with G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent
> > for VFR because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I
> > like eye candy! They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4
> > years old) but they have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I
> > trained on steam gauges for my private but not sure which way I should
> > go for my instrument. As time goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft
> > will be more and more common but I don't know if that is a crutch for
> > learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?
>
> It is later easier to transition from steam gauges
> to G1000 than the opposite direction. If I were you,
> I'd start with the traditional ones.
>
> --
>
> Tauno Voipio (CPL(A), CFII)
> Steam gauges: OH-PYM, PA-28RT201T
> G1000: OH-STS, DA-42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXybnTbjBl8

[capitanleo]

On Aug 24, 3:57*pm, " >
wrote:
> On Aug 24, 10:41*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well I think I am going to finally put in the time and effort to go for my
> > Instrument Rating this fall but exactly with what aircraft avionics is my
> > biggest question. Where I fly they have basically all new 172SP's with
> > G1000's for rent. Obviously this is the aircraft I prefer to rent for VFR
> > because of all the cool and nice tools they have on board, I like eye candy!
> > They also have a couple older 172R's (by older I mean 4 years old) but they
> > have steam gauges only plus Garmin 430 GPS's. I trained on steam gauges for
> > my private but not sure which way I should go for my instrument. As time
> > goes I'm sure the glass cockpit aircraft will be more and more common but I
> > don't know if that is a crutch for learning IFR with or not. Any thoughts?
>
> Not trying to hijack this thread - good subject, IMO, but please:
> When VFR (and IFR in VMC), LOOK OUT THE BLEEDING WINDOWS!!!! *Eye
> candy is nice, but a midair really, really sucks.
>
> Kirk
> LS6-b "66"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXybnTbjBl8