Matt Barrow wrote:
If the pilot has years of experience on "steam gauges"and none under
EFIS,
there can be (likely is) a steep learning curve.

I'm sure anything CAN be, but what is likely is another matter
entirely.

My experience is that a glass panel is MUCH less demanding in actual
IMC than a traditional steam gauge panel. It's the glass panel pilot
who needs an extensive checkout to go steam gauges, not the other way
around.

There is certainly a learning curve involved in getting maximum benefit
from the avionics, but the functionality a steam gauge pilot gets from
the steam gauges is easily obtained. It may take some time to get the
hang of the flight plan functions (and maybe even the GPS approach
functions) out of the moving map GPS, but getting the direct-to
function and the ILS/VOR functionality going is easy and intuitive -
and the steam gauge pilot doesn't NEED any more than that, because he's
used to working with less.

As mentioned, much of the initial training for jets (ie, CJ) is the
EFIS and
FMS and those classes can run over two WEEKS.

Different situation. The jets NEED that level of automation so that a
single pilot of average ability can fly them IFR. They're fast,
they're slippery, they're relatively demanding. Steam gauge
functionality won't cut it for the average pilot, so he will have to
learn the full functionality.

This discussion is about a Cessna-182. It's hard to find a more
stable, docile, and simple IFR platform. You would be VERY hard
pressed to find an experienced steam gauge pilot (in ANY airplane) who
would find it a challenge to fly a C-182 IFR, regardless of the
avionics.

Michael