jsmith wrote:
With the increasing popularity and availability of rental and
training
aircraft equipped with "glass" panels, are we heading toward limited
or
type like instrument ratings?

I suspect the answer is yes - but initially in the wrong direction.

The glass panels are fitted to airplanes that are expensive - thus
there is high dollar insurance and visibility. I suspect that the time
when a checkout on a glass panel will be required is already here -
either insurance or FBO imposed. I used to think this was absolutely
silly - these things make flying IFR easier, not harder. Then I got an
older student who transitioned from a Pacer into a Mooney. It took
very little time for him to get used to the speed difference, and
landing it was a non-event from day one. Fuel injection was a
no-brainer. He was safe for day-VFR after a couple of hours with me,
and as soon as he hit the insurance minimum he was flying solo.

He's still struggling with his GNS-430. In fact, the complexity of his
panel is what's holding him back from flying the plane IFR. Now I
understand what the problem is. For those of us who grew up on
computers, it's no big deal. For those who are older (not more
experienced - just older) it's a problem. So there might be some value
to this. Sort of like a friend of mine who remembers when anyone could
fly the taildraggers at the FBO (tailwheel checkout? who dat?) but you
needed 100 hours and a CFI checkout to rent the tri-gear planes? Why?
The taildraggers were old and cheap, the tri-gear planes expensive.

For example, will an pilot trained from the onset in an aircraft
equipped with a Garmin G-1000 panel from private through instrument
ratings be restricted to only those airplanes with Garmin panels?

I expect the panels will become more standardized or the insurance
companies will step in and make something like that mandatory.

Without the training in how to interpret the steam gauges, could they
safely fly in a traditional paneled airplane in heavy IFR?

Some could (the ones that were trained properly) but most couldn't.
It's like transitioning to taildraggers. Someone who is properly
trained in a C-150 and has flown a couple of hundred hours in a random
tri-gear airplane without letting himself get sloppy can sight right
down in a Champ and fly it. Most pilots are not properly trained to
begin with and get sloppier with time, so those pilots can't. This is
the same. You CAN train a pilot properly on glass, but glass lets you
get by with stuff steam gauges won't, so given the caliber of the
instructors doing most of the IFR training I'm not counting on much.

But the steam gauge airplanes are cheap - thus low dollar insurance and
low visibility. I suspect it will take quite a few accidents for those
trained on glass and transitioning to steam gauges for the FAA to wise
up and require the equivalent of the tailwheel endorsement for steam
gauges and ADF's.

How about the pilot trained in "traditional" panel airplanes with
"steam gauges"?
Will they require an endorsement before being permitted to rent or
fly
"glass panel" aircraft in instrument conditions?

See above. I bet the insurance companies are already mandating it.
Michael