Glass Panel Training

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:15:42 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 24, 2:38*pm, Gezellig wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:17:26 -0800, BT wrote:
This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?

I teach G1000 transition using the Cessna FITs syllabus. The short
answer is that it really depends on the pilot. Some pilots take to the
glass as if were nothing; others never really get it. Sadly, there
appears to be a strong correlation between the ability to learn this
stuff and age. In almost 1/4 of the cases we find ourselves having to
sign pilots off as "VFR only" in the G1000 even though they are highly
experienced instrument pilots. It isn't too big of a deal for a VFR
pilot to stumble around with the buttonology but it could be very
dangerous for a pilot to do the same in IMC trying to set up an
approach.

-Robert

The age issue is what slants me to what I perceive as a bigger issue in
the steam-glass transition since I am older. I also have a technology
background and find this helps in (planning) the transition.

In article , says...


Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

How do you justify this statement?
I'm not being argumentative, but I wonder if you have specific instructing
experience or published results from those who do to support this statement.

Also, are you referring to IFR or to ab initio VFR training?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:18:43 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:

In article , says...


Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

How do you justify this statement?
I'm not being argumentative, but I wonder if you have specific instructing
experience or published results from those who do to support this statement.

Also, are you referring to IFR or to ab initio VFR training?

The thread is about PPL training glass v.s. steam, I believe he means
that transition for the newbie pilot.

On Jan 26, 10:18*am, Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:18:43 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:
In article , says...

Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

How do you justify this statement?
I'm not being argumentative, but I wonder if you have specific instructing
experience or published results from those who do to support this statement.

Also, are you referring to IFR or to ab initio VFR training?

The thread is about PPL training glass v.s. steam, I believe he means
that transition for the newbie pilot.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a newbie pilot needs to
transition from anything? I've never transitioned a pilot from glass
to steam (doesn't happen very often) but I would imagine that it woudl
be difficult. The glass takes a lot of the "scan and interpret" away
from the flying duties. Going back to steam means that you need to
look at several instruments and develop a mental picture of what is
happening.

-Robert, CFII

In article ,
says...


That doesn't make any sense. Why would a newbie pilot need to
transition from anything? I've never transitioned a pilot from glass
to steam (doesn't happen very often) but I would imagine that it would
be difficult. The glass takes a lot of the "scan and interpret" away
from the flying duties. Going back to steam means that you need to
look at several instruments and develop a mental picture of what is
happening.

-Robert, CFII

My thoughts exactly.
Without supporting documentation from the original author, we have to take this
as a flippant affirmation. . .

On Jan 24, 8:14*am, Gezellig wrote:
In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"

Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak) would appear to be an issue. My
expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look forward to
curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be Cessna (std
gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared..

Comments appreciated.

We just added a glass 172 to the fleet. There's a learning
curve for us older guys but the young will get it easily. The airplane
still flies like a 172, the PFD is no harder to read than the steam
gauges after a few minutes, and anyone with a few hours solo in a 172
could fly it safely. The bigger learning involves the multiple pages
and functions of the MFD and the procedures taken if an electrical
problem arises. Most 172s have one electrical bus, maybe two if it has
an avionics master. The glass airplane has SIX buses and you need to
know their management.
There was a similar steam-gauge versus digital argument when
digital watches and clocks and calculators came out. Expensive they
were, but actually cheaper to build since much of the assembly is
easily automated as opposed to the old units with tiny gears and
levers and sensitive and fragile bits, just like an airplane's
instruments. Whether we like it or not, glass is going to become the
norm on newer airplanes, not just because of its capabilities nor its
selling power, but because it's cheaper to make. And many older
aircraft will get retrofitted once the competition builds and the
glass makers have to take less profit and find new markets.
So find a school with glass and get with it. Or fool with a
simulator that has it.

Dan

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:44:27 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

We just added a glass 172 to the fleet. There's a learning
curve for us older guys but the young will get it easily. The airplane
still flies like a 172, the PFD is no harder to read than the steam
gauges after a few minutes, and anyone with a few hours solo in a 172
could fly it safely. The bigger learning involves the multiple pages
and functions of the MFD and the procedures taken if an electrical
problem arises. Most 172s have one electrical bus, maybe two if it has
an avionics master. The glass airplane has SIX buses and you need to
know their management.

I don't thinl, in the PPL, that the aforementioned flight training
school teaches those things. Even if they did, what value does that have
to a newbie pilot who finds that Cessnas dominate the rental
marketplace?

There was a similar steam-gauge versus digital argument when
digital watches and clocks and calculators came out. Expensive they
were, but actually cheaper to build since much of the assembly is
easily automated as opposed to the old units with tiny gears and
levers and sensitive and fragile bits, just like an airplane's
instruments. Whether we like it or not, glass is going to become the
norm on newer airplanes, not just because of its capabilities nor its
selling power, but because it's cheaper to make. And many older
aircraft will get retrofitted once the competition builds and the
glass makers have to take less profit and find new markets.

This is a valid argument and is the one that EAA flight training makes.
But in this time when the next few years, money is tighter and newbies
fewer, I am not sure this makes initial sense in the training regimen.

So find a school with glass and get with it. Or fool with a
simulator that has it.

When I walk out to rent a plane, 4 of 5 have steam gauges. The remaining
are more expensive. It's not getting with it, it's practicality
especially in today's ever increasing demands on new GA pilots, Dan.

Glass is a superior system in many ways, that I have no argument with.

Gezellig wrote in news:glfb8a$2v2$1
@news.motzarella.org:

In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"

Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak) would appear to be an issue. My
expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look forward to
curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be Cessna (std
gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared..

Comments appreciated.

Learn to fly in a cub. Then learn to use the toys as an iad rather than a
beast that has to be fed.





Bertie

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:09:57 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Learn to fly in a cub. Then learn to use the toys as an iad rather than a
beast that has to be fed.

yeah, go back to your booze bottle.

On Jan 24, 8:14*am, Gezellig wrote:

I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"

Comments appreciated.

I think glass IS the standard instrumentation anymore . I dont think
you can buy a new plane with round dials (Exept for a few specialty
airplanes like the American Champion . Even most LSA's come with at
least a MFD . In order to answer your question you need to ask what
type of flying you will do . If you plan to fly an old Cub then dont
worry about a modern panel . I think it would be cheaper to train in a
modern plane for the IR because of the ease of use you will get done
faster .
FB