Learning to fly with guages vs. glass panels.

[ChasenSFO]

Why pay more for glass? As was said earlier in the thread, its not that difficult to go from gauges to glass. My friends who learned to fly on glass can't do ANYTHING without their GPS and synthetic vision and what not turned on. Its scary actually. The problem in my opinion isn't with glass cockpits, if I owned a plane I'd love having a glass cockpit. The problem is with student and low-time pilots depending on them and unable to navigate by VORs and what not. I've also noticed many of my friends who fly glass tend to use the autopilot excessively and now have a lot of trouble holding headings and altitude hand-flying. Whats most annoying is that some cocky low-time pilots get the attitude that they're better than you because their airplane is more "Sophisticated".

I'll admit I sort of have a one sided opinion, but thats because of my experiences with people who learned to fly on glass. I'm sure there are plenty of very sharp pilots who learned to fly with a glass panel.

 

[African_Swallow]

2 things:

1) VFR is still 'visual' and demands most of your attention OUTside the aircraft
2) know your plane; if it has a G430 with an Avidyne display, know it. If it has a G1000, know it.

I just did an SR20 flight with a guy, for recurrent training. Leg 1 was with automation; leg 2 was with (side) stick, rudder, and a chart.

-A.S.

 

[Persian_Pilot]

I personally did my PPL in steam gauges and IR in G-1000. If I had the chance to do my IR rating again, I would defiantly do it in steam gauges.

 

[Persian_Pilot]

I've also noticed many of my friends who fly glass tend to use the autopilot excessively and now have a lot of trouble holding headings and altitude hand-flying

I can still hold headings and altitudes lol but I would agree that low-time glass pilots tend to use auto-pilot more often (I was a victim of this my self)

 

[///AMG]

I did all of my civilian training on steam gauges and I think it was a good thing....G1000 wasn't really a reality at the time, but had it been, I feel like it would have been a crutch. That said, part way through military training I made the transition, and I don't think I would want to go back at this point. It was kind of a leap at first, just learning to use digital numbers rather than needles on a steam gauge, but aside from that it was a big SA builder with GPS, INS and all that other good stuff.

 

[Orange Anchor]

The cockpit is definitely changing and glass continues to evolve with new big screen formats. And the pilot is changing also. People coming into the cockpit now have always had computers, windows or Macs and with glass many seem to assume it is merely another video game that actually moves. While they may not state that as such, the attitude is there.

And yes, transitioning from glass to steam is challenging. The airlines found this out long ago when F/Os on 757s were transitioning back to Captain on steam in 737s or DC-9s. A couple of extra sims were usually added just to get the guys/gals back up to speed looking all over the cockpit for the information to build a good SA picture.

(For fun, check this old dog out. Note where the airspeed indicator is and yes, to the right of the attitude indicator that is a compass. Remember, this was the era of the Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) and it was not uncommon to get 1-2 deg heading changes. Also, the fuel panel image must have been added at a latter point as the top is cut off. The engine fuel manifold is not visible nor is the forward body fuel tank. And all the tanks are indicating empty)

 

[jrh]

This is kind of a dead horse, but I'll beat it anyway...

You can learn to be a great pilot in either type of cockpit, assuming you have an instructor who is a great teacher.

The biggest problem I see is that we're still at a point, as an industry, that most instructors don't know how to teach glass cockpits to their full potential.

I'd also like to point out that a lot of the responses in this thread are justified with the logic, "When I did my training, I did it this way, and I think doing it that way is better/worse/etc..." Notice that the response only includes the experience of one person, who oftentimes isn't an instructor themselves, nor have they actually flown the other type of panel, so they don't *really* know what it's like.

I teach this stuff every day, both glass and conventional panel, to pilots of all sorts of experience levels, and I can say without a doubt that it doesn't matter. There are pluses and minuses on both sides. Train in whichever aircraft is more fun, you can afford, and have a solid instructor for. There are bigger issues in training to worry about beyond the type of panel.

 

[poser765]

jrh, I tend to agree with you. If the training is done correct there shouldn't be any difference in safety between a pilot trained on glass vs steam. As has been pointed out above it comes down to expereince levels and knowing where yours end. If the pilot knows and understands that his skills in steam may not be up to par then the world is golden. It's the same going the other way. There is no way i would go jump in a G100 in hard IFR down to mins.

Again, as has been pointed out. The ONLY reason I would see training in steam first is that right now analog gauges still largely outnumber glass. If you are trained only in glass you are just limiting your choices in regards to rental airplanes.

 

[A-300F4-622R]

The cockpit is definitely changing and glass continues to evolve with new big screen formats. And the pilot is changing also. People coming into the cockpit now have always had computers, windows or Macs and with glass many seem to assume it is merely another video game that actually moves. While they may not state that as such, the attitude is there.

And yes, transitioning from glass to steam is challenging. The airlines found this out long ago when F/Os on 757s were transitioning back to Captain on steam in 737s or DC-9s. A couple of extra sims were usually added just to get the guys/gals back up to speed looking all over the cockpit for the information to build a good SA picture.

(For fun, check this old dog out. Note where the airspeed indicator is and yes, to the right of the attitude indicator that is a compass. Remember, this was the era of the Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) and it was not uncommon to get 1-2 deg heading changes. Also, the fuel panel image must have been added at a latter point as the top is cut off. The engine fuel manifold is not visible nor is the forward body fuel tank. And all the tanks are indicating empty)

Original KC-135 configuration before FD-109 retrofit.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

:deadhorse:

I personally believe that if you intend on going into flying as a career you should learn on steam first and then transition to glass when appropriate. Glass is easy to learn after steam. It isn't easy going the other way. Besides with all the glass RJ jobs dried up and probably not coming back soon, new pilots are going to be forced into more traditional career paths. 135 Cargo, CFI, traffic watch, jump planes, etc. Most of these fleets are still steam guages.

When I did my training GPS was just coming becoming widespread. My CFII turned it off and made me use just the gauges and charts for the majority of my trainning. I can't thank my instructor's enough for that. GPS and glass should be a tool not a crutch, which it quickly can become.

:soapbox:

 

[Mike H]

Why not just learn to fly both round dials and glass?

round gauges will be around a long time, but there aren't any new GA aircraft being built with them. Glass is the future

As far as GPS vs VOR, eventually the VOR will go the way of the 4-way ranging or whatever they called it, and probably sooner than later. NDB's & VOR's are expensive to operate & maintain and we already see the FAA moving to eliminate NDB approaches that are redundant to GPS approaches. Sure, learn both VOR & GPS navigation, but don't shun the magenta line because eventually that's all you're gong to have

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Why not just learn to fly both round dials and glass?

round gauges will be around a long time, but there aren't any new GA aircraft being built with them

Bull. There are lots out there that are being built with round dials/steam gauges, or whatever the term of the day is. Many of the LSA's out there come with the round dials, but you can get the glass panels as an option.

 

[beasly]

Original KC-135 configuration before FD-109 retrofit.

Comments like that are a big reason why I like this forum!

Cordially,

b.

 

[fish314]

Original KC-135 configuration before FD-109 retrofit.

Wow, the Flintstone's fuel panel! Never got the chance to fly with that version, (although I've got a whopping 50 hours on the round-dial pre-Pacer CRAG version). You should see the new block 40. There's digital this and data-link that all over the place.

For the original question, I just got done with two years teaching basic students in the T-37 (steam gauges from the 50's) and two years teaching T-6's (glass, GPS, stickmap, etc.... not quite as nice as the G-1000, but basically comparable).

I think there are some hazards to learning on the glass that you do not encounter on the gauges. The IP/CFII can guard against them, but if he doesn't the student will probably not develop basic instrument skills very well (or at least not as quickly/efficiently). The biggest problem is over-reliance on the stickmap/moving map features. CFII's/IP's should not allow basic instruments to use this tool at all as they are learning basic instruments because a basic instrument skill is learning positional awareness by reference to basic instruments.

The second hazard I see is allowing a student to use an HSI all the time (which is what most glass cockpits use in their basic instrument display). Instead, I would recommend a significant portion of the instrument work be accomplished using a bearing pointer only (if that setup is possible on your system). It can be done in the practice area, or via NDB approaches, but with a course deviation indicator displayed all the time, students tend to ignore the information that comes from the bearing pointer and therefore never learn how it works (at least not well enough to orient themselves with it).

Third, I see a lot of emphasis placed on GPS approaches very early on in systems that are GPS approach capable. This is ok, but I think that students should be at least conversant, and probably more like marginally proficient on basic VOR/DME, ILS, LOC, TAC, NDB and maybe even ASR/PAR type approaches before getting too involved in GPS, GPS LNAV/VNAV, or WAAS type of approaches. The GPS approaches build on the same concepts as most of the earlier types, but it can be too easy to get lost in the weeds with all of the GPS-specific requirements (RAIM, FDE, P-RAIM checks, current database, allowable deviation errors, etc.) and fail to pick up the basics that are common to every type of approach.

 

[///AMG]

Remember, this was the era of the Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) and it was not uncommon to get 1-2 deg heading changes

I wish Navy jets still had tick marks.....since most of us still live the GCA lifestyle

 

[Pietrantonio]

Switching huh? Did you ever get that instrument ticket?...am I remembering that right?
Good luck in your new career.

That's right. To be honest, I did not get my IR. I passed the written, and I only had ~10 hours to be legible for a checkride. As for now, I'm in Respiratory Therapy school. I will resume flying when I finish this program. I can't justify taking out loans for flying, etc. With this career, I can pay as I go. I'll probably just do some flying on the side.

BTW, who are you? I'm surprised that you know this much about my previous flying situation. It's been a long time since I've posted.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Original KC-135 configuration before FD-109 retrofit.

They were refitting the -135 with the -109 when I was sentenced.. er.. assigned to fly it. You had to have a qualification ride and the old guys HATED the flight director saying it was a crutch for piss poor instrument pilots.

When I first got on the -135 I could not believe the compass and there was techniques abounding. Some wanted the current heading ALWAYS at the 12 position and others wanted it set to runway heading so you knew where you were on base, dogleg, etc. And of course, this was all WAY before CRM so as a copilot you had about 20 ways to do things according to whom you were flying with.

 

[fish314]

They were refitting the -135 with the -109 when I was sentenced.. er.. assigned to fly it. You had to have a qualification ride and the old guys HATED the flight director saying it was a crutch for piss poor instrument pilots.

When I first got on the -135 I could not believe the compass and there was techniques abounding. Some wanted the current heading ALWAYS at the 12 position and others wanted it set to runway heading so you knew where you were on base, dogleg, etc. And of course, this was all WAY before CRM so as a copilot you had about 20 ways to do things according to whom you were flying with.

I had a spinnable compass like that in the Tweet (I think it's called a a "J-2" or something?). I found good reasons for either method. If you put the assigned heading at the top, then it acted like a heading "bug" which was nice in an airplane that didn't have one. On the other hand, if you put in runway heading, then you had a very visual indication of which leg in the radar pattern you were on. When the needle was pointing straight left or straight right, you were probably on base, straight down was probably downwind, and 30-45 degrees from the top was your dogleg to final.

I usually used the first method, and kept it acting like a heading bug, because the "heading indicator" needle in our CI did the same function for pattern awareness.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Wow, the Flintstone's fuel panel! Never got the chance to fly with that version, (although I've got a whopping 50 hours on the round-dial pre-Pacer CRAG version). You should see the new block 40. There's digital this and data-link that all over the place.

As I remember you always had one tank open to the engine manifold. And as long as one line was vertical you were okay.

Also, just before I got on the 'water wagon' it was still left and right water injection. Finally some wizard figured out inboard and outboard would not induce a huge asymmetry (ever notice how the word asyMMetry is unbalanced) if you lost water on a pair of engines. Out of U-Tapao we were often extremely mission oriented to the point that a few did 'semi-wet' takeoff with only a pair of J57s at wet thrust and a pair at dry thrust.. not that I ever did it . (as if it were sneaky with 2 eng spewing black smoke and 2 not. reportedly the tanker 'charlie' met the crew and said that while he appreciated the effort, don't do it again.)

 

[jrh]

They were refitting the -135 with the -109 when I was sentenced.. er.. assigned to fly it. You had to have a qualification ride and the old guys HATED the flight director saying it was a crutch for p*** poor instrument pilots.

Sounds like Old School has always hated New School, similar to what I see a lot in the glass vs. conventional panel debates.