Avionics and Autopilots

[C150J]

It's a lot easier to teach instrument students in a simple steam-gauged aircraft.

I'm going to try to find the study, but there is scientific data that supports this statement. IIRC, the report stated that students need to be able to see the "beginning and end" of dials to better understand their function. For example, a student can initially learn more effectively if they see "0KIAS" and "200KIAS" on an airspeed gauge versus an airspeed tape.

 

[FlyMarines09]

Interesting comments. Do you think that eventually private and student instrument pilots will have to learn using only steam gauges before transitioning to glass? Overall, what effect will this new technology have on pilot that trained in only glass cockpits? I imagine sooner or later conventionally equipped steam gauge aircraft will be completely obsolete, but not for another 50 years or so, right? ( I mean come on) There will always be a need for that 'core' training. Again, not speaking from a pilot's perspective, merely a student pilot/enthusiast.

Thanks again for your comments!

 

[Pilotforhire587]

Technology is great but it will never replace pilots in the cockpit. Even UAVs have pilots, they are just out of harms way when they are flying.

 

[Cheyenne]

I am one of the guys that learned on steam, then taught steam, and the transitioned to the glass and taught glass. Without looking I'd say I have maybe 8-900 hours in glass (just to qualify my opinion).

IMO the Glass is better for all the reasons everyone has mentioned. I don't feel the need to beat the horse any further. However I feel that there are some things that the career minded student needs to consider when choosing what type (steam or glass) to learn in.

The problem with the Glass cockpit for primary training today is that very few operators actually use glass. Of course there are exceptions like some airlines (not all) and the occasional 91 or 135 operator but for the most part the equipment you will be flying at your first and second jobs will be steam or at best, mostly steam.

IMO with the current condition of the pilot market, any student doing a primary instrument rating in a glass aircraft is doing themselves a disservice because they'll most likely be a CFI until they hit the 1200 mark and then take a job flying boxes in an old steam clapped out twin with the most inop equipment and engines that puke out insane amounts of oil with a micro momentary hiccup in the right engine, at night... Welcome to aviation kid!:hiya: But back to the point-

If you feel that there is any chance of you not getting that CRJ job right out of the gate you might find it prudent to learn these valuable lessons through the "old school". They will round out your skill set as a pilot. I admit that most of the days of flying headings, speeds and using a wrist watch to find the way from OTZ-ASK has past, but not entirely. And while you might not ever have to fall back on these basic skills (that a G1000 automatically does for you) one day you MIGHT. And that's reason enough for me to see the value in learning it. Develop those skills now, learn the fancy schmancy stuff later.

Having said that, from an everyday operational point of view I think the glass is far superior. I'm with you when you say that pilots need to embrace technology... and I agree that once upon a time the fastest, safest and most efficient way to get from St Louis to Oregon USED TO BE via wagon train.... and it'll darn sure still get you there! But there's a better way nowadays. The problem is convincing your old crusty CP who has never even seen a glass cockpit that its a worthy investment. Even if you are lucky enough to get that done you still gotta go convince the bean counters that the company HAS TO HAVE IT. There are varying opinions as to what's nice and what's needed. Good Luck!

 

[ppragman]

Ok, I've got about 1200hrs in glass Cockpit (if you can count the Chelton EFIS with Synthetic Vision as Glass). Here's the straight dope.

While I like having synthetic vision, and being able to precisely know exactly where the mountains are even if they're covered in clouds and scud, that equipment doesn't exactly help me when the system says, "GPS FAILURE, ATTITUDE FAILURE." In 3300hrs of flying, I've had a few instrument failures on steam gauges, a DG that went kaput, an attitude indicator that decided it wanted to fly in a 30 degree bank when straight and level, and a couple of airspeed failures. Of that time, as I said, 1200 is "glass," and in that time I can't even remember how many times the AHRS freaked out, the GPS had an LOI which disabled synthetic vision and terrain, or a gust of wind or bout with turbulence, or large piece of metal freight in the back, or metal in the mountains made the AHRS decide that I was flying backwards with a 200kt headwind. One particularly sketchy time I had an AHRS anomoly when I was departing an airport in about 1 and 1/2 mile vis VFR to run around the corner to Juneau, once I got airborne and got a little ways from the airport my AHRS went berserk and shifting my scan to the other instruments on the other side of the panel was a pain, and potentially dangerous. If its me deciding, I want an attitude indicator, altimeter, DG, and Airspeed all on the same side as my PFD, with my MFD parked squarely in the middle.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Ok, I've got about 1200hrs in glass Cockpit (if you can count the Chelton EFIS with Synthetic Vision as Glass). Here's the straight dope.

While I like having synthetic vision, and being able to precisely know exactly where the mountains are even if they're covered in clouds and scud, that equipment doesn't exactly help me when the system says, "GPS FAILURE, ATTITUDE FAILURE." In 3300hrs of flying, I've had a few instrument failures on steam gauges, a DG that went kaput, an attitude indicator that decided it wanted to fly in a 30 degree bank when straight and level, and a couple of airspeed failures. Of that time, as I said, 1200 is "glass," and in that time I can't even remember how many times the AHRS freaked out, the GPS had an LOI which disabled synthetic vision and terrain, or a gust of wind or bout with turbulence, or large piece of metal freight in the back, or metal in the mountains made the AHRS decide that I was flying backwards with a 200kt headwind. One particularly sketchy time I had an AHRS anomoly when I was departing an airport in about 1 and 1/2 mile vis VFR to run around the corner to Juneau, once I got airborne and got a little ways from the airport my AHRS went berserk and shifting my scan to the other instruments on the other side of the panel was a pain, and potentially dangerous. If its me deciding, I want an attitude indicator, altimeter, DG, and Airspeed all on the same side as my PFD, with my MFD parked squarely in the middle.

I've not been at all impressed with the reliability of the Chelton/Capstone system. In probably...800? 900? hours of G1000 time I never had a box actually crap out on me, and I can count on 2 hands the number of LRU failures I remember in our fleet of 9 G1000 aircraft over a period of about 3 years.

 

[FlyMarines09]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Theoretically, no matter what aircraft, or whether or not it's a piston aircraft or jet, a steam or glass cockpit, lots of automation, or none, all aircraft fly the same way, are victim to the same forces, and can be 100% hand flown as long as the pilot wants including climbs, descents and level offs and steep turns, ect... During a flight review or recurrent training, the pilot has to execute many maneuvers while hand flying the aircraft, right? I've noticed a lot of videos on you tube where the pilot engages autopilot on a jet before leveling... And, all of the screens and moving maps can be backed up by the old school method of charts and diagrams, ect.... Right? I hope so, because if not, my love for aviation will diminish a little bit. It's not just all button pushing

 

[C150J]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Theoretically, no matter what aircraft, or whether or not it's a piston aircraft or jet, a steam or glass cockpit, lots of automation, or none, all aircraft fly the same way, are victim to the same forces, and can be 100% hand flown as long as the pilot wants including climbs, descents and level offs and steep turns, ect... During a flight review or recurrent training, the pilot has to execute many maneuvers while hand flying the aircraft, right? I've noticed a lot of videos on you tube where the pilot engages autopilot on a jet before leveling... And, all of the screens and moving maps can be backed up by the old school method of charts and diagrams, ect.... Right? I hope so, because if not, my love for aviation will diminish a little bit. It's not just all button pushing

It's certainly not, and even the button-pushing needs to be accomplished with discipline and judgement. This was discussed at the NTSB's hearing on Professionalism in Aviation.