GA Glass Cockpit Training

J

Jason

Well-Known Member
Hey all - just wondering if anyone knew of any flight schools using any of the new glass cockpit primary trainers - preferably within a few hundred miles of Cincinnati but open to anything. I'll possibly be putting together a research project regarding the use of glass cockpits in primary training and will need to find some volunteers that have gone from 'zero' time to their current rating exclusively in glass cockpit trainers. Likewise, I'll need some volunteers that have done all of their training in analog airplanes.

I don't have a timeline for the project yet but if anyone in the Cincinnati/OH/Midwest area would be interested in possibly participating send me a PM and I can give you some preliminary info.

Jason
 
The only ones I know of are some ATP locations and Phoenix East in Daytona Beach. I've only actually SEEN Phoenix East's, and it looks pretty sweet. As an alternate, you might want to see if your local flight school has an aircraft with the Garmin 1000 panel. It's pretty darn close to the 777, and I actually consider it a glass cockpit. Cirrus is about the same, but the Garmin 1000 has better backup systems.
 
Yeah there's nobody around here that has anything of the sort.....I **think** UND has them in the new airplanes they just bought but I was hoping to find an FBO with one. I guess ATP would be ok - the only problem with that is that for my research to be valid I'd have to go fly with the student in the airplane and then also fly the airplane with another student that's never flown the glass before - basically I'd need the ability to rent the airplane and I'm sure ATP doesn't allow that.

Jason
 
The flight school I work for in St. Louis has a G1000 in a DA40. Let me know if you want information.
 
Why do you want to learn on that...I would suggest training on the old steam guages first....If you already have your instrument rating then go for the new stuff...Glass easy to transistion too. It is a little harder to go backwards though....You really need to pickup your scan rate as everything is spread out once again...

just my .02 worth
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you want to learn on that...I would suggest training on the old steam guages first....If you already have your instrument rating then go for the new stuff...Glass easy to transistion too. It is a little harder to go backwards though....You really need to pickup your scan rate as everything is spread out once again...

just my .02 worth

[/ QUOTE ]

He's doing a research paper, not IR training.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you want to learn on that...I would suggest training on the old steam guages first....If you already have your instrument rating then go for the new stuff...Glass easy to transistion too. It is a little harder to go backwards though....You really need to pickup your scan rate as everything is spread out once again...

just my .02 worth

[/ QUOTE ]


I've got 4,000 hours and several jet type ratings - I'm not the one doing the learning......but your point is well taken and exactly what the research project is focused around. It's a project/possibly thesis research on the increasing trend of manufacturers putting advanced systems in primary training aircraft and if that's going to translate into the same or different transition problems that people have had when going from analog to the more advanced cockpit systems.


Jason
 
I was just about to say you should have said something like "Hi, I'm Jason! You may remember me from the Corporate Page!"
 
But if GA manufacturers are all transitioning to glass cockpits, shouldn't pilots become as proficient with those as the old steam gauges?
 
[ QUOTE ]
But if GA manufacturers are all transitioning to glass cockpits, shouldn't pilots become as proficient with those as the old steam gauges?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

But here's an angle on that. "Steam gauges" more or less are all pretty much the same so reading instrumentation in a classic 747 is pretty much the same as interpreting them in a Piper Cub. However, glass cockpits come in all sorts of bizarre setups, configurations and screen types.

Like the MD-88 is 'semi-glass' mixed in with steam gauges. The MD-11 flat panel display was fully glass with no steam and it took about 2 minutes to figure out what I was looking at.

So the question I would have would be if we train private pilots on the usage of glass cockpits, do we just train for the flavor of the displays in their training aircraft? Or do we use computer-based training to train in the top three display configurations?

I know it's probably not a big deal, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if GA manufacturers are all transitioning to glass cockpits, shouldn't pilots become as proficient with those as the old steam gauges?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

But here's an angle on that. "Steam gauges" more or less are all pretty much the same so reading instrumentation in a classic 747 is pretty much the same as interpreting them in a Piper Cub. However, glass cockpits come in all sorts of bizarre setups, configurations and screen types.

Like the MD-88 is 'semi-glass' mixed in with steam gauges. The MD-11 flat panel display was fully glass with no steam and it took about 2 minutes to figure out what I was looking at.

So the question I would have would be if we train private pilots on the usage of glass cockpits, do we just train for the flavor of the displays in their training aircraft? Or do we use computer-based training to train in the top three display configurations?

I know it's probably not a big deal, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion the same problem exists with IFR GPS units. And a similar situation has existed for years with autopilots.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So the question I would have would be if we train private pilots on the usage of glass cockpits, do we just train for the flavor of the displays in their training aircraft? Or do we use computer-based training to train in the top three display configurations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my guess is that most private pilots will be using the same airplanes over and over again, as they rent them from the same FBO that they go to all the time. So I guess you could just train them on the displays in that aircraft.

Or, you could set an industry standard and make everyone comply with that. Actually, that would be a good thing if you ask me. But nobody ever does.
 
For the past 40 years we've been fighting the "Vee-bar" versus "Cross-bar" when it comes to flight directors.

Melikes the "Vee-bar" but my employer chooses to use the "Cross-bar" which sucks.
 
[ QUOTE ]
But if GA manufacturers are all transitioning to glass cockpits, shouldn't pilots become as proficient with those as the old steam gauges?

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all good comments and exactly why I'm doing this research. I 100% agree with the above comment BUT this is the upcoming problems as I see them......as glass cockpits become more prevelant in training aircraft it's going to be become common(in the not too distant future) that a person do all of their training in these aircraft - when they're done what's to stop them from going out and renting a 30 year old Skyhawk with analog guages and blasting off into IMC?? Right now the majority of flight training curriculums don't even breach the subject of glass cockpits - and certainly nothing from the FAA. As far as I know none of the FAA knowledge tests contain any questions about glass cockpits because it's been a subject that only the 'professionals' needed to know about and was left to Flight Safety, Simcom, and the airline training departments, etc. so I'm looking at what type of training may need to be developed to allow GA pilots to make the transition safely -- should the FAA require some sort of 'endorsement'(similar to a tailwheel signoff)?? Should it be left to the discretion of the flight schools?? Is a 1 hour 'checkout' sufficient??

In my career I've gone from training aircraft(analog) to the Starship(glass) to the Dash 8(analog) to the CRJ(glass) to the Challenger 600(analog) to the Challenger 604(glass) so I've been thru bothe the 'forward' and 'backward' transition and I've been thinking alot latley about how all of this new gee whiz stuff is going to affect the GA crowd.

Jason
 
And to add to Doug's above comments - that's a very important issue! Analog guages are pretty simple - for the most part they all look the same and they either work or they don't. EFIS systems are a little more complicated than 'just turn it on and go' - there are all kinds of possible failure modes that may or may not be easily identifiable that you simply don't have in analog cockpits and like Doug said each manufacturer may choose to display information differently -- do we require training for each type?? Do we move to promote required standardization among manufacturers?? Is this the beginning of another 'Standard T layout' issue that we had 50 years ago??

All food for thought - comments and thoughts welcome.

Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top