Learning to fly with guages vs. glass panels.

Pietrantonio

Pietrantonio

Well-Known Member
I haven't been flying lately due to an empty wallet, and a new primary career choice, but I still enjoy reading AOPA magazines, etc. It seems to me like glass panels are quickly becoming dominant.

Call me old fashioned, but when I did my training, I never heard of such panels. Therefore, I have this personal training theory that students should learn by guages, then progress into glass panels, etc. Don't get me wrong, advances in aviation technology improve flight safety and performance, etc and I am all for it. But in the sense of learning to fly, I think guages are irreplaceable.

What are your thoughts? I would like to learn more about the pros and cons of this issue from experienced pilots.
 
My thought is-depends on where the student wants to go? Airline or Corporate-just be used to the glass. but either way-unless you can find a glass complex airplane for them to use for commercial, they'll be using steam anyways. unless they get a Bonanza G36 or something, which would be pricey. Otherwise, if it's just a rich doctor wanting to fly his Cirrus-let him learn in the Cirrus and get him his instrument ticket too, otherwise he's gauranteed to kill himself.
 
Pietrantonio said:
What are your thoughts? I would like to learn more about the pros and cons of this issue from experienced pilots.
Click to expand...

Funny, I was just having a beer with a Delta 76 FO last night who was saying the same thing :)

I think both are appropriate. The bigger issue "magenta line" navigation becoming a crutch. That isn't specific to glass cockpits.

Back when I did my PPL GPS wasn't too common. My CFI wouldn't let me use even a handheld. Being able to look at a chart and know where you are is an important skill. A good CFI should be able to teach that in any aircraft.
 
I agree, I went to DCA and if you start out doing private with them you dont see steam gauges until commercial multi.....So at that point you are not only in your first multi, first complex plane, you have to develop a new scan for the gauges.

I am glad I got my private in a plane with steam gauges, then transitioned over to glass.
 
I think that it's much easier to transition from gauges to glass than the other way around.

In whatever area of flying you choose there is a good chance that you will do at least some flying with the old analog displays (round gauges), so I'm of the opinion that knowing how to fly on them is the way to learn. Once you can develop a good scan and learn how to mentally interpret the information on them, it is easy to switch over to the glass displays where the information is presented in ways easier to absorb.
 
For training, I'd personally go with the most basic plane to do the job. Start in a J3 cub for the private, graduate to something with two VOR/LOC receivers (maybe a DME) and an NDB for instrument. Once you're able to know exactly where you are at all times using nothing but charts and the basics, then move on to whatever you'd like (gps, glass, autopilot, etc).

Also, this should be cheaper.
 
I'd say it'd be wiser to learn on gauge first and then transition to glass.

I did my private in a C152 with 2 VOR/LOC receivers. The hardest thing my instructor would ever make me do (which made me a much better pilot) was put me under the hood, tell me to get into slow flight, and then locate exactly where we were based on VOR triangulation.

I believe that someone who has only had glass training would be absolutely screwed in that situation. Start with the basics and make sure you can do it well, then move on to the advanced. ;)
 
I did PPL-Commercial Single in steam, the last 20 hours in a glass twin.

Do it in steam, glass is EASY! It took me maybe 2 hours to feel really comfortable with the glass so it's not an issue.
 
Switching huh? Did you ever get that instrument ticket?...am I remembering that right?
Good luck in your new career.


My opinion is that it doesn't matter. Either way you will need transition training. I wouldn't doubt the FAA stepping in and creating something along the lines of an endorsement.

Think of it this way, people do not advise against doing primary training in a champ because all the rest of your career will be in tricycle gear. There will be a transition training, no matter what you choose.

Theres a mental picture, a tail wheel wide body!

I do not believe the G-1000 is a crutch during instrument training, but it can become one if the instructor allows it. I think it is fantastic to have this technology in GA.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I know many pilots that can't use a VOR, that's what I meant by crutch...
Click to expand...

Sorry, that wasn't a retort to your post. I only read the OP before posting.

I've seen it as a crutch too, and it is up to the CFI to "shut things down" when he suspects that. That is where i was going with that, flying around fat, dumb and happy is borderline not providing adequate instruction if they can only rent a G-1000 to fly IMC.
 
Glass is very attractive and easy to use. For that reason, I have seen many new guys who were completely sucked into the screen and seldom looked outside. Their basic flying skills seemed to have never fully developed. Without the glass, the GPS and the colorful screens, they were almost handicapped.

Go with the basics first. Learn to listen to the airplane and to learn what the airplane is doing..not what the colorful screens are depicting. And as noted, it is relatively easy to transition to glass after the basics are in place. It is real time. It is intuitive and it is helpful but without a sound foundation it can affect development of handling skills..IMHO.
 
I think learning to fly with analog guages is labor intensive in the brain. It's beneficial for learning how to multitask and really makes you a more well-rounded pilot. I transitioned from analog to glass I think too much weight is put on the transition. It's way easier than recruiters make it sound. The one big problem I think we will encounter down the road will be people that have never flown analog transitioning into analog. Will there be a less percentage of successful transitions? Who knows...I think it will depend on the transitioners' ability to multitask and scan. It is notable that the transition to glass has been enough of a hassle that the FAA seems to think that it requires attention. It's easy IMO, but perhaps not without some kind of organized training. Someday, when analog is scarce enough, we might see some kind of weight put on a reverse transition of sorts.
 
I would say to learn with steam gauges. My biggest reasoning would be that so far I have never flown a glass cockpit aircraft (I have experience in singles, twins, and corporate jets). There are many more aircraft in the world with good old steam gauges than with sparkling new glass.
 
I :love: my gauges. Glass is colorful & glossy & lovely, and a great tool...But something about those gauges has me hooked. I did my IR with no glass, and I'm glad I did. I feel proficient using either gauges or glass, now that I have had time to use glass after the IR. I feel flying the gauges gives a solid foundation on which to build. Flying approaches today, I found myself looking over at the magenta line and, while it was nice to have an additional aid to situational awareness, that's all it is for me...additional. EAA is currently raffling off a husky, it just seemed wrong when I looked inside and saw glass.
 
I don't think it matters, as long as the pilot recognizes his/her limitations in respect to operating IFR in a panel that they are unfamiliar with. I did all of my instrument training in a G1000, but have a couple hours of steam gauge time under the hood. Right now, I've got no problem busting out when the field is at minimum's in a G1000, but I would never consider doing such a thing in a steam gauge equipped airplane.

Know your limitations, and don't fly beyond them.
 
SteveC said:
I think that it's much easier to transition from gauges to glass than the other way around.
Click to expand...

I agree, and would add 2 more reasons:

1) Gauges typically require a quicker scan and better decision making/interpreting to fly accurately.
2) Cheaper.
 
As a CFII, if I had my way everyone would have to learn on gauges. The school I teach at has mostly college kids with a flying career in mind. The biggest problem I have with glass is that it totally negates situational awareness. When doing instruments using gauges you have to look at a few needles and maybe a DME receiver, put your finger on a map and say "I'm here." With the G1000 (my only glass experience) the MFD is usually set up as a giant moving map, and the PFD has a small inset map. The computer will display holding patterns and tell you what type of entry to do. The students don't develop the ability to make a 3-dimensional image in their head of where they are and where they are going.

Many G-1000 trained students here say they wouldn't feel comfortable in actual without glass.

Once they graduate, lets assume they can't go to a regional because of the 1500 TT rule. Many of them, for the sake of this argument, will go to 135 freight carriers. They fly 210s, Barons, etc with no glass. How will they fare?
 
I've only been on gauges, mainly because the 1970's 152 I fly didn't know what glass was when it was made, and they are cheap. I would imagine it doesn't really matter one way or the other except to the wallet. I would guess in 15-20 years steam gauges will be relegated to old farts hangar flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top