Magenta Line

I remember wondering/asking these same questions as a student.

A glass clock-pit such as a Garmin 1000 has the same instruments and almost the same location as the steam gauges for the 6 pack stuff. You won’t get worse with your scan using glass. Just a slightly different scan learning how to read a speed tape instead of a needle. I think flying both is the best of both worlds.

That being said, here are three things I find in pilots who are weak (regardless on what they trained in).

1. Automation management: Glass cockpit has some more cool features, so use the Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, and Automate in that order, if struggling to keep up, start shedding it off, starting with the automate, and work your way backwards. This 25 minute video is a great lesson on how to manage automation.(See Video Below)

2. Automation dependency: be sure to shoot a bunch of raw data approaches without the flight director, or the "Procedures" button on the GPS. I see to many times people use the new Garmins as a crutch, and struggle with Raw Data approaches.

2. GPS usage: If a pilot comes to me doing an interview, It sure makes life easier when they thoroughly know how to use a GPS. I could care less if I have to teach them how to use the PFD... but the GPS and correct usage makes it much easier for 135 Initials. Doing your instrument rating with a GPS will reinforce good habits (such as checking GPS mode at the FAF, and what are the purposes/functions of OBS mode etc).

 
I used to be super gung-ho about being able to fly 6 pack approaches etc, while still appreciating glass automation. I always kind of felt stuck in the middle between enjoying it and having to be salty about it. All that said, as VOR's go down, the FAA isn't fixing them. How many new VOR approaches have you seen vs. RNAV approaches?

Understand what the glass is doing behind the scenes, then utilize it to help with SA. It's obvious the industry is trending heavy on glass and automation, we might as well embrace it.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
So why all the talk and flap from a few years ago about this current generation of pilots, that have only ever trained in the fancy glass cockpits? That supposedly can't fly themselves out of a wet paper bag, if all the magic is turned off. Or it goes out on it's own, and lose all situational awareness, and need a xanax.
Click to expand...

The serious response follows...:

At the time...the FAA even was going through significant rewriting of educational material (re: Instrument Flying Handbook - renewed in 2012...and a renewed Advanced Avionics Handbook, 2009) adding additional content to address the growing trend of TAA and advanced avionic packages in GA aircraft. So, institutionally and casually - a lot of observations were being made regarding the merits of the effectiveness of pilots utilizing only TAA. You then received the observations you just made.

Non-serious response...:

Because ultimately there are those who want some pilots to only utilize a certain avionic setup (re: traditional) because they feel it is necessary for a block of learning to take place. Sticking said block produces weaker pilots. Blah Blah Blah.

So...which response did you appreciate more?
 
Acrofox said:
The key is that SA (Situational Awareness) is something that exists in your head, not on the panel. You need to know exactly where you are, where you're going, what your plan is, and when you'll get there. Always.

A six-pack—and the thinking through radial intercepts, VOR tracking, identification, DME arcs, etc—absolutely requires you to create and update that mental picture to be a successful instrument pilot.

A glass cockpit will summarize the situation for you and display it, which can lead to underdevelopment or atrophy of SA skills.

-Fox
Click to expand...

Yup. You don't really learn instruments in a glass cockpit, only how to fly glass, and you pay a premium for it.

Flying glass is easy. Learn how to fly instruments and the transition to glass will be easy.
 
cmhumphr said:
It is easy going from 6 pack to glass but harder going from glass back to a 6 pack. Neither will make you a weak/strong instrument pilot, it just depends on your training in that aircraft and how much you practice. No one can argue that glass gives much better situational awareness, which is major key when flying IFR. But like anything, glass is only as good as the person using it.

Funny that flight school would tell its best to learn on the G1000 because that is what pilots at the airlines use. I've flown for 3 different airlines, and have yet to fly a full glass cockpit aircraft.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Going from glass to 6-pack will kill you. And, yet, somehow, the assumption remains that if one gets all of one's training in a glass cockpit that person is somehow -magically- qualified to operate in IMC with steam gauges. :confused::eek2:
 
I think this subject is being overanalyzed. Go the cheaper route and then progress to the next stage of your training. Ten/twenty/thirty years down the road, when you're sitting in the front of whatever type of airplane you're being paid to fly, I don't think you will really care what type of avionics suite your Cessna 172 was equipped with when you were doing your instrument training with 150 hours of total time.
 
I was a little worried about going to the 767 after flying full glass for 12 years in Embraers and the 747-4/8. Our 767's don't have an altitude tape on the EADI and some (ok 1) doesn't have a speed tape either, although they all still have the Navigation display that draws the course line for you. At the end of the day the transition was no big deal since you do 95% of your flying on the mode control panel which is pretty similar on most modern airliners regardless of their instrument panel layout. Let's be honest, as long as you have a flight director your scan doesn't have to be that quick even when you're hand flying.

My point is train for the airplane you want to fly or are going to making money flying and don't worry too much about it if the instrument configuration in your next airplane is different. The difficulty in going from round dial to glass and vice versa is often overstated in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Roger Roger said:
If you are properly trained on attitude instrument flying and having proper situation awareness (the fundamentals) it makes no difference. The problem is that with some of the magic it's easier for a weak instructor to sneak a weak student through.
Click to expand...
Yup.

This is the real problem. The absence of mechanical attitude instrument flying coupled with a lack of situation awareness...
 
mastermags said:
Um...


View attachment 35846 View attachment 35845
View attachment 35844 View attachment 35843
Click to expand...
ERMAHGERD, MECHERNICAL ERRTITUDE
1578278.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top