Doesnt western have Senecas that are steam?
Indeed, but there won't be that many hours of hard actual in those things.
I teach primary students in glass panel aircraft every day. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. To be blunt, from what I've seen, critics of such training usually don't know what they're talking about.
As for primary training in an SR-22, it can be done, but it will be significantly more expensive, time consuming, and I would reserve it for very unique circumstances. As has been said, it's a high performance aircraft that was never designed to be a primary trainer. My main concern would be teaching takeoffs and landings in them. They require a much finer touch than a Cessna or Cherokee.
As for doing a discovery flight in an SR-22, why not? Discovery flights aren't necessarily instruction, they're meant to get a prospective customer excited about flying and show them what the possibilities are for integrating aviation in to their lives. What better way to do that then show them a sweet plane they can fly after getting their license in something a bit less demanding?
As though the students will get a lot of hard actual in the other aircraft in the fleet?
Let's face it, very few pilots are prepared for flying hard IFR straight out of flight school regardless of what plane they trained in.
As for saying unless they continue instructing in glass panels they'll become a smoking hole...you've got to be kidding me. If they become a smoking hole, that's because they got in over their head with instructing in general, not because of the panel in front of them.
I've had to train people from glass to steam gauges, and they would have become smoking holes without me sitting there next to them. We're talking about IFR flying, BTW.
Ok, since I haven't seen exactly what you're referring to, I can't comment.
My point is only that I think glass panels get unnecessarily blamed by old school pilots for a trainee's poor performance. It might have been the glass panel, or it might have been poor instruction, or a lack of recent experience, or somebody who was never very talented to begin with, or any number of things.
Did these pilots you're referring to actually wash out of training, or did they figure out the conventional panel and make it? If they made it, obviously they couldn't have been *that* bad.
If they did wash out, what was the washout rate compared to pilots who had come from backgrounds with conventional panels? Did the pilots from conventional backgrounds never wash out?
Ya know, now that I fly glass birds, I don't think that it's really all that different from the steam guages I flew at ACE. Frankly, it all does the same thing, you just have to think a little bit differently (i.e. what happens when those pretty dials and guages go tango uniform) and plan accordingly. But this is probably just good planning in general. Questions like, "alright, where's the nearest good wx," or "alright, if I loose everything IFR and I'm here to break out I'm going to have to turn heading blank blank, and climb to blank." If you're in radar contact you can say, well, if I lose everything I need to request vectors to VFR.
you guys have glass C210's ?
Would you I teach someone to fly a SR22 as a primary trainer you bet. It would be much easier doing that then transitioning them after their private. It probably would be closer to the 100hr mark maybe more to get your private...