Steam gauges

cezzna said:
Just curious how many people have ratings but have never flown analog gauges.
Click to expand...


I am sure many is the answer because so many no longer fly because of the expense and attempting to teach a old dog new tricks has some validity. I learn to fly the round dials but quickly learn nothing is forever and begin to learn glass as it continues to evolve. I would not take flying lessons today unless the school is using modern equipment unless you have a job lined up operating a steam engine.
 
jmreii said:
I am sure many is the answer because so many no longer fly because of the expense and attempting to teach a old dog new tricks has some validity. I learn to fly the round dials but quickly learn nothing is forever and begin to learn glass as it continues to evolve. I would not take flying lessons today unless the school is using modern equipment unless you have a job lined up operating a steam engine.
Click to expand...
...like a handful of regional airlines, and a major.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
...like a handful of regional airlines, and a major.
Click to expand...

Exactly. My first day at one of the largest regionals in the world was in an old Brasilia with a steam gauge six pack. This was just a couple of years ago, and is still a likely situation for our new hires.

There is absolutely no reason to demand initial training in modern glass cockpits. Learning in the old stuff gives one a much better chance at situational awareness, and skills that will last a lifetime. From everything I've seen, going from steam gauges to glass has a minimum learning curve, but that is DEFINITELY not the case going from a background of only flying G1000s to steam gauges.

When I was a CFI, I absolutely refused to do primary training in glass aircraft if the student had any aspirations of becoming a professional pilot. Even for their instrument rating, we stayed with the old stuff until we were close to finishing. If they were just flying for fun and planned on only flying glass, that was a different story.
 
I've flown since 1986 and have never flown a true all-glass airplane.

Professionally: B-1900, 727, 737, MD-88/90, 757/767

I'd train where it's inexpensive and practical. I wouldn't pay a dime extra or drive a mile further for "glass".

Besides, you're not going to fly an RJ off the bat anymore. It'll probably be something with pistons and an ass full of freight. Or, that C-152 with round dials.
 
GypsyPilot said:
Exactly. My first day at one of the largest regionals in the world was in an old Brasilia with a steam gauge six pack. This was just a couple of years ago, and is still a likely situation for our new hires.
Click to expand...
(As you probably already know) the Brasilia is largely partial-EFIS, or at least an electronic HSI, and some are EADI-EHSI, but none are full glass, nor will they be anytime soon--and that airplane is not going anywhere anytime soon either, because unlike the CanuckJet Two Hundo, it makes money.

There is absolutely no reason to demand initial training in modern glass cockpits. Learning in the old stuff gives one a much better chance at situational awareness, and skills that will last a lifetime. From everything I've seen, going from steam gauges to glass has a minimum learning curve, but that is DEFINITELY not the case going from a background of only flying G1000s to steam gauges.
Click to expand...
If you're a computer geek or flying for giggles, that's one thing, but if you're going to spend your career in airplanes, that's another. I don't find glass as fun/sporting as steam.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
(As you probably already know) the Brasilia is largely partial-EFIS, or at least an electronic HSI, and some are EADI-EHSI, but none are full glass, nor will they be anytime soon--and that airplane is not going anywhere anytime soon either, because unlike the CanuckJet Two Hundo, it makes money.


If you're a computer geek or flying for giggles, that's one thing, but if you're going to spend your career in airplanes, that's another. I don't find glass as fun/sporting as steam.
Click to expand...

There are still quite a few of the old FIS airplanes around still aren't there? The only "glass" in that one is the "FMS"/GPS.
 
GypsyPilot said:
There are still quite a few of the old FIS airplanes around still aren't there? The only "glass" in that one is the "FMS"/GPS.
Click to expand...
All of the FIS airplanes have an EHSI. All of the airplanes are equipped with the GNS-XLS now too (because AFIS). But yes. There are a good number of ones with mechanical ADIs hanging out.

Even if we didn't have mechanical ADIs hanging around, the scan is still "conventional," "steam," or "old school" - whatever you want to call basic attitude instrument flying, that's what it is.
 
Primary training with glass will cost you more, simple as that. If you're a doc who will transition into a Cirrus, fine. Otherwise get it cheap and get it done.
 
I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that focusing your primary training on glass is paramount if you will be going that route, professionally. Whether it is analog or glass, the primary focus of your primary training is FLYING. You are learning to fly. I can see that you may use a few different parts of your brain with the differences, but we're not talking about mostly permanent, fixed plug brain programming here. In both cases, when you come out of primary training, you are green and need to focus on the transition to the next level. Glass experience is nothing a short course of training can't address. There are times where having time with glass is preferred, like if 2 candidates are equal but one has glass time and one doesn't, but that is not so common that you need to believe those desperate all-glass schools. Learning glass after your primary training (if you choose the analog route), is learning something new, but why spend an extra 20 grand on learning to fly when you can save most of that and take a small chunk of it to learn the ins and outs AFTER you've become comfortable in aircraft. Or, even better, some get lucky and get their introduction to glass on the job, like I did. I didn't think it was so hard that I needed it earlier. It is MUCH more rewarding to find a good school, with good instructors who are focused on teaching you skills, not just checking boxes and getting you in a pipeline.

TRUST ME. Find a school that is focused on YOU. Find an instructor that loves flying and can share some good stories with you. I was very fortunate. None of my I instructors were bad, but those who I learned the least from had nothing to share and were just checking boxes. I have a feeling that many schools that have the newest fleets bought into a problem that has been manifesting for years in the aviation community. This problem revolves around less stick and rudder focus and more checking boxes and pushing buttons. This problem will be around for years because the influence of the people who push this approach is still around and won't diminish until stick and rudder influence is back for a while- IF it comes back. I see it trying to come back but we'll see. Definitely be critical of your flight school and make sure it will provide good training that will reward you with great skills when you put in the work.
 
falconvalley said:
I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that focusing your primary training on glass is paramount if you will be going that route, professionally. Whether it is analog or glass, the primary focus of your primary training is FLYING. You are learning to fly. I can see that you may use a few different parts of your brain with the differences, but we're not talking about mostly permanent, fixed plug brain programming here. In both cases, when you come out of primary training, you are green and need to focus on the transition to the next level. Glass experience is nothing a short course of training can't address. There are times where having time with glass is preferred, like if 2 candidates are equal but one has glass time and one doesn't, but that is not so common that you need to believe those desperate all-glass schools. Learning glass after your primary training (if you choose the analog route), is learning something new, but why spend an extra 20 grand on learning to fly when you can save most of that and take a small chunk of it to learn the ins and outs AFTER you've become comfortable in aircraft. Or, even better, some get lucky and get their introduction to glass on the job, like I did. I didn't think it was so hard that I needed it earlier. It is MUCH more rewarding to find a good school, with good instructors who are focused on teaching you skills, not just checking boxes and getting you in a pipeline.

TRUST ME. Find a school that is focused on YOU. Find an instructor that loves flying and can share some good stories with you. I was very fortunate. None of my I instructors were bad, but those who I learned the least from had nothing to share and were just checking boxes. I have a feeling that many schools that have the newest fleets bought into a problem that has been manifesting for years in the aviation community. This problem revolves around less stick and rudder focus and more checking boxes and pushing buttons. This problem will be around for years because the influence of the people who push this approach is still around and won't diminish until stick and rudder influence is back for a while- IF it comes back. I see it trying to come back but we'll see. Definitely be critical of your flight school and make sure it will provide good training that will reward you with great skills when you put in the work.
Click to expand...

Word up.

We have a mixture of glass, steam and "combination" aircrraft at Southernjets.

I've never read a bulletin that talked about incidents that involved misinterpretations of flight instrumentation, but LOADS of "we need to get back to basics" bulletins about stick and rudder skills.

I'd post one that would make your scalp itch, but it's not public info yet.
 
I have professionally flown the B-1900 and now SF-340. Neither are glass except for the EFIS. Also, in the last 4 months, I've flown in a Saab with a FMS 3 times.
 
If you've younger than idk... 40? Going from steam to glass should take you about 2 hours in the cockpit on the ground with the GPU hooked up so you can play with the thing. Any more and you probably suck at computers. Whenever I see 'glass cockpit experience" on a job posting it tells me the guy who wrote it is 50+ years old or in HR and has no idea what they're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top