New pilots learning on glass.. Problem down the road?

[CapnJim]

I think I have the answer:
"Tax breaks", "Cessna Certified Pilot Centers" and other "discounts". The quotes are to underline the idea that the actual benefit recieved is about as shady as my knowledge of how the programs work. My old school (old skool?) has a couple of new 172's based on those kinda economics. Plus, the draw of the 'amazing new glass toys' is a boon to biddness. Seems to work just fine, 'cause there appears to be no shortage of rich folk who just can't fly anything but the best. I reckon there's more than a few rich-folk plane owners who buy them as well to keep up with the Jonseses.

As for the 'ol run-o-da-mill broke-assed students, they fight for the g-models. Less g-money that way. G-money. Ha! I kill me.

[JaceTheAce]

I hate the glass idea for training aircraft. I think it's stupid! Students should be learning to fly the a/c with outside references, not with some shiny LCD screen. Until all aircraft are glass, no flight school should be restricting VFR and even IFR training environments to glass.

Steam gauges should be tought in primary IFR learning environments...students can always learn to fly glass down the road. I think it'd be a lot easier to transition from steam guage to glass than glass to steam guage.

[SteveC]

I thought the thread title said "grass", not "glass". Guess I'm from a different era.

[desertdog71]

I have said it before.................

GLASS IS FOR GIRLS!!!

[jtrain609]

Didn't read this whole thread so ignore me if somebody already said this, but...

Cessna isn't making steam gauges anymore, at all.

They're ONLY procuding G1000's now as it's cheaper for them to put two LCD's and a few computers into an airplane than it is for them to pull together all the various round dials and throw them in. There won't even be an option to buy a new Cessna with round dials soon.

Though I still side on the idea that until the entire fleet is glass, professionals should be trained on round dials. You can very easily go from round dials to glass but it's nearly impossible to go the other way (it has to do with your scan as I think somebody mentioned, the glass stuff puts everything on one location and you don't need to think at all).

[killbilly]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

Seeing as a new Baron with glass essentially has the same engines as an old Baron with traditional instruments, I doubt a company operating on a slim profit margin would go for the new plane. They probably wouldn't be able to absorb the cost initially anyway.

Originally Posted by EatSleepFly

I don't think so. Or at least I don't see how. We fly single pilot in old turbine airplanes that commuters (remember those?) flew with two pilots. (One even sets a record for flight time in that type of airplane every time it flies ). We don't have GPS (except for a few special ones), and many don't have autopilots. Glass is not even a fraction of a thought here yet, and I hope it isn't for a very long time- it would be a bad use of money for sure. If anything, GPS, a basic autopilot, or even some sort of basic terrain avoidance (considering the abundance of rocks around where we fly) would come first. No company in their right mind is going to convert airplanes with 20,000-50,000(?) hours on them to glass.

Subsequent questions, then - would it be smart for a manufacturer to subsidize retrofitting some of the aircraft to deploy the systems to allow operators to ease the burden?

And as a freight dawg (I love that term ) wouldn't you prefer flying with a glass cockpit for all of the extra data and decreased workload?

As to my original question about operating costs, I was wondering more along the lines of maintenance. During the poll about Garmin vs. Avidyne the consensus was that the costs of glass were less to manufacture/deliver were less than a six-pack. So I was wondering if any of those cost savings translated at the operator level.

Further, I don't know if any NTSB statistics could indicate an improved safety record as a correllation with glass avionics. I have no idea if such data exists or even if such a hypothesis is valid. It would SEEM to make sense, but at the layman's view, I don't know.

It appears that glass is coming; the more practical question is how do you - as pilots - and those of us who are aspiring pilots - position ourselves for what looks like a sea change?

Or is that overestimating the situation?

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by killbilly

Subsequent questions, then - would it be smart for a manufacturer to subsidize retrofitting some of the aircraft to deploy the systems to allow operators to ease the burden?

And as a freight dawg (I love that term ) wouldn't you prefer flying with a glass cockpit for all of the extra data and decreased workload?

As to my original question about operating costs, I was wondering more along the lines of maintenance. During the poll about Garmin vs. Avidyne the consensus was that the costs of glass were less to manufacture/deliver were less than a six-pack. So I was wondering if any of those cost savings translated at the operator level.

Further, I don't know if any NTSB statistics could indicate an improved safety record as a correllation with glass avionics. I have no idea if such data exists or even if such a hypothesis is valid. It would SEEM to make sense, but at the layman's view, I don't know.

It appears that glass is coming; the more practical question is how do you - as pilots - and those of us who are aspiring pilots - position ourselves for what looks like a sea change?

Or is that overestimating the situation?

In my opinion there's no difference between having a G1000 in front of you or a Garmin 430. They will present the exact same data (though the 430 obviously has a smaller screen, which really doesn't matter much), but the 430 is only $7,000. Heck I'd take a Garmin 430 over an autopilot 99% of the time.

[Timbuff10]

Originally Posted by JaceTheAce

I hate the glass idea for training aircraft. I think it's stupid! Students should be learning to fly the a/c with outside references, not with some shiny LCD screen. Until all aircraft are glass, no flight school should be restricting VFR and even IFR training environments to glass.

Steam gauges should be tought in primary IFR learning environments...students can always learn to fly glass down the road. I think it'd be a lot easier to transition from steam guage to glass than glass to steam guage.

I hate the steam gauges idea for training aircraft. I think it's stupid! Students should be learning to fly the a/c with outside references, not with some clunky dial.

Glass cockpits should be taught in primary IFR learning environments...students can always learn to fly the old gauges down the road. I think it'd be a lot easier to transition from glass to steam than steam to glass.

The arguments can be made either way.

What I don't understand is why it seems cool to be the pilot that flies the oldest equipment out there? Sometimes it seems that if you are shooting an NDB approach to mins in a 70s model airplane you are looked upon as the ultimate hottness.
Personally, I would rather be the one flying the glass cockpit with weather radar, TIS and all the goodies while using the autopilot on an ILS and enjoying my time.

Do you want to drive a 60s model bug or a brand new Beamer? I don't see the difference really?

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

I hate the steam gauges idea for training aircraft. I think it's stupid! Students should be learning to fly the a/c with outside references, not with some clunky dial.

Glass cockpits should be taught in primary IFR learning environments...students can always learn to fly the old gauges down the road. I think it'd be a lot easier to transition from glass to steam than steam to glass.

The arguments can be made either way.

What I don't understand is why it seems cool to be the pilot that flies the oldest equipment out there? Sometimes it seems that if you are shooting an NDB approach to mins in a 70s model airplane you are looked upon as the ultimate hottness.
Personally, I would rather be the one flying the glass cockpit with weather radar, TIS and all the goodies while using the autopilot on an ILS and enjoying my time.

Do you want to drive a 60s model bug or a brand new Beamer? I don't see the difference really?

Because flying an NDB approach (espically no gyro) takes a lot more skill than flying in a glass panel aircraft. And I don't mean a different skill, I mean straight up less skill. So many people are lost without moving maps these days and when the lights go out they're fux0r.

Further, I like flying airplanes; not being a systems manager. I didn't get into this gig because I wanted to play with a computer at FL350. I can do that on the ground and get paid better than some guy flying an RJ. I do this gig because I enjoy to actually fly the airplane.

[desertdog71]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

I hate the steam gauges idea for training aircraft. I think it's stupid! Students should be learning to fly the a/c with outside references, not with some clunky dial.

Glass cockpits should be taught in primary IFR learning environments...students can always learn to fly the old gauges down the road. I think it'd be a lot easier to transition from glass to steam than steam to glass.

The arguments can be made either way.

What I don't understand is why it seems cool to be the pilot that flies the oldest equipment out there? Sometimes it seems that if you are shooting an NDB approach to mins in a 70s model airplane you are looked upon as the ultimate hottness.
Personally, I would rather be the one flying the glass cockpit with weather radar, TIS and all the goodies while using the autopilot on an ILS and enjoying my time.

Do you want to drive a 60s model bug or a brand new Beamer? I don't see the difference really?

Reality is that not all aircraft are set up this way. MOST aircraft in the Freight environment are the basics and no more. I gurantee that an IFR student trained on glass would not be able to handle the workload involved with flying in IMC on steam guages.

[Timbuff10]

Ok, I can understand those points of view for sure... If you are getting into flying to be a freight dog then without a doubt I agree older airplanes are the way to go. I am yet to meet a student that told me on day one that he wants to fly old airplanes at night though. From what I have seen at my flight school, the two types of students out there are either the future airline pilot, or the guy who has a good job and always wanted to learn how to fly and is at a point in life where they can try it now.

I like a good old airplane, the problem is from what I have seen, the older the plane, the more mx it needs and the more downtime it has. I am yet to have a G1000 clunk out on me. In the end it isn't really how new the plane is though, it's how good of a mx program it has going with it and how good the pilots treat it.

[Bignellyxx]

Personally i don't think private pilot training in glass is a problem. No they should not be staring at the TV screen to learn to fly. But in VFR flight the Glass is not much different than steam guages. The CFI should make sure the student isn't staring inside the cockpit. The good thing with glass is if they are starring at the big shiny screen you can dim it for teaching something like steep turns.

I think the issue with glass will come when teaching instrument students. First thing is teaching something like unusual attitude recoveries. The glass obviously doesn't tumble. A student who learns on glass will most likely recover with the Giant Attitude indicator this could pose a problem if they go and fly a standard 6 pack. The second issue with teaching primary instrument training on the glass is that glass has a projected track line that makes tracking on any approach just too damn easy. Students who learn on glass will have a huge issue when it comes to learning how to track a straight line.

It was mentioned earlier by someone about learning about pitot/static blockages on a glass. The glass will be affected the same way as a standard 6 pack at least on the avidyne.

[desertdog71]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

Ok, I can understand those points of view for sure... If you are getting into flying to be a freight dog then without a doubt I agree older airplanes are the way to go. I am yet to meet a student that told me on day one that he wants to fly old airplanes at night though. From what I have seen at my flight school, the two types of students out there are either the future airline pilot, or the guy who has a good job and always wanted to learn how to fly and is at a point in life where they can try it now.

I like a good old airplane, the problem is from what I have seen, the older the plane, the more mx it needs and the more downtime it has. I am yet to have a G1000 clunk out on me. In the end it isn't really how new the plane is though, it's how good of a mx program it has going with it and how good the pilots treat it.

You need to be realistic with your students. Guess what the MAJORITY of flying jobs out there are in older airplanes, and they will simply need those skills at some point during their career. Not everybody gets to fly the big iron with thge latest equipment.

I would much rather be in the position where I have the skills to get a job ANYWHERE, as opposed to preparation geared specific to the airline route.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

Ok, I can understand those points of view for sure... If you are getting into flying to be a freight dog then without a doubt I agree older airplanes are the way to go. I am yet to meet a student that told me on day one that he wants to fly old airplanes at night though. From what I have seen at my flight school, the two types of students out there are either the future airline pilot, or the guy who has a good job and always wanted to learn how to fly and is at a point in life where they can try it now.

I like a good old airplane, the problem is from what I have seen, the older the plane, the more mx it needs and the more downtime it has. I am yet to have a G1000 clunk out on me. In the end it isn't really how new the plane is though, it's how good of a mx program it has going with it and how good the pilots treat it.

So what happens when these guys end up as flight instructors in round dial aircraft in actual? Remember primacy is a pain in the butt and when it hits the fan, they'll stop scanning and go back to where they think the information *should* be presented.

[Timbuff10]

Originally Posted by desertdog71

I would much rather be in the position where I have the skills to get a job ANYWHERE, as opposed to preparation geared specific to the airline route.

I couldn't agree more... I think the best way to start out is to use a NavII Cessna, then after you get your private start mixing it up between the two. After seeing the ins and outs in both the steam and glass planes you will be fine changing between the two cockpits and should be fairly good on both styles by the time the Instrument ride comes along.

When the IFR ride comes along though, I would rather take it in a glass any day, and I am saying this even though I have no IFR time in glass planes.

[Timbuff10]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

So what happens when these guys end up as flight instructors in round dial aircraft in actual?

Good point, but from what I have seen, every flight school has insurance requirements that require everyone who flies their planes to be checked out in each. At my school you have to get checked out in the Glass 172 even if you have a million hours in the steam gauges. I would imagine the reverse is also true.

Nothing a little training can't take care of.

I would also think that any flight instructor that has any respect for flying, won't take a plane into actual unless he is totally confident in his abilities in that particular airplane.

[desertdog71]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

I couldn't agree more... I think the best way to start out is to use a NavII Cessna, then after you get your private start mixing it up between the two. After seeing the ins and outs in both the steam and glass planes you will be fine changing between the two cockpits and should be fairly good on both styles by the time the Instrument ride comes along.

When the IFR ride comes along though, I would rather take it in a glass any day, and I am saying this even though I have no IFR time in glass planes.

Of course you would rather do the ride in Glass its easier.

Its a little different when you are using a dual VOR no DME setup and your are timing your legs and approaches with a stop watch. I doubt its very difficult to follow a line on a GPS display. Just my two cents, I have no glass panel experience but from what I have seen I would say that you would be well served to learn in the old school plane first and do your ride that way, and then take a 4-5 hour glass transition course rather than the other way around.

I'd hate to see a glass only IR pilot rent a steam plane and go hard IMC. Sure they have an IR but they will be ill prepared.

[Flysher]

As far as descent planning, there's very little to plan...stay as high as possible, for as long as possible, dive in at low power settings at max speed for your turbulence level, and slow down as you are within 5 miles (or if in a Caravan, within 1/2 mile, and make the first turn-off). In a recip, use the power reduction schedule your company uses, stay high and descend for speed, and in a 'Van, Vmo to 1/2 mile final.

woops, i thought it was Vmo to DH!!!!

[ComplexHiAv8r]

I have heard that Avidyne is considering a version of the PFD software to be able to switch back to a six pack arrangement if you want. I know the new Rev6 doesn't so not sure how long it might be before they might even do it.

[N422NM]

Originally Posted by ComplexHiAv8r

I have heard that Avidyne is considering a version of the PFD software to be able to switch back to a six pack arrangement if you want. I know the new Rev6 doesn't so not sure how long it might be before they might even do it.

I heard that as well from an Avidyne rep. I was talking with a month ago or so...

[Timbuff10]

Doesn't Southwest use a glass cockpit setup that has the sixpack displayed intstead of tape and so on like a traditional glass cockpit? I know I have seen that picture before.

I think that would be great if you could switch back and forth with the press of a button. Perhaps something like reversionary mode on the G1000? One switch gives you a sixpack. That would be cool! It gets hard to cut out the sticky notes so they cover up certain things on the PFD.

[kellwolf]

Glass is for girls? Damn, I guess Bombardier, Embraer, Airbus and Boeing must be wrong.....

SWA has their -700s with a six packish set up so it's easier to transition from a -300 to a -700 since you might have to do that from one flight to the other.

John, does the G430 offer downlink for XM weather that it can overly onto your flight path? That's one thing off the top of my head I think the G1000 can do that the 430 can't (besides the XM radio).

As far as the glass checkride being easier, I know of at least one person that would argue against that. It depends on the examiner. If they don't know the system, you're fux0rd. This guy failed his CFI-I ride with the FSDO b/c the examiner just covered up two instruments with post-its. The problem is, with the G1000, your inclinometer (aka ball of the turn coordinator) is integrated with the attitude indicator. As a result, the guy busted on timed turns to a heading since he couldn't do a standard rate turn. Why? The inspector didn't follow proper G1000 procedures for testing that manuever. He didn't know the system, so he improvised and screwed the applicant in the process. The worst part, was the guy didn't even care and didn't WANT to know the right way to do it.

We've also heard "Anyone that shows up for a checkride in the G1000 is automatically gonna bust." That was from another FSDO inspector.

Yeah, the whole Cessna glass thing is true. Why? B/c they offer the six pack as an OPTION on their new planes now. Why get a six pack when you can get a G1000 for about the same price? No vaccum pumps (well, ONE) to deal with, less plumbing involved between the instruments, and fewer things to check. I'm betting Piper and Raytheon will do the same thing before long.

[Timbuff10]

Got it.... Glass cockpit with a six-pack. Check the remarks under the photo. I think the photog took notes from the pilots.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1087352/L/

[kellwolf]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

I think that would be great if you could switch back and forth with the press of a button. Perhaps something like reversionary mode on the G1000? One switch gives you a sixpack. That would be cool! It gets hard to cut out the sticky notes so they cover up certain things on the PFD.

Dim the PFD and have them fly in reversionary mode. That's what the student would be doing in a PFD failure, and that's how Cessna and the FAA have agreed it should be trained. As for partial panel.....there's a couple of ways to do that. You can cover up individual instruments with post it (thus covering the screen in sticky crap), or you can dim the PFD and have them fly using the X-track mode and the MFD with the backup instruments, also how the FAA and Cessna have said that should be taught.

Realistically, partial panel as taught in round dials wouldn't happen in a glass cockpit anyway. If you lost your attitude indicator and your DG, you've still got your backup attitude indicator, altimeter and airspeed indiactor. If your AI goes in the G1000, I wouldn't trust the altimeter or the airspeed indicator on the glass, either since your ADC is more than likely the cause. You MAY actually still have the DG since the AHRS unit is separate, but I'd cross-reference with the mag compass often.

[JayAre]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Besides, a 172 with glass is just silly!

I want my students (and myself) looking outside for traffic rather than heaving their heads inside the cabin playing 'flight sim'.

One of the biggest problems I see in pilots while checking them out or riding with aircraft owners. Keep your freggin eyes out at all times not dickin around with cockpit gadgets and toys. Wait until cruise to dial in your favorite XM station!

BTW I have 0 time on glass I wouldn't know what buttons to dial or push