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

[Flysher]

I was in a conversation with an Airnet instructor yesterday and we got to talking about how all of the flight schools are switching to glass only trainers now or in the near future. The topic of discussion was about what are these pilots going to do when they go for a job where they have to fly conventional gauges?

For example, lets say a pilot learns to fly at a Cessna pilot center and does all of his/her training on a glass cockpit. Later this person becomes a CFI at the same school and continues teaching on the glass. Then this particular individual comes to Airnet for example or somewhere that uses round dials. Now this person may have a small amount of exposure to old cockpits from sims/books/limited experience etc... But will it be enough to make it through a rigorous IFR training program?

We both thought that it’s going to become a problem and he was saying that they aren’t quite sure how they are going to handle it if pilots come in and can’t maintain a basic scan on a 6 pack. Also the new level of automation that makes certain things easier not to mention the big map showing you where you are, making old methods of maintaining SA a lost skill.

I am just curious as to everyone else’s thoughts on this approaching "problem" as one may call it.

[Doug Taylor]

I seriously doubt that "all" of the schools are transitioning to glass as that'd be a mistake.

I'm still heavily debating starting a small flight school myself but if the airplanes I decided to use had glass, I'd probably 'dumb them down' to the basic six pack.

[meritflyer]

I am a firm believer that glass should come second to learning the six pack. Maybe one day the old steam instruments will be a thing of the past but as of right now they're not. A student must learn errors of instruments, scans, function, partial panel, and pitot static systems. Glass is quite a bit easier to fly, IMO. I have about 60 hours on the G1000 and find it much easier to fly vs. the six pack.

Students need to study the FAA books (PHAK, AFH, and IFH) which all discuss traditional instruments not glass.

Just my opinion.

[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'.

[CRoper]

You have a good point, but doesn't the same thing happen every day for those pilots who did all of their training with round dials, and then have to switch it up when they get their first gig flying an aircraft with glass up front? Yeah, it's different, but nothing that a competent pilot cannot overcome with a little experience in my opinion.

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by CRoper

You have a good point, but doesn't the same thing happen every day for those pilots who did all of their training with round dials, and then have to switch it up when they get their first gig flying an aircraft with glass up front? Yeah, it's different, but nothing that a competent pilot cannot overcome with a little experience in my opinion.

If you think about it, when you learn to fly with a six pack, you're used to your scan including six different instruments. Change it so that you only have to look at one instrument for everything and it's easier for you.

On the other hand, if you're used to looking at one thing and then you have to start looking at six, instead of things being easier, they are more difficult.

[Flysher]

Ive heard that all of the CPC's are going to switch to glass exclusively in the next year or so.

Croper - yes I see what you are saying and I partially agree. However in my opinion it seems as if a transition from round to glass is easier ( keeping in mind the only glass ive flown is g1000/avidyne((sp?)).

For example, your scan is much smaller on a G1000. Everything is tucked into a smaller area, not to mention the GIGANTIC horizon to keep the right side up.

Little things like terrain, weather, traffic, moving maps displaying an outline of an entire approach, direct to functions, nearest anything, pressing the obs knob for the direct radial rather than turning it, all of these things simplify the overall task of flying. Heck in a cirrus you dont even need to worry about taxi because you can see your airplane on a little airport diagram Heck thats one of the harder parts for me being alone in the middle of the night at BOS for the first time trying to figure out a taxi diagram and not slam into anything.

Not to say these things arent great, because they are! But I just dont thing someone should have their entire background in one of these airplanes.

More comments welcomed!!

[meritflyer]

Good point. But for a person wanting to become a CFI, I have to say you need to learn on the ol' six pack. Most aircraft (GA) have the six pack, not glass. To train a PPL on glass then throw him out into the real world where most FBOs have old 172s with six packs, they may not have the competence to safely deal with a vac failure or static port blockage while those dont happen to glass decks.

[CRoper]

Goog point, Tony. The scan would definitely take a little more to get used to, but you still have to interpret the same data. I still think it is nothing that a pilot on the commercial level couldn't overcome with a little time in the airplane.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by jfleisher

I was in a conversation with an Airnet instructor yesterday and we got to talking about how all of the flight schools are switching to glass only trainers now or in the near future. The topic of discussion was about what are these pilots going to do when they go for a job where they have to fly conventional gauges?

This is something I've been talking about for a while...I can see problems coming up. I'm not sure what can be done about it, but it could get ugly if/when all the future cargo guys/gals have to put down how much round-dial time they have to get hired.

[killbilly]

This is just a guess, but I would say the issue is partially economic. You were talking to an Airnet guy, right? Do any of Airnet's aircraft have glass cockpits?

Six-packs and steam gauges have been the de facto standard in most classes of aircraft for decades - it's the common denominator. If and when glass becomes the standard across the board (and it SEEMS to be going in that direction - others here are more qualified to speculate than I) then the issue of training pilots to fly larger and more complex aircraft with glass is diminished.

The issue of the quality of airmanship on steam vs. glass is a separate issue, in my opinion.

[CapnJim]

I really dont see what the big deal is about the whole glass/steam gauge thing is. If it's glass, it's still a six-pack. Airspeed top left, AI top center, Altitude top right, VSI bottom right, DG/HSI bottom center, etc. etc. Your scan dosen't change that much from round gage-style flying, and to be honest I've never heard of anyone having problems with it. I switched from six-pack recips to all-glass jet flying and I was comfortable with things in a matter of minutes. I can't really see it being a problem going the other way.

Maybe I'm crazy.

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by CapnJim

I switched from six-pack recips to all-glass jet flying and I was comfortable with things in a matter of minutes. I can't really see it being a problem going the other way.

Maybe I'm crazy.

Before I got plopped into a 717 sim for an hour or so, I would have agreed with you. BTW, you jet jockeys wanna see something funny? Ask a guy who is used to a single engine Cessna to taxi a transport category aircraft. Tiller? What's that?

But the guy who put me through my paces in the sim told me he's had guys who have trouble going from glass to steam. Since I learned on the six pack, I can't speak to why it'd be an issue but he told me it was.

It's one man talking and it's not a peer reviewed analysis but since he's a guy who did a lot of training, I figure I'd pass that along.

[CRoper]

Not to change the subject, but on the same note. How long do you guys forsee steam gauges being around? I predict that by the time my son is old enough to fly, (if he wants too) he will look at pictures and laugh at me saying "You flew with round gauges? Man you're old dad!"

[kellwolf]

Well, if Cessna had their way, round dials would have been gone totally as of last year. I don't think it's economically sound for all CPCs to switch to glass. They'd be nearly all new aircraft, which would seriously up the costs of running the flight school. That in turn would up the costs of training, which would cause some students to shy away altogether.

I don't have a problem with guys learning on glass, as long as the training has some traditional instrument training thrown in. I think it's probably harder to switch from glass to traditional than vice versa with the main reason being the scan on glass is much easier.

Which one should you train on if you want to be a CFI? That one's easy. Both.

[Flysher]

killbilly - yea i was talkin with one of our instructors one night. I seriously doubt airnet will ever switch to all glass cockpits. Right now the long term goal is to get the same GPS units in all of the cockpits for some uniformity.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by CRoper

Not to change the subject, but on the same note. How long do you guys forsee steam gauges being around? I predict that by the time my son is old enough to fly, (if he wants too) he will look at pictures and laugh at me saying "You flew with round gauges? Man you're old dad!"

As long as they're airworthy, cargo companies will still use them. No cargo company is going to go out and buy glass just because the rest of the world does... . This also goes along with some mom & pop fbo's and other companies that can't or won't afford to pay for an all-new airplane.

Just my theories, but I think it's pretty solid logic.

[killbilly]

Originally Posted by txpilot

As long as they're airworthy, cargo companies will still use them. No cargo company is going to go out and buy glass just because the rest of the world does... . This also goes along with some mom & pop fbo's and other companies that can't or won't afford to pay for an all-new airplane.

Just my theories, but I think it's pretty solid logic.

Does having a glass cockpit translate to reduced operating costs for the aircraft over a period of time? I know freight companies operate on slim profit margins, so I'm wondering if glass could improve that margin after the ROI is achieved, if there is one at all.

[Timbuff10]

If everyone is learning to fly glass in the coming years and they eventually apply at a job where they only have dials, then perhaps that old cheap company should drop some cash and pay for a training program to teach people how to use their old equipment.

Now if they can find applicants that are fine with the steam gauges then it won't be a problem... When those steam gauge pilots start getting harder to find then I am guessing training costs will go up or they will agree it is time to get some glass cockpits in their planes.

For me, I don't see it as an issue, I switch back and forth all the time between the two. Sounds more like an issue for the employer than the prospective pilot.

Gotta train people to fly your company's equipment.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by killbilly

Does having a glass cockpit translate to reduced operating costs for the aircraft over a period of time? I know freight companies operate on slim profit margins, so I'm wondering if glass could improve that margin after the ROI is achieved, if there is one at all.

I have no clue, but my guess is there would be NO improvement on profit margin...what's the difference from going Point A to Point B direct with glass vs. round dials? Both have GPS, so there's no difference. Even if the round dials don't have GPS, at night ATC (usually) is very friendly to us freight dawgs and helps us with direct as closely as they can. All this is discarded in the NE, as it's all Victor Airways all the time, no matter how equipped.

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.

The cost of going out and buying new airplanes to get glass in them would be cost-prohibitive for pretty much all companies...look at the airlines trying to pay for all their new airplanes back in the late '90's through today. Most are in bankruptcy, or barely skirting it, or just emerging from it. It's impossible to stay in business and have all new airplanes all the time.

[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.

[EatSleepFly]

Originally Posted by killbilly

Does having a glass cockpit translate to reduced operating costs for the aircraft over a period of time? I know freight companies operate on slim profit margins, so I'm wondering if glass could improve that margin after the ROI is achieved, if there is one at all.

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.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

If everyone is learning to fly glass in the coming years and they eventually apply at a job where they only have dials, then perhaps that old cheap company should drop some cash and pay for a training program to teach people how to use their old equipment.

Now if they can find applicants that are fine with the steam gauges then it won't be a problem... When those steam gauge pilots start getting harder to find then I am guessing training costs will go up or they will agree it is time to get some glass cockpits in their planes.

For me, I don't see it as an issue, I switch back and forth all the time between the two. Sounds more like an issue for the employer than the prospective pilot.

Gotta train people to fly your company's equipment.

Not sure about 10 years down the road, but while this transition is happening, it will be the prospective pilot's problem. We will start seeing companies such as aerial survey, cargo, etc., companies rejecting applicants because they don't have enough time with 6-pack flying, especially if these companies have problems with people not hacking it in training due to all-glass time.

Over the long run, yes eventually it will be the company's problem, but for now, it will be a pilot's problem, since there are enough people out there with steam gauge experience.

Of course, I could be all wrong on this, and there won't be any problems with the transition, but I have a feeling it will happen...

[Fandango Flyer]

I attended an FAA Safety Seminar on the G1000 about a month ago and the speaker stated that Cessna's 2007 production line will only have seven steam-gauge-only planes (all 172's). 2008 and on will be all G1000 for their entire line. I have not been able to verify that information but, if true, it struck me that we're going to need a whole lot more CFI's proficient in teaching glass.

[Doug Taylor]

Question.

How hot is the market for a brand new 172 when you can more or less have the same technology (and almost reliability) in a 1980's 172 at a fraction of the price?