Glass Cockpits At Aviation Universities. What Do Schools Use Them For?

flyingsaluki1

Well-Known Member
Last week SIU received a new order of 5 G1000 equipped 172r's. I had the opportunity to be one of the delivery pilots. It was a fun time at the Cessna factory, and even more fun flying these beauties back.

Now that SIU has finally joined the glass cockpit era, I am trying to think of what other schools do with a mixed fleet (glass and steam cockpits.) Is it all glass from pre-solo through commercial? Or is it steam gauges for primary training, and glass for instrument training? or vise versa
 

bkey79

Well-Known Member
ATP has 5 DA-40 G1000, around 5 C172 G1000 and just ordered 30 PA-44 G500's. Can't speak for the rest though.
 

bkey79

Well-Known Member
As of right now ATP only uses the glass cockpits for instrument training rating, and is not part of the "fast track" program. It costs a little bit more as well. The first of the G500 Seminoles is set to deliver in January, and I'm curious to what location and how they will be used for training. At the Nashville location, we are rocking the old high hour 79 models...
 

scott_l

Well-Known Member
LeTourneau is looking at doing primary training in Citabrias and commercial in our glass C172s. Back to basics is the theme around here lately. Only one of our Citabria's has the basic grabcard instruments for the hood time required for private the rest are just pitot static instruments and the compass.
 

Bandit_Driver

Gold Member
IMO Universities going to all glass are making a mistake and giving a great disservice to their students. The students should be exposed to glass near the end of their training but doing the majority of their training on it. This will only handicap the student especially in the Situation Awareness area. What is their first job most likely to be. That's right flying dogged out freighter, a non-taa aircraft at a 135 pax opp, pipeline etc. Throw an all glass student in a steam airplane and they most likely will have a hard time flying it and have poor SA without all the fancy moving maps.

just my .o2 on all glass training....
 

GypsyPilot

Well-Known Member
IMO Universities going to all glass are making a mistake and giving a great disservice to their students. The students should be exposed to glass near the end of their training but doing the majority of their training on it. This will only handicap the student especially in the Situation Awareness area. What is their first job most likely to be. That's right flying dogged out freighter, a non-taa aircraft at a 135 pax opp, pipeline etc. Throw an all glass student in a steam airplane and they most likely will have a hard time flying it and have poor SA without all the fancy moving maps.

just my .o2 on all glass training....
Agreed. Even at Skywest, chances are they're going to be thrown into one of our old school FIS Brasilias with a six pack. Even the EFIS ones still require a six pack scan. Trying to figure out how to fly steam gauges during initial and IOE? Yeah right...

When I was flight instructing a few years ago, I refused to train primary students in the G1000s. Instrument pilots had to wait until they were comfortable shooting approaches with a six pack before I'd teach them the G1000. The only exception was if the student had no plans on making a career out of it (or becoming a CFI) and always planned on flying glass.

These schools are not looking out for the students best interest, they're just trying to use the "wow" factor of an all glass fleet. A young, impressionable pilot has no clue how handicapped they are going to be... Instead they think how awesome it will be to fly "airliner" style avionics.
 

Bandit_Driver

Gold Member
I am honestly suprised the FAA hasn't split the Instrument Rating yet. One for glass and one for Steam. Or limit the Glass trained student to GLASS ONLY aircraft. You can go from Steam to Glass pretty easy. You can't go the other way easily.
 

Douglas

Old School KSUX
..

just my .o2 on all glass training....
I agree with you, and to add my own part, I'm guessing that those types of jobs are going to start seeing fewer people apply.
I've already seen my peers limit what and for what company they will fly due to being uncomfortable. I'll bet it gets worse. Good for some, bad for others.
 

ProudPilot

Aeronautics Geek
UND, when we switched, had 3 flight lab options. Mixed (block 1 6 pack, blocks 2 and 3 glass), all glass, all 6 pack. Then it became it's glass and if you get a 6 pack, oh well. Now it's all glass regardless, so that's how they went. Honestly, maintenance seemed to go faster not having individual units fail. The computers are super reliable and only having to update 1 port made that go fast. Biggest gripe, students stopped looking outside, especially with ADS-B.
 

middies10

Well-Known Member
UND, when we switched, had 3 flight lab options. Mixed (block 1 6 pack, blocks 2 and 3 glass), all glass, all 6 pack. Then it became it's glass and if you get a 6 pack, oh well. Now it's all glass regardless, so that's how they went. Honestly, maintenance seemed to go faster not having individual units fail. The computers are super reliable and only having to update 1 port made that go fast. Biggest gripe, students stopped looking outside, especially with ADS-B.
With the exception of the Arrows for CFI
 

scott_l

Well-Known Member
I am honestly suprised the FAA hasn't split the Instrument Rating yet. One for glass and one for Steam. Or limit the Glass trained student to GLASS ONLY aircraft. You can go from Steam to Glass pretty easy. You can't go the other way easily.
I have limited experience but I do not agree with your statement that it is easier steam to glass. I have flown with a couple students who trained in steam gauge airplanes only to get in glass and be so completely consumed with the displays that they don't once look outside. The instructors usually end up covering the displays to get the students flying outside again and you wonder how they have a certificate. And if you have an instrument student that only knows how to load an approach but not activate it you are in a world of hurt. IMO the instrument rating should require exposure to both glass and steam gauge because exposure to one without the other is dangerous.
 

Boris Badenov

Someone should definitely do *something*, Captain!
IMO the instrument rating should require exposure to both glass and steam gauge because exposure to one without the other is dangerous.
I'm pretty sure that's what Bandit_Driver said. I have reasonably exstensive experience in both (and I believe that he has considerably more than I) and there's no question in my mind but that it's easier to go steam to glass than glass to steam. Don't know how to activate an approach? Well, yeah, that could be a problem. Don't know where the hell you are or what's going on? Bigger problem.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
Awesome. If I knew what I know now, and were looking, that would make me consider them.
LeTourneau is looking at doing primary training in Citabrias and commercial in our glass C172s. Back to basics is the theme around here lately. Only one of our Citabria's has the basic grabcard instruments for the hood time required for private the rest are just pitot static instruments and the compass.
 

Roger Roger

Paid to sleep, fly for fun
Blah blah blah, learn in both of em if you're looking at an aviation career, don't wanna be "that guy" who has to declare an emergency because he's flying a VOR-A with a 6 pack, or who flies into a mountain because he has the GPS on direct to instead or activate leg mode. People make a way bigger deal out of the steam vs. Glass thing than it really is. I will say that simpler is easier and quicker in the private cert. Level.
 
Top