Endorsement to fly steam gauges (maybe?)

guest user

guest user

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
1,002
Display Name
Display name:
just passing through
So, I'm looking at all of the posts here and elsewhere about people moving away from steam and to glass cockpits. The reasons are obvious and I have no issues with that.

My musing has me wondering though, if like tailwheel endorsements, we will one day have to have a steam gauge endorsement to fly a non glass cockpit? If not from the FAA, maybe insurance will require you to have 25hrs in type before they'll insure you on a steam gauge aircraft?

Just an idle train of thought, but seems plausible.

Then those of us old, rugged pilots who flew before glass was even a realistic thing in GA, could really tell the new guys a story or two.
 
I had not thought about that. I hate to say it, but the idea has some merit.

After I had been flying my Velocity for a year or so, I was flying up to Chicago. I stopped for fuel in TN where my old A&P/IA moved to. And the starter failed. He let me fly his 182 the rest of the way so I could get the starter rebuilt. I had flown ONLY steam gauges for 1,500 hour by that point and had about 100 in the Velocity with all glass panels. The first hour or so in his 182 was... interesting.

I could see how someone who had only flown glass could really get behind in a plane with steam gauges.
 
I think it would likely be something about needing a transition for any new airframe in your non-owned coverage portion of your policy. I think that they would do this if they were seeing claims.

I do wonder though, as a pilot, learning the instrumentation of a new plane to me is one of the bigger hurdles, but I wonder how much bent metal happens because of it. It's stressful for pilots to learn the "new" gauges, but besides stress, how many accidents actually happen because of that?
 
The line gets really blurry. What if you have only 1 GI275 and the rest is steam? 2 GI275's? 3? Or what if you use this?
p1dbumdnie2c2ah6s0dhup1m6oa.jpg
 
I find the denons have more of a learning curve than gauges. Press the knob for this function, but move it up or down for this function, but function x only works if this is selected on the map, etc...
The knobs on the steam gauges always do the same thing.
 
asicer said:
The line gets really blurry. What if you have only 1 GI275 and the rest is steam? 2 GI275's? 3? Or what if you use this?
p1dbumdnie2c2ah6s0dhup1m6oa.jpg
Click to expand...

Does Garmin let you choose steam 6pk or tape?

I trained on steam in 172s but use tapes with Dynon Skyview. Steam on glass seems fake to me for some reason.

Skyview will do both tape/steam but tape seems more intuitive on glass.
 
It’s already happening to some degree…the jet I teach has older steam versions and newer glass versions. We used to be able to teach differences from glass to steam with just ground school, but a few years ago the FAA decreed that it would require flight training due to the differences between glass and steam.
 
Even two steam gauge aircraft of the same type often have different radios, switches in different places, different upgrades. At some point it just has to be on the pilot to be familiar with the airplane regardless of regulation. I think it would be a great idea to at least do a familiarization flight with a CFI, especially if you're flying IFR but there's no need to regulate it.
 
My club got a 172M a year or so ago, and for some reason they decided to require a type-specific checkout in it, even though it's not all that different from the six-pack 172S models they have. I got my PPL before glass panels existed, and in those days, a checkout in one model of 172 was good for all of them, other than the RG and XP versions. I had to dig up an old log book to prove that I previously had privileges in the M model.
 
Palmpilot said:
My club got a 172M a year or so ago, and for some reason they decided to require a type-specific checkout in it, even though it's not all that different from the six-pack 172S models they have. I got my PPL before glass panels existed, and in those days, a checkout in one model of 172 was good for all of them, other than the RG and XP versions. I had to dig up an old log book to prove that I previously had privileges in the M model.
Click to expand...
I've seen that with a number of things. The opposite situation to yours, when a group I was with got it's first fuel-injected C172, there was a separate checkout for the new systems. Same when they acquired their first G1000 - that was a multiple level checkout. VFR separate from IFR.
 
I'm grandfathered in! I've got over 9K hours of tailwheel and never got an endorsement! In before the FAA lock!
 
This is a thing…

Guys who got their wings in a T-45 who selected S-3s had a hard time I’m told. Learned on glass, moved to steam.

Still hoping this doesn’t become a thing…. Don’t like “things”.
 
Interesting thought for sure

Bob Noel said:
flip side: how about an endorsement for each type of glass?
Click to expand...
THAT seems just as plausible in a way!

cowman said:
Even two steam gauge aircraft of the same type often have different radios, switches in different places, different upgrades. At some point it just has to be on the pilot to be familiar with the airplane regardless of regulation. I think it would be a great idea to at least do a familiarization flight with a CFI, especially if you're flying IFR but there's no need to regulate it.
Click to expand...
I think that is not nearly as big an issue as is the different menu structures and algorithm logics between various "computer makers"....
The exception might be stepping into a vastly more complex aircraft that had something like a Loran that a pilot might not be familiar with how to use.
But otherwise...and I'm thinking in the context of small single or twin GA stuff.... any competent pilot could jump into nearly any aircraft and figure it out pretty quick
The different com and Nav radios all worked more or less in a very similar way...tune, volume, squelch, and flip/flop buttons...pretty simple really
Some of the comm/intercom panels could throw a wrench into the works...but not in any sort of "show stopper" way....
I flew in a lot of different rentals.... some had autopilots that I was not familiar with. A few had loran or other RNAV boxes...and that's something I never really learned how to use. But I could switch that stuff off and ignore it...and the rest of the panel was pretty standard even if the layout was different....
just a few minutes to figure out locations of stuff and you're off an flying!

I haven't flown anything with this new big screen glass stuff and I'll admit to being a bit intimidated by it. From my little bit of time trying to get up to basic speed with some of teh small screen glass GPS boxes I can se that there are huge differences in the menu logic.

Granted a pilot very savvy with one or two system could probably figure out some similarities in other systems at least to some basic level, but I'll bet there are a lot of rat trails the menu can take you in and get lost quick
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm grandfathered in! I've got over 9K hours of tailwheel and never got an endorsement! In before the FAA lock!
Click to expand...

So am I. I grandfathered into to TW, Complex, HP, and High Altitude. And I grandfathered into Complex and HP with it was only one endorsement. :D

Just means were are old. :D
 
Brad W said:
Interesting thought for sure


THAT seems just as plausible in a way!


I think that is not nearly as big an issue as is the different menu structures and algorithm logics between various "computer makers"....
The exception might be stepping into a vastly more complex aircraft that had something like a Loran that a pilot might not be familiar with how to use.
But otherwise...and I'm thinking in the context of small single or twin GA stuff.... any competent pilot could jump into nearly any aircraft and figure it out pretty quick
The different com and Nav radios all worked more or less in a very similar way...tune, volume, squelch, and flip/flop buttons...pretty simple really
Some of the comm/intercom panels could throw a wrench into the works...but not in any sort of "show stopper" way....
I flew in a lot of different rentals.... some had autopilots that I was not familiar with. A few had loran or other RNAV boxes...and that's something I never really learned how to use. But I could switch that stuff off and ignore it...and the rest of the panel was pretty standard even if the layout was different....
just a few minutes to figure out locations of stuff and you're off an flying!

I haven't flown anything with this new big screen glass stuff and I'll admit to being a bit intimidated by it. From my little bit of time trying to get up to basic speed with some of teh small screen glass GPS boxes I can se that there are huge differences in the menu logic.

Granted a pilot very savvy with one or two system could probably figure out some similarities in other systems at least to some basic level, but I'll bet there are a lot of rat trails the menu can take you in and get lost quick
Click to expand...

Heck, I just upgraded my GTN-650 to a GTN-650Xi (longer life and support and the differential is pretty small now).

Same - same. Right?

WRONG.

-650 the menus scroll up-down. -650Xi, they scroll left-right.

WHY????? :D
 
I trained on glass then transtioned to steam. Very easy going that direction. I would think that going the other way would be much more challenging, especially given the differences between all the glass cockpit software.

In some ways I prefer steam. To me, the guages are easier and quicker to read. Having my 740b for nav, wx, airport info, etc., combined with steam guage instrumentation, is to my mind a great configuration.
 
Half Fast said:
I trained on glass then transtioned to steam. Very easy going that direction. I would think that going the other way would be much more challenging, especially given the differences between all the glass cockpit software.
Click to expand...
I went steam to glass and had no problem at all. I was renting steam gauge 172's when a 162 became available and it was easy-peasy. When I went to a G1000 I breezed through that as well and the CFI didn't point out any bad habits.
Half Fast said:
In some ways I prefer steam. To me, the guages are easier and quicker to read.
Click to expand...
I hop back and forth and have absolutely no preferences when VFR. When IFR I prefer glass, but it's not a deal-killer
 
One of the things that has bothered me most about glass cockpits is that I don't understand how all the electrons work, let alone how to navigate all the menues, etc. With analog, part of the IR training was understanding how each instrument worked, what could go wrong, and how to recognize it when something was failed/failing. My time with computers has convinced me they can fail in weird ways, and the big red X is a dreaded event. When glass is working like it is supposed to, it is fantastic.

I don't think we need another FAA endorsement requirement, but if I was trained on glass I would make sure I had some time with a CFII if I was going to fly in the clouds on round gages, endorsement or not.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And failure modes often don’t result in a big red X.
Click to expand...

btw - in general, a failure mode that would be obvious to the pilot would not require a big red X (e.g., a failure that causes a blank screen)
 
I just remembered - there were discussions about this back when glass first came along - will we need an endorsement to fly glass?

"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
 
Bob Noel said:
btw - in general, a failure mode that would be obvious to the pilot would not require a big red X (e.g., a failure that causes a blank screen)
Click to expand...

don't some failures just result in a simple color change of something displayed.... like changing from green to blue?
and in some other brands would that same even change from blue to green...or some such thing?
 
Brad W said:
don't some failures just result in a simple color change of something displayed.... like changing from green to blue?
and in some other brands would that same even change from blue to green...or some such thing?
Click to expand...

if the failure would or could cause hazardously misleading information (HMI), then the pilot must be informed/notified/whatever. It doesn't matter exactly what failed or how the HMI looks.
 
Only glass I look at in the Ercoupe is the map on ForeFlight. And about the only steam gages I look at are airspeed and RPM on takeoff and in the pattern. Same thing in the Tecnam even though it has dual skyviews. Life is simple when you’re flying for fun:D.

Cheers
 
Bob Noel said:
if the failure would or could cause hazardously misleading information (HMI), then the pilot must be informed/notified/whatever. It doesn't matter exactly what failed or how the HMI looks.
Click to expand...
So if the HMI (human/machine interface) is presenting HMI (hazardously misleading information) the pilot must be informed. ;)

ETA: I don't seem to have much of an issue with transitioning between glass and steam as long as the presentation is decent. Too much useless info on the glass or a non-standard layout on steam gives me pause, however. Knowing the failure modes of either is key.

Nauga,
who is not in initialism hell but can see it from here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top