Gauges VS Glass

Terry

Terry

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
738
Location
LaCrosse
Display Name
Display name:
Terry
Hi everyone,

I am an IR pilot with just a little over 300 total hours. I am 65 years old. I consider myself a safe pilot.

My dilemma? I have yet to fly anything close to a glass cockpit. Am I going to be obsolete in another year or two?

I have seen the glass cockpits and frankly am very nervous about flying an airplane that would be all glass. One of my biggest hurdles was using the Bendix/King GPS in my IR training. I didn't understand it and because of that my IR training was delayed. One of the problems was several CFI's were not proficient with the GPS either. I finally went out and flew the airplane without the hood until I got confident with the GPS.

Currently there are no rental planes with a glass cockpit. (I am glad)

Another item is the joy stick on the side of the airplane. I have always flown with a yoke and feel nervous about switching over to a joystick.

Maybe I am getting too old to fly modern aircraft.

Your opinions and thoughts are appreciated.

I am flying Sunday for my IR proficiency. I will be in the 172 that I earned my instrument rating in. Thanks Goodness. :wink2:

Am I the only senior aged pilot that feels this way?

Terry :hairraise:
 
Hi everyone,

A little more info. I have around 100 hours of IR. I am comfortable with flying in IMC but keep my ceilings to over 800'.

I would have no problem flying a glass cockpit in VFR conditions. (After being checked out in the plane) I am just not comfortable in doing ANYTHING in IMC in a glass cockpit.

Surely, their are restrictions to letting an old IR pilot in a modern glass cockpit in IMC?

Terry :confused:
 
I'm a gauge guy that went to glass. It's all the same information just presented a little different. I wouldn't worry about it until you have the chance or need to fly with glass. I believe most people quickly pickup where to look for basic 6 pack information, the problem is the "buttonology". Being used to having everything in a separate box, A/P, transponder, radios, GPS, and then changing to glass where you have to know what buttons to push to input a code, or see a VOR needle instead of GPS, can be intimidating. The good news is there are many books, videos, low cost simulators, etc. that you can get and work with at home and off the clock.

Side stick isn't a problem either. Most people feel comfortable in a couple or flights and often less than one. I wouldn't worry about it at all.
 
Unless you are doing it for a job, there isn't any reason you would need to learn to fly an airplane with glass. I'm sure there will still be plenty of them around with conventional gauges for quite some time.
 
I think transitioning from steam gauges to glass would be easier than the other way around. I think you've got the right idea, I would not fly any "new" airplane IFR until I was comfortable in VFR conditions. I haven't flown a true glass cockpit, other than a 777 sim for .5.:D But, I have flown with an older EFIS system in a Citation for 700 hours, it didn't have the information that the newer ones have, but I felt pretty comfortable after an hour or two..........with the EFIS, the plane took a little longer. :rolleyes:
Fly what you feel comfortable with, lots more steam gauges out there than glass, but don't be afraid to spend some time with a GOOD CFI and get comfortable in whatever you fly. ;)
 
At one time my time was 50/50 glass and steam, and but I rarely by steam any more. I did all of my training in steam though I had done my glass transition before starting my IR.

The first 10 hours you have to get used to looking in different places for engine instruments, and then you have to program your brain on how to read the airspeed and altitude tapes... they visibly move in the opposite direction of the value. For instance, as your airspeed increases the numbers on the tape are moving downward. Once you get through these adjustments, it's all the same and I hop between the two without even thinking about it.
 
Terry said:
Another item is the joy stick on the side of the airplane. I have always flown with a yoke and feel nervous about switching over to a joystick.
Click to expand...
My main problem with the side stick is how it does not permit to switch hands. It is never a problem in normal flying, but you are really going to want a center stick if you fight a runaway trim or otherwise have to excercise the left arm (or right arm, in case of Allegro).
 
The insurance companies usually set some rules about this in their policies, but not the FAA at this level. That said, I've seen older pilots than you make the transition, and all the research done by MTSU suggests it's not as hard as you think. In any event, if you're 65, it's unlikely you'll see the day when all the steam gauge planes are gone, so if you so choose, you should be able to stick with what's familiar to you for as long as you keep flying.
 
Terry, it sounds like you're doing just fine. I feel like you have the right attitude about this.

It took me 6 months to instill the direct to function of a KLN89 into my dad's head. Now he thinks the GPS is the greatest thing in the world, now that I showed him all the information it will display. If you have the motivation to learn the glass, then it can happen. However, if you're going to continue renting steam gauged airplanes, there's really no reason to learn the glass. Steam gauges aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
 
Thanks Everyone,

It is just that every magazine I pick up is loaded with all the latest glass information and the old steam gauges are being left out. (Too early, in my opinion.)

I know the magazines are just wanting to show off the best but in the process they are losing the "old timers."

Thanks again everyone,

Terry
 
Frankly, I think glass is over rated, particularly for what it costs. One could buy whole airplanes for the price of those fancy pants panels. If an aircraft is able to fly direct from point A to B - technology available to anyone with a hand-held GPS - you've got 90% of what a 'glass cockpit' can do. But a $35,000 panel in an airplane that cruises at 130kts. strikes me like lace on a bowling ball.

I recently had occasion to fly with an ipad linked to GPS, with every chart, (IFR and VFR) approach plate, SID, STAR and taxi diagram in the country. Less than a thousand bucks! What I'd like to see is an auto pilot-ipad wifi link, so you could have all the NAV capability and situational awareness of a 'glass cockpit' that weighs less than 3lbs. Add weather capability, like NEXRAD, and any Cessna 150 with a vacuum pump and a couple of gyros is as capable as a King Air...well, sort of. Then, throw in a WAAS GNS 430, and you'll posses the navigational capability of the 737NG I fly. Except for maybe RNP approaches. How many of those are you going to do, really?
 
j1b3h0 said:
But a $35,000 panel in an airplane that cruises at 130kts. strikes me like lace on a bowling ball.
Click to expand...
A new Skyhawk is $330k, so what is 10% of the cost is in the panel, then? Sounds quite reasonable to me.
 
zaitcev said:
A new Skyhawk is $330k, so what is 10% of the cost is in the panel, then? Sounds quite reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Back in 04' when Cessna was just coming out with the G1000 they offered both options.

Everyone wanted the glass, the price difference wasn't that great on a new aircraft.
 
zaitcev said:
A new Skyhawk is $330k, so what is 10% of the cost is in the panel, then? Sounds quite reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Well, @ 330k, I don't consider a new Skyhawk a very good entertainment value. But more to the point, what does a state of the art glass panel enable a pilot to do - that can't be done in a like airplane with round dials? Does a glass panel enable lower ILS minimums? Does it fly a faster or straighter course between two points? Is it safer? More reliable? Lighter weight? I don't get all the hubbub.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Well, @ 330k, I don't consider a new Skyhawk a very good entertainment value. But more to the point, what does a state of the art glass panel enable a pilot to do - that can't be done in a like airplane with round dials? Does a glass panel enable lower ILS minimums? Does it fly a faster or straighter course between two points? Is it safer? More reliable? Lighter weight? I don't get all the hubbub.
Click to expand...

This seems like deja vu from the "Is this cheating" thread, but generally better situational awareness, synthetic representation of terrain/obstacle/landmarks, graphically represented traffic, and some increase in information (Flight path marker and wind vector for example).
 
One could have almost all of those features with an ipad - in a Stearman.
 
All the terrain info is virtual, and I'll wager somebody will figure out soon how to get that on an ipad. TCAS, or rather the light plane equivalent is really a layer of information beyond glass, per se, right? I mean a round dial airplane could be so equipt. Just to be clear, are we talking about just a newer tech way to display attitude/heading/airspeed and VS, or the MFD/PFD/GPS/TCAS/TERR/FMC/Autoflight...'cause that's more than just glass.

I must confess that I have not flown a light plane with a G1000 or similar. I had DPE tell me they provide so much information as to be mesmorizing...he often has to remind people to look out the windsceen once in awhile.
 
j1b3h0 said:
All the terrain info is virtual, and I'll wager somebody will figure out soon how to get that on an ipad. TCAS, or rather the light plane equivalent is really a layer of information beyond glass, per se, right? I mean a round dial airplane could be so equipt. Just to be clear, are we talking about just a newer tech way to display attitude/heading/airspeed and VS, or the MFD/PFD/GPS/TCAS/TERR/FMC/Autoflight...'cause that's more than just glass.

I must confess that I have not flown a light plane with a G1000 or similar. I had DPE tell me they provide so much information as to be mesmorizing...he often has to remind people to look out the windsceen once in awhile.
Click to expand...

I agree the iPad is probably the biggest threat to avionics makers. This will sound strange but after a few hundred hours behind the G1000 the desire to look at it goes IMO. All I care about is having a lot of information at a glance, the ability to make rapid changes, and then I can spend more time out the window. Much better than those days of flying with a bunch of charts and a flashlight.
 
I think glass would be fine pretty quickly, but I'm pretty sure I'd never like a left joystick.

ps. and I say that from my one flight in a Cirrus. Didn't like it. I felt like I was fighting it all the time, even when I fixed the trim. Plus I'm right handed and my left arm is weaker - which is saying a lot because my right arm isn't exactly Popeyian. I like being able to use both or either hand if I want or need to.
 
Alexb2000 said:
This seems like deja vu from the "Is this cheating" thread, but generally better situational awareness, synthetic representation of terrain/obstacle/landmarks, graphically represented traffic, and some increase in information (Flight path marker and wind vector for example).
Click to expand...
You have to be very wealthy to not care about utility..... ".....darned practical folks...."
 
Alexb2000 said:
I agree the iPad is probably the biggest threat to avionics makers. This will sound strange but after a few hundred hours behind the G1000 the desire to look at it goes IMO. All I care about is having a lot of information at a glance, the ability to make rapid changes, and then I can spend more time out the window. Much better than those days of flying with a bunch of charts and a flashlight.
Click to expand...

this has been my experience with the G1000. after a ten year hiatus from flying, I got current again. All they had were G1000 skyhawks so I never did go back to steam. After a few flights with a CFI and the G1000 sim on my PC, I felt pretty confident with glass and I love it. The wealth of info at your fingertips really eases the workload. Once you know what buttons to push and knobs to turn for the desired information, it's great! I don't really have a fixation problem with it. I manage to keep my head up and out much more than I though I would. I still carry paper charts and my Ipad:) don't really use them but just in case. I'm still VFR only right now.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Other than the 2D MFD function (situational awareness), how would you get that on an iPad?
Click to expand...

There is an external ADHRS for the iPad that, combined with WingX, gives you synthetic vision.
 
peppy said:
There is an external ADHRS for the iPad that, combined with WingX, gives you synthetic vision.
Click to expand...

Wow, things really are moving so fast, I just looked it up. I'm a Foreflight guy, but WingX is really doing a lot. I may have to check them out.

Thanks for the heads up, good stuff.
 
First, flying a 6 pack is just fine and doesn't make you out-of-date. It is easier to go from a 6 pack to a PFD than the other way. The scan is more difficult to maintain on the 6 pack. With a PFD most info is in one field of view. The hardest item for me was airspeed and altitude. A round gauge is easier for me to follow. The tape is just changing numbers and I have to think more rather than just "keep the needly on that spot." This is a design flaw of present PFD systems due to history. The early displays were small and so they went to the tape readout to be able to fit them next to the AI. Also, the precision of the tape altimeter has the negative effect of making you want to chase very small altitude excursions. When transitioning this can result in too high a percentage of time focused on holding altitude rather than doing other things like looking outside.

On a Cirrus I found the side yoke natural after just a couple of minutes. It was the easiest part of transitioning. It isn't a joystick but just a yoke moved to the side. If you can fly a 172 holding the yoke in your left hand then it is almost the same. The Cirrus is much quicker in pitch and roll which causes issues compared to a 172 but that has little to do with side yoke vs. conventional yoke.

Do what feels right for you and don't force it. Be confident that if you need to move to glass you can do it having mastered the 6 pack. Someone else mentioned buttonology. While not really a glass vs. 6 pack issue it is a problem. Modern avionics can be easy to use when everything is going well and a pain when in hard IMC and things aren't sequencing correctly. Be sure to spend a lot of time training how to get back to a known spot. For example, if the avionics didn't couple to the ILS how do you exit, had fly, and if you decide too make the system couple? If ATC gives a complex reroute, how do you enter it while still flying where you need to?
 
peppy said:
The hardest item for me was airspeed and altitude. A round gauge is easier for me to follow. The tape is just changing numbers and I have to think more rather than just "keep the needly on that spot."
Click to expand...
I'm glad you mentioned this because I found this to be true too.

peppy said:
Modern avionics can be easy to use when everything is going well and a pain when in hard IMC and things aren't sequencing correctly. Be sure to spend a lot of time training how to get back to a known spot. For example, if the avionics didn't couple to the ILS how do you exit, had fly, and if you decide too make the system couple? If ATC gives a complex reroute, how do you enter it while still flying where you need to?
Click to expand...
This is an area where people can very easily become confused and the place where it it best to step back a level in automation like the AA video in the other thread mentioned.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm glad you mentioned this because I found this to be true too.

This is an area where people can very easily become confused and the place where it it best to step back a level in automation like the AA video in the other thread mentioned.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but some proponents of the bright and shiny are very expert and think SVT is the cure for this....even for AA. Sigh.
 
Here's my beef.
I spent 3 years getting my IR. Before I ever made it to the airplane I was instructed on situational awareness and procedure moves. I knew, in advance, what to do, where to go, and had my ducks in a row. It was grilled in me over and over and over. All before I learned to fly IFR.

When I started my training, flying IFR amounted to developing a scan and maintaining my situational awareness.

I was able, at the time, to shoot approaches to minimums and enter holds and follow ATC instructions. Now, I am being told that all the Glass works great if you know how to find the information and where to look.

I am having NO trouble finding the information and where to look on steam gauges. I find all this Glass is distracting and something I don't need when flying hard IFR.

Why not use what works best for you? I am heading out Sunday morning to keep current on my IR. I don't fly hard IFR anymore because I fly for fun. ( To break through and get on top or come down through a layer and land.)

I just get annoyed at all the Glass "rig-a-ma-row" and truly wonder if the new Glass IR is as safe and practical as my steam gauges.

I know what to do if I have a power failure. When flying IMC, one better have the emergency procedures and rules already in place. I think having to look for something or get back to a specific fix needs to be worked out BEFORE it is needed. Unexpected events in IMC should be worked out beforehand.

The hardest part of my IR was when ATC gave me a different route or steered me somewhere new. For some reason they got all bent out of shape when I said, "Give me a minute so I can find that approach." :nono:

The system works when you work the system.

Terry
 
For you the transition to glass and a sidestick really won't be much of a problem. You'll be used to the stick in about 5 minutes. What is insidious about glass is that after awhile your scan will go to hell. You just won't have one if you fly glass enough.
 
Terry said:
Why not use what works best for you? I am heading out Sunday morning to keep current on my IR. I don't fly hard IFR anymore because I fly for fun. ( To break through and get on top or come down through a layer and land.)
Click to expand...
I don't know why you wouldn't use what works best for you if you are doing it for fun. Is someone pressuring you to use glass?

Terry said:
I just get annoyed at all the Glass "rig-a-ma-row" and truly wonder if the new Glass IR is as safe and practical as my steam gauges.
Click to expand...
Like others have said, one is not necessarily safer than the other. It's just a different way of presenting information. What makes a system safe or not is the way you use it.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't know why you wouldn't use what works best for you if you are doing it for fun. Is someone pressuring you to use glass?

No, I got to reading my aviation magazines and all it talked about was Glass displays. I am thinking, "I am not ready for this and felt threatened." I forgot that Glass would be a long time coming to my rental plane I fly.

Like others have said, one is not necessarily safer than the other. It's just a different way of presenting information. What makes a system safe or not is the way you use it.
Click to expand...
As long as I have my steam gauges, I am fine.

Terry :)
 
bbchien said:
Yeah, but some proponents of the bright and shiny are very expert and think SVT is the cure for this....even for AA. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Yep....................my "portable" Garmin 696 would have easily prevented the AA 757 CFIT crash in Columbia, as well as the wrong runway takeoff (Comair Flight 191), had there been the technology and equipment aboard. And of course, it's not SV, as that's an additional enhancement.

As I previously mentioned, that AA video is dated, and was made shortly after the AA 757 crash. Has little to do with today's technology. Feel free to dispute my findings, on either of these incidents..........as I have a lengthy list to choose from.

You've heard how I initially got interested in this phenomenon haven't you? Took place when a United Airlines DC-8 went right into the mountain above the home I was living in at the time (1977). When I picked up my first moving map aviation GPS in 1993..........I knew there was a much better way of doing things. Since that time, I've traveled to many CFIT crash sites to make GPS moving map comparisons. I may not be a "paid expert", but I take this very seriously, and don't think much of pot shot replies.... that are meant for a few chuckles and laughs.

L.Adamson
 
Terry said:
No, I got to reading my aviation magazines and all it talked about was Glass displays. I am thinking, "I am not ready for this and felt threatened." I forgot that Glass would be a long time coming to my rental plane I fly.

As long as I have my steam gauges, I am fine.

Terry :)
Click to expand...
Aviation magazines and their advertisers want to sell you new equipment. ;)
 
L.Adamson said:
Yep....................my "portable" Garmin 696 would have easily prevented the AA 757 CFIT crash in Columbia,
Click to expand...
So would the crew remembering that their destination was south, not east of where they were -- better, in fact, since they could as easily have punched the wrong fix into their 696 as they did their FMS.
 
Ron Levy said:
So would the crew remembering that their destination was south, not east of where they were -- better, in fact, since they could as easily have punched the wrong fix into their 696 as they did their FMS.
Click to expand...

The 696 would be showing terrain features, and breadcrumb trails (of their flight trajectory) for many miles in all directions. That's why I call it the big picture. Audio terrain warnings, along with colored topographical warning maps would have also been present. This is the luxuries of today's technology, that the 757 pilots didn't have (2012 versus 1995). As to why some believe that this technology is reserved for commercial and military is beyond me. Afterall, there are two recent CFIT accident sites close to where I live, that CFI's were aboard. Neither had terrain GPS.

All is well, when the engine keeps turning, and when plans are followed to the letter. Pilots are human. Complacency, and momentary losses of situational awareness do occur. There is no reason that the passengers have to die as well. At least not in this day and age.

Since all of my flying is in rugged mountainous areas, I'm very familiar of what todays moving map GPS is capable of. Even the portables still provide more info, than is available in many commercial aircraft. As I said, the automatic Jeppeson Airport diagram on my 696 would easily have got the Comair's pilots attention..........that the runway for takeoff, was the wrong & shorter runway.

This is why you put the info, directly in front of the pilots on the PFD, and not off to the side somewhere. Do notice, that this is the direction that most new aircraft with glass...seem to follow.
 
The first 10 hours you have to get used to looking in different places for engine instruments, and then you have to program your brain on how to read the airspeed and altitude tapes... they visibly move in the opposite direction of the value. For instance, as your airspeed increases the numbers on the tape are moving downward. Once you get through these adjustments, it's all the same and I hop between the two without even thinking about it.
Click to expand...

That's not what bothers me. I fly steam gages, but would be nervous about glass. I have been using computers since the PC first came out. It seems like all the time there will be some kind of glitch develop that has to be fixed. Most of the time, even the IT guys have to "play with it" awhile to fix it. Flying along in the clouds, having to start fiddling with the instruments is not something I am crazy about. Especially on an approach, it is enough to try to stay where I am supposed to be without all of a sudden having the instruments start going crazy or the screen going black. I personnaly prefer steam gages with hand held GPS, although I have to admit I have never flown glass. The simpler systems, in my opinion, are less likely to fail at a critical time (although I know vacuum pumps do sometimes since I have had that happen). I am just a little nervous about glass.
 
somorris said:
That's not what bothers me. I fly steam gages, but would be nervous about glass. I have been using computers since the PC first came out. It seems like all the time there will be some kind of glitch develop that has to be fixed. Most of the time, even the IT guys have to "play with it" awhile to fix it. Flying along in the clouds, having to start fiddling with the instruments is not something I am crazy about. Especially on an approach, it is enough to try to stay where I am supposed to be without all of a sudden having the instruments start going crazy or the screen going black. I personnaly prefer steam gages with hand held GPS, although I have to admit I have never flown glass. The simpler systems, in my opinion, are less likely to fail at a critical time (although I know vacuum pumps do sometimes since I have had that happen). I am just a little nervous about glass.
Click to expand...

We should all remember that "glass" came out in the early 2000's, it didn't get here yesterday. If the reliability wasn't there the whole world would know about it by now. We should also remember that there are plenty of instrument failures in 6 pack airplanes as well. Raise your hand if you've ever lost a vacuum pump.

Point is anything can and will fail, but fear of that in a glass aircraft shouldn't be a criteria not to try one.
 
Alexb2000 said:
We should all remember tlhat "glass" came out in the early 2000's, it didn't get here yesterday.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's been around a lot longer than that. The A-6 Intruder first flew with a "glass" pilot display in 1960 and went operational in 1964. The F-111D had a PFD and MFD plus a separate moving map display, and went operational in the mid-70's. In any event, there are plenty of documented in-flight failures of glass displays of both Avidyne and Garmin construction. That's why the FAA has not backed off having redundant backups, and why the FAA requires us to train you to fly safely without them as well as with them.
 
Ron, I'm giving up. This enthusiastic fellow is just tooo short on facts.

I think he believes SVT will make him able to clear a mountain in IMC and ice, as oposed to boots and turbochargers or turbines.

I've wasted enough time.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top