Private Pilot training in Glass Cockpits?

[woodstock]

I have to say just the steam gauges were enough distraction let alone having a COOL display to stare at! I would have to say it's better to learn on a regular ol' trainer, steam gauges, then move up to the G1000. I flew *in* a new 182 y'day with ALL THE TOYS - G1000, Nexrad, XM radio... and boy I could hardly take my eyes off of it. (the plane we were supposed to take had carburator issues so she couldn't go, I ended up with another 99 in her VERY nifty airplane. wow wow wow.

 

[TMetzinger]

I think it depends on what the end result of the training is supposed to be. For the PPL, if the goal is for someone to be able to fly an airplane by visual reference and to navigate by pilotage, and have enough instrument skill to maintain straight and level and do a 180 degree turn, then it doesn't matter what sort of panel you train behind.

With that said, once you master the PPL skills, you then still need to master the airplane(s) you fly, which means supplemental training. No pilot should be flying an airplane VFR if they don't know how to work every gadget that affects the flight control systems, nav systems, or engine systems. (nexrad/spherics are optional). No pilot should be flying an airplane IFR unless they know how to operate every feature of the airplane.

Put in plainer english, I won't mind flying with someone in VFR who doesn't know how to work the weather pages on a G1000, but I expect them to be able to put a flight plan in the GPS, use the autopilot, tune the radios, lean the engine, reset the fuel used counter, etc. An IFR pilot needs to be able to do it all, and know where to look up the obscure stuff if needed.

 

[JustinPinnix]

You beat me to the post while I was editing and adding to keep the glass optional but, I don't think the aircraft manufacturers were listening to me!

I think consumers are making this decision, not the manufacturers. I remember a blurb on AeroNewsNet a few months back about how once the manufacturers introduce a glass option, nobody orders a plane that doesn't have it.

I'm not sure why people lust after it so much. Personally, I see enough of a computer screen during the week, and sure as heck don't want to reboot my plane. When Saturday rolls around, I want to be looking out the window, not at my panel.

 

[TMetzinger]

I think there's a perception that glass is both "easier" and more reliable.

I think the glass makes some tasks easier and some a little more difficult, and I can't speak to reliability yet - it's way too early, but I will say that the design of the G1000 makes the local avionics guy happy, he says it's much easier to maintain.

 

[gprellwitz]

I think there are a number of things driving this.

First, there's the undisputable fact that it appears more "modern" than a traditional six-pack, or even a six-pack with IFR GPS.

Second, there's a "cool" factor associated with it. Glass is "sexy", and that sells.

Third, there are some definite advantages to it. While many are available in some six packs with IFR GPS, the glass brings them all together. Those advantages include the availability of weather (a biggie, IMHO), traffic (albeit not everywhere), advanced engine monitoring, including assisted leaning, and the things that are available in most IFR GPS's, such as a moving map and the associated situational awareness (but with a much bigger screen), information about the nearby airports, etc.

Still to be proven are the life expectancy, upgradeability, and standardization (moving from one unit to another, even within the same manufacturer).

They certainly have GREAT potential, however.

 

[poadeleted20]

As "Duke" Cunningham put it, "You fight the way you train, so train the way you want to fight." If the trainee is going to fly glass panel planes, the trainee should train in glass panel planes. If the trainee is going to fly steam gauge planes, the trainee should train in steam gauge planes. If the trainee will fly both, it doesn't matter which is used for PPL training as long as the trainee sticks to one type during that training -- save the cross-training for once the PPL is done.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Third, there are some definite advantages to it. While many are available in some six packs with IFR GPS, the glass brings them all together. Those advantages include the availability of weather (a biggie, IMHO), traffic (albeit not everywhere), advanced engine monitoring, including assisted leaning, and the things that are available in most IFR GPS's, such as a moving map and the associated situational awareness (but with a much bigger screen), information about the nearby airports, etc.

I think the above is the #1 reason, not #3. (I know you weren't really "ranking" them)

Imagine all of the equipment you'd have to have to replicate the features of even the more basic glass panels.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think consumers are making this decision, not the manufacturers. I remember a blurb on AeroNewsNet a few months back about how once the manufacturers introduce a glass option, nobody orders a plane that doesn't have it.

And once you offer Garmin, nobody buys Avidyne. Well, not quite nobody. Diamond has built ONE airplane with Avidyne glass.

I'm not sure why people lust after it so much. Personally, I see enough of a computer screen during the week, and sure as heck don't want to reboot my plane. When Saturday rolls around, I want to be looking out the window, not at my panel.

Just because they make your panel glass, doesn't mean they took away your window glass to do so.

I do really like flying with a glass panel simply due to the wealth of information available. But, when you don't need the info, you don't have to look at the screens. When flying from X39 to KEYW in January I did a lot of looking at the glass to make darn sure the engine was running well before I overflew all the alligators and then the sharks. Flying around Denver in July, I hardly looked at the panel at all.

January:

July:

 

[KennyFlys]

I returned to flying in round gauges. I took my 709 ride in round gauges. But, we did not have a glass panel yet.

When I started in instruments, I began in round gauges then transitioned to glass panel. The IR checkride was in glass panel.

However, with exception of the first five hours or so to complete cross country requirements, my commercial training was in a 182RG. For the Cessna Pilot Centers who stick strictly with Cessna, you're not going to get a glass panel with retractable gear (Well, now you could but getting your commercial in a Mustang is getting a bit ahead although it would make for an interesting checkride during maneuvers). So, you will likely fly an older retract which will have round gauges. Consequently, most schools have a combination of Cessna's and Pipers to round out training needs.

When you lose electrical in a glass panel plane, what's left? Whether you can fly partial glass panel isn't an issue as much as... Can you fly it without any electrical? Proficiency is important regardless of how the airplane is equipped.

For the first several flights after I returned to flying, I had no clue how to use GPS. I understood it well from being installed on a laptop in the car but that's it. The concept was still very secure when I originally received my license and LORAN was the big thing to latch on to if you had the money. Or, if you could afford more, INS.

A couple weeks ago, I sold a radio to a guy who was visiting from England. He was saying GPS is still not authorized for primary navigation and certainly not for IFR. Apparently the fudge factor built into the GNSS by the US Department of Defense makes GPS around most of the world somewhat unreliable for accuracy. Then, there was such a shortage of military GPS units for use in Iraq they began using commercially available units. Subsequently, the DOD turned off the fudge factor in the satellites.

So, how's your personal fudge factor when the glass panel shuts down?

 

[SkyHog]

Here's my take (I'm sure y'all were waiting with baited breath for it):

I personally don't care if I fly round gauges or a glass panel. But someone may care. The option should be there. If some kid really thinks glass panels are cool, that kid is probably more likely to start and finish flight training if he flies the "cool" airplane.

Someone was making the argument that glass panel trained pilots are sloppier and worse than round gauge pilots, and cited something about ERAU. I don't remember who it was, but they were wrong, IMHO. I have a few friends that fly glass exclusively, and they're fine pilots (trained on glass too).

One day, steam gauges will not exist. Prepare for the future.

 

[TMetzinger]

A couple weeks ago, I sold a radio to a guy who was visiting from England. He was saying GPS is still not authorized for primary navigation and certainly not for IFR. Apparently the fudge factor built into the GNSS by the US Department of Defense makes GPS around most of the world somewhat unreliable for accuracy. Then, there was such a shortage of military GPS units for use in Iraq they began using commercially available units. Subsequently, the DOD turned off the fudge factor in the satellites.

So, how's your personal fudge factor when the glass panel shuts down?

Your guy from england was wrong, unless he was referring to handhelds. All sorts of airlines and private airlines fly IFR with GPS as primary navigation, though not "sole source". The GPS signal is of equal reliability everywhere (though there are ways to locally jam it), and the recent improvement in accuracy predates the current Iraq conflict, I believe. But even when the accuracy was "reduced" before it was still suitable for IFR ops.

As for my personal proficiency, I'm quite comfortable flying the standby instruments, then turning to my handheld GPS and heading for VMC. I'll use my handheld radio as well if I have time and an external connection.

 

[KennyFlys]

Your guy from england was wrong, unless he was referring to handhelds. All sorts of airlines and private airlines fly IFR with GPS as primary navigation, though not "sole source". The GPS signal is of equal reliability everywhere (though there are ways to locally jam it), and the recent improvement in accuracy predates the current Iraq conflict, I believe. But even when the accuracy was "reduced" before it was still suitable for IFR ops.

As for my personal proficiency, I'm quite comfortable flying the standby instruments, then turning to my handheld GPS and heading for VMC. I'll use my handheld radio as well if I have time and an external connection.

Yes, he was referring to the typical handhelds that were bought off the market for troops. Apparently those had a significant fudge factor in interpreting the satellite signal over panel mounted units that are certified for IFR. Considering the shortage of many supplies, it wouldn't surprise me. This guy was saying GPS was not approved for IFR in England but you can use it for backup to situational awareness.

Something else he mentioned which surprised me... gliders are allowed to enter clouds without an IFR clearance. The same is not true for powered aircraft since they should be equipped with electrical to power radios and transponders. While gliders can go beyond 10,000 in the US, they aren't required to have transponders but I don't believe they can enter clouds, either.

 

[TMetzinger]

I think gliders equipped for instrument flight are allowed in clouds in the US, but we probably require transponders and IFR clearances.

 

[woodstock]

Just wondering if people feel the same six yrs later.

 

[j1b3h0]

Count me as 'old school'. I do whatever necessary to draw my student's attention outside the aircraft - even in a round-dial C-150 I had to cover up instruments. To me, the only thing worse than teaching primary instruction in a glass equipt airplane would be allowing my student to text his friends while performing steep turns.

I would advocate private pilots recieve intruction in a non-gyro paneled tailwheel airplane...through solo. Show me a guy who who learned to fly (from the begining) on a glass, and I'll show you a guy who can't perform a crosswind landing. Fancy-pants instruments actually retard the students' learning of basic stick and rudder skills. If the goal is overall safety, statistics seem to indicate a lack of such skill accounts for a good deal of mishaps.

 

[Henning]

All the effects you fear are all avoidable with proper instructor technique. There is no more reason for them to be head down with glass than dials, no reason you can't just turn the switch off. Kind of silly to blame the tools for the failure of the craftsman.

 

[j1b3h0]

Perhaps, but the best tool for the job of teaching makes it easy to stick with the fundamentals without covering the whole panel with a drop-cloth.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Maybe I'm wrong, or I don't understand the question. But when I was trained, (Orville and Wilbur weren't there, no matter what the rumors are), basic skills were the first thing taught and then the use of aids was layered on. As long as the technology is viewed as an aid to flying, and not essential to flying, there should be no difference between glass and steam.

 

[j1b3h0]

Completely agree, but...often the fundamentals aren't taught thoroughly enough before the complexity is layered.

I used to joke that with the advent of the nosewheel airplane, we stopped teaching people to fly worth a darn. Then, a few decades later, with the advent of GPS and moving map displays, we stopped teaching people how to really navigate.

Am I the only one who feels concern about the droves of pilots who can neither fly or navigate?

 

[Henning]

Perhaps, but the best tool for the job of teaching makes it easy to stick with the fundamentals without covering the whole panel with a drop-cloth.

How about turning one switch? How do you turn off the dials anyway? Looking at the panel is the exact same problem regardless of what type of panel. Glass has nothing to do with poor fundamentals, poor CFIs have to do with poor fundamentals.

 

[Henning]

Am I the only one who feels concern about the droves of pilots who can neither fly or navigate?

Yes, but I put the responsibility where it belongs, not pawn it off on the equipment.

 

[j1b3h0]

Oh...you must mean the master switch!

 

[j1b3h0]

Yes, but I put the responsibility where it belongs, not pawn it off on the equipment.

Even if the equipment was partially responsible for the insructors' lack of ability - because he or she learned in such equipment?

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Glass has nothing to do with poor fundamentals, poor CFIs have to do with poor fundamentals.

I think this stems from the tradition of CFIs being young pilots building hours before moving on. This has set up the current situation where instead of experienced dedicated pilots transferring skills in an orderly manner we have relatively inexperienced pilots trying to pack on the hours as fast as they can to move into the right seat of a regional. This does not serve the students well.

 

[Henning]

Even if the equipment was partially responsible for the insructors' lack of ability - because he or she learned in such equipment?

Equipment cannot be the cause of lack of ability, lack of training and effort are the cause of lack of ability. The first step in fixing things is to take CFI and make it 1500hrs so we end this constant loop of the blind leading the blind and having instructors that only know the commercial training environment where only the minimums are taught so that's all that's known.

 

[gprellwitz]

Equipment cannot be the cause of lack of ability, lack of training and effort are the cause of lack of ability. The first step in fixing things is to take CFI and make it 1500hrs so we end this constant loop of the blind leading the blind and having instructors that only know the commercial training environment where only the minimums are taught so that's all that's known.

Hmmm. So both CFI and part 121 copilot are going to require 1500 hours. Cost of banner towing will plummet (because the pilot will be doing it for free), but the cost of flight instruction will skyrocket. Fewer pilots (because they can't afford instruction) and the market for GA aircraft shrinks even further. Thus, the cost of aircraft climbs further, as does the cost of fuel (because of reduced demand). And they're already talking about a long-term shortage of pilots (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/pilot_technician_forecast.html)

To operate and maintain the airplanes that will be added to the fleet over the next 20 years, the world's airlines will need an additional 466,650 trained pilots and 596,500 maintenance personnel.

Seems like we're setting ourselves up for a demonstration of the laws of unintended consequences here.

 

[j1b3h0]

While I - sort of - agree that CFIs are ultimately responsible for the fundamentals transfered to students, you're missing my point: The current crop of training airplanes are just lousy for the purpose of teaching fundamentals...and because so many generations of pilots - and hence, now instructors learned in said aircraft, really good fundamental pilots are well, rare. I can teach somebody to be a good pilot in a C-150 - but it's much harder, (than say a Citabria) because of the aerodynamic "improvements" to eliminate adverse yaw, an inability to perform a slip of greater than about 10 degrees, because there is insufficient rudder authority. On top of that, they're equipt with a panel designed to appeal to 'future airline pilots' that do nothing other than distract students from the big picture...outside!

 

[Everskyward]

Just wondering if people feel the same six yrs later.

I had to look back at my previous post to remember what I thought then. Six years ago I had never flown an airplane with a full glass panel. Now I do it all the time. However, I still feel pretty much the same way. The glass adds complexity which might equate to more training time, however if you are talking about fundamentals the student should be looking mostly outside anyway. Students can get just as fixated looking at conventional instruments as they can with a glass display.