Student Question: Steam Gauge vs G1000

TheTraveler

TheTraveler

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
685
Location
Valparaiso
Display Name
Display name:
TheTraveler
After taking lessons in both steam gauge and G1000 equipped planes, I've figured out something.

While the G1000 is "cool" and certainly has a lot of great advantages (too many to list even, I suppose), I have found that I actually fly better with my instructor when I'm in a steam gauge plane. It seems that the G1000 is even a little overpowering in that it is COMMANDING my attention.

When we practice a maneuver and I need to hold an altitude, airspeed, pitch, etc, with steam gauges I'm doing pretty well. Turning, for example. Vertical speed is close to 0, altitude holds well, speed holds relatively well, turn is coordinated.

When I do a maneuver in the G1000 plane, those ribbons tick off in such small increments and are always moving that it is extremely difficult to not pay attention to it. Adding to this, the instructor sees it too. For example: "Let's make a turn to 270. Maintain 75 kias and 2500' in this turn." In the turn, as the speed ribbon ticks off 76, 77, 74, 73, 77, the altitude ribbon does the same, and the turn-coordinator arrow moves back and forth. I hear "Maintain 75 and 270...rudder control" over and over again while I'm trying to pay attention to everything, collectively. It's as-if he is watching it just as much as it wants me to watch it, although I'm really trying not to. But the "feeling" of the plane really isn't changing. I think I'm flying just as well as I would with steam gauges, it just seems that this thing is responding with such smaller and faster increments that it's effecting perception. Does that sound crazy?

Landing is similar. I've got 4 or 5 landings in, most of which are at least still a little bit assisted. It is extremely difficult taking my attention away from that screen in the G1000. But with the steam gauges, even though it's an older plane, I've got a lot more focus and control on what I and the plane are doing, and that screen is not commanding my attention. I by no means have "good" landings, but landing in the steam gauge is easier and less painful for everyone involved (lol).

It just starts to "feel" as if the G1000 is screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" while the steam gauges are like "Yo...you just do your thing. We're here when you need us.".

I'm at the point where I'm likely to take the steam gauge airplane more often when I can get it, and likely use it all the way up to my checkride. But, the complexity comes in that I still need to train on the G1000 because the plane I'm going to fly after I get this done is a G1000 plane.

My question really is regarding what everyone else has felt. Is this common, is it a student/new pilot thing, or is this just my interpretation?

Secondly, something that I just need to get used to, something I'm always going to have to fight a little bit with, or do I need to focus more on ignoring the screen and paying attention to other stuff (even though the CFI is focused on the screen also)?
 
Sounds like both you and your instructor are spending way too much time watching the screen! Force yourself to look out the window!!
I have a cardboard mask that I use liberally when I have students who spend too much time watching the screen :) It is sometimes amazing how well maneuvers and landings improve when I do that. It is all mental discipline - as you have demonstrated to yourself.
My only wish for the G1000 is an easy way to dim the screen.
 
I learned in steam gauges and continued flying steam gauges for 4 years before getting checked out in a G1000 plane. During the checkout flight (also my BFR), I found myself chasing the instruments and getting distracted by the pretty screens like you described but that went away the next time I rented the plane. I think I actually spent less time heads down because I was able to scan the PFD a little faster than a 6-pack. It just takes a little getting use to and I think it would have taken longer if I was less experienced. That said, I'm glad I did all my primary training and transitioned to glass later on because I think the reverse would have been much more difficult.
 
I only had one training flight with a G1000, it was one of my first few flights so I don't know if I'd be any better now, but I was chasing those numbers all over the place compared to the needles. I'm sure its something you get used to and stop doing.

I wouldn't like to be bouncing back and forth during training when I'm trying to get consistent. I'd suggest if you can to pick one and try to stick with it.
 
Anything moving catches your attention. It's a hardwired survival mechanism. Steam gauges do not move so rapidly. So I think your observation is correct. How you counter it is something to discuss with your instructor.
 
Very perceptive post. I learned with steam gauges but I have a couple of hundred hours in G1000 airplanes, mostly as PIC. The most common thing heard in a G1000 cockpit is said to be: "What's it doing now?" They are wonderful toys.

Re the speed and altitude tapes. You are having trouble with these because they are, from a human factors point of view, an exceedingly stupid way to display information. They were invented by engineers who were trying to maximize the size of the attitude indicator while working with small displays. There is a reason most of us wear digital watches with analog displays: It is much faster to read and interpret an analog display than it is to read and interpret a number. Further, for me at least, the wannabe analog aspects of the tape don't work. For a time I flew with a piece of Post-It note covering the digital altitude readout, attempting to train myself to look at the tape and the altitude bug. No use. We are stuck with tapes, just the way we are stuck with the QWERTY keyboard. Grin and bear it, I guess. (Avidyne understands the problem, at least, and provides an analog VSI on their PFD.)

(There are those who will probably object here and say how easy they find the tapes. But the tapes still take more mental horsepower for interpretation than simply looking at the altimeter to see if the big hand is straight up, straight down, or moving.)

Re "look at me." Yes. Part of the problem IMO is that there is so much default clutter on the PFD. The programmers and marketeers want to show you all their tricks. The first thing I do when I fire up a G1000 is to turn off as much of that clutter as I can. Ditch the wind vector; you can bring it back later if you're landing and it becomes important. Ditch the tiny map; the MFD is much better. Ditto anything else you can turn off to simplify the display. Try it. I think you will find that a simplified display is less demanding of your time and easier to read.

If you can, I'd suggest just staying out of the G1000 airplanes until you are most of the way to or even through your PPL. It will be easier for you to add the skill of dealing with the G1000 display and operations after you have mastered basic flying skills. Switching back and forth during training would have driven me nuts.
 
The G1000 has far more happening than just a simple six-pack. The full advantages come with proficiency and you no longer need to hunt for things. Until then you are prone to being "glass-bound" largely because there is so much more on the panel to process.
 
airdale said:
Re the speed and altitude tapes. You are having trouble with these because they are, from a human factors point of view, an exceedingly stupid way to display information. They were invented by engineers who were trying to maximize the size of the attitude indicator while working with small displays. There is a reason most of us wear digital watches with analog displays: It is much faster to read and interpret an analog display than it is to read and interpret a number. Further, for me at least, the wannabe analog aspects of the tape don't work. For a time I flew with a piece of Post-It note covering the digital altitude readout, attempting to train myself to look at the tape and the altitude bug. No use. We are stuck with tapes, just the way we are stuck with the QWERTY keyboard. Grin and bear it, I guess. (Avidyne understands the problem, at least, and provides an analog VSI on their PFD.)

(There are those who will probably object here and say how easy they find the tapes. But the tapes still take more mental horsepower for interpretation than simply looking at the altimeter to see if the big hand is straight up, straight down, or moving.)
Click to expand...
I like the tapes. Now that I'm use to it I can read them faster than steam gauges. I can also read a digital watch faster than analog, but I wear an analog watch anyway because I prefer the way they look.
 
There are a couple of things a G1000 is much better at than a basic bare bones steam gauge airplane. NONE of them apply to a student pilot. Arguably, very little applies to a VFR pilot. For IFR, having vacuum as strictly backup is a nice situation. You don't get the same partial panel problems; the big one is an AHRS failure, but you still have the GPS, mag compass, vacuum system, and pitot/static system to get you through it.

The older airplanes actually fly better (because they are lighter -- at the same weight, they would fly the same).

I keep having to point out to CAP folks that a 182R with steam is 150 lb lighter than a 182T with G1000. That's almost an entire adult. Unless I'm flying precision patterns, I'd much prefer the extra crewmember over the glass panel.
 
TheTraveler said:
It just starts to "feel" as if the G1000 is screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" while the steam gauges are like "Yo...you just do your thing. We're here when you need us.".
Click to expand...

I have said this many times before, but I also trained in a G1000 and wound up purchasing a plane with a partial Aspen panel but sill has almost a full six pack of steam gauges. Even though I trained on full glass and now have what I would call a hybrid of the two, I tend to fly by the needles more than the screen. For me it is a lot easier to pick up, detect and pick up on trends of what plane is doing via the needles vs the digital display.

Now that being said I would take glass over steam any day of the week due to all its other benefits, but for basic aviating stick and rudder skills you observation is not far off from my experience.
 
Shawn said:
... a hybrid of the two ...
Click to expand...
I think my ideal would be an Aspen with the tapes turned off, flanked by analog displays of speed, altitude, and vertical speed. I have seen one large poster of a 777 cockpit with a backup analog display altimeter just to the right of the captain's glass display. Makes sense to me.
 
The Cirrus digital package consists of the Garmin G1000/Perspective (10 or 12 inch panels) and the Mid-Continent's 4-in-1 digital standby instrument deck. No round gauges.
 
I understand exactly where you're coming from, OP. I got my Private and IR in a 172 G1000. When I transitioned to steam gauges for the rest of my training, I found myself to be more accurate, more heads up, and enjoying it all that much more.

I find that to be the same with any application of steam vs glass. I like flying steam gauges, even in jets.
 
Last edited:
I did everything until solo on steam, then to G1000. Solo XC was G1000. Yes at first it was definitely alluring and maybe even distracting at times. But once I got used to it, I stopped staring at it.

Personally, I'm glad I did it that way because I have a ton of time with G1000 and know the system well. But I agree that as a student it's wise to hold off a while. A lot of personal decision (not all people like or want glass) and CFI decision (can this student even handle it right now).

The tolerances are a little more fine, but it's just instrumentation. You don't have to go super deep on the system, especially in PPL training.
 
MetalCloud said:
Personally, I'm glad I did it that way because I have a ton of time with G1000 and know the system well.
Click to expand...

Same here. Almost any VFR pilot can go from glass to steam seamlessly, but most can not go from steam to glass without additional training time to learn and get familiar with the system even for just the basics.
 
Shawn said:
Same here. Almost any VFR pilot can go from glass to steam seamlessly, but most can not go from steam to glass without additional training time to learn and get familiar with the system even for just the basics.
Click to expand...
Not my experience.

I did a transition to a single-display Aspen with basic (STEC-50) autopilot and coupled GNS430W in a couple of hours. And it was a new-to-me airplane model (Archer, from a 172).

A VFR transition to G1000 took a lot more than that, even with the Garmin buttonology already down (the FMS knob behaves a whole lot like the 430's big/little knobs).

And G1000-only pilots in steam gauge aircraft need a lot of help. Altimeter-reading problems are common, for instance.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not my experience.
Click to expand...

MAKG1 said:
A VFR transition to G1000 took a lot more than that
Click to expand...

I'm confused...I think you need to re-read my statement. You disagree then back that up with agreeing. "Glass" to me is full glass panel cockpit like the G1000 and what the OP is referring to, not an Aspen or G500 partial panel. Full glass takes some significant additional transition time as you noted...and we are talking about PPL training and basic VFR flying here, not IFR Ops. Context matters.

While both directions need some familiarity, If a pilot needs a "couple of hours" to transition time training to steam gauges there are bigger issues but my point being that glass to steam is a MUCH easier way to go and opens up a lot more plane options vs a steam gauges only trained pilot.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
I'm confused...I think you need to re-read my statement. You disagree then back that up with agreeing. "Glass" to me is full glass panel cockpit, not a Aspen partial panel. Full glass takes some significant additional transition time as you noted.

While both directions need some familiarity, If a pilot needs a "couple of hours" to transition time training to steam gauges there are bigger issues but my point being that glass to steam is a MUCH easier way to go and opens up a lot more plane options vs a steam gauges only trained pilot.
Click to expand...
Well, your definition disagrees with the FAA's proposed definition and just about everyone else.

An Aspen with 430W and coupled autopilot meets all the usual definitions for TAA. That is, a PFD, IFR GPS with a moving map, and coupled autopilot. It goes a bit beyond, actually, as display of the flight plan on the PFD is not required.

G1000 is hardly the only glass cockpit out there. It's just one that has a lot of pitfalls in it, hence the training issues.
 
Your berating of technicalities seem to indicate you have a serious issue in understanding of the context as it relates to the OP's observation and the thread as a whole...but that is noting new.

And yes, I consider and refer to my panel posted in the pic above a "partial" glass panel. To represent that as just a "Glass" panel would be incredibly deceptive IMO even though it may meet some interpretation of the term.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify, I do think the G1000 is very cool! I'm not a computer whiz, and I know nothing about programming. But I like my devices, I'm into technology, and the G1000 is neat not only in how fun it is to use, but in the awesome power of options and tools it holds inside.

My situation is only that I want to focus on flying at the moment...not on the glass panel. As of today, I've got maybe 8-10 unassisted landings in, quite a few more takeoffs, I'm good at navigating, and handle the aircraft well. Could I still fly right this minute with the G1000? Sure I can. Could I pass my checkride? No, but whatever point in time that is, I am sure it would take more hours in the G1000 to pass it than it would if I took it with steam gauges. It's just more of a distraction at this point than it is a tool for me when I am flying, and when I'm doing maneuvers, it's even more distracting to where I feel like instead of concentrating on what I'm doing, that damn panel is commanding my attention.

I think the majority understood my meaning, I just wanted to be clear.

As always, I'm thankful for this community and the great feedback everyone gives!
 
This is coming from a student who is training in g1000 and doesn't have an option to switch. Switch now, u will be far better pilot. It took me many hrs to train my brain just to scan the panel and even till date I fixate at the panel at times and my CFI end up dimming the display. It's getting less and less distraction, but if I had an option of 6 pack I would switch in a heartbeat. While landing I only look at the airspeed tape for a second and go back to VASI, looking out is far more critical in landing and I don't care how pretty the panel is. But straight and level, I get attracted to it quite often. I am a numbers guy and that was my problem when I started, when I hear hold airspeed of 90, chasing that number on a digital display is next to impossible. You will see 92, try to correct it, end up at 89 and the cycle continues. With a 6 panel or the PFD OFF its not a problem. It's possible to train urself to look outside, but for me it took a long long time and I am still not 100% at it

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
A six pack? You only need that for your three hours of instruments. It's a distraction, too, though perhaps a less compelling one.

Learning to land can be done with no instruments beyond A TOMATO FLAMES.

The observation that the blinky lights are distracting is quite astute. Glass can certainly be an eyeball magnet.
 
So personal, but tapes (and digital displays of data) do take more brain cycles, it's just the way our heads work. Probably not fair to paint all glass in a bad light, based on the astoundingly clumsy G1000 implementation, but that's the glass I have the most time in.

IFR I found to be "easier" in a steam gauge, with a panel mount GPS and a single axis autopilot. The G1000 was just as capable, but required more care-and-feeding; just more labor intensive. Steam, in my estimation, was more intuitive.

This is probably a little unfair to the G1000, since a panel mount GPS does provide some of the same nav and comm features. . .but the G1000 pseudo "HUD" display is way too busy.
 
My primary instructor threw his jacket over the entire panel one day covering everything and said, "Quit looking inside. Fly the airplane."

I don't see how everyone can possibly make this so difficult. LOL. Best day ever.

The real horizon makes for a better horizon than an artificial horizon.

The height of the nose in reference to it, makes altitude easy to hold.

The slightest wiggle left and right off of a landmark or the nose lagging/ leading a turn, is a better indicator than the ball if you need more rudder.

The sound of the slipstream and engine will tell you almost all you need to know about airspeed.

It's about learning to ENJOY looking outside. It tells you way more than an entire panel of instruments ever will, if you'll let it.

Can save all the panel gawking for the instrument rating, it'll still be there. Look out and see how cool the world is and how many awesome cues it gives you about the attitude of the aircraft...

Try it. Next time you're up. Lightly touch a rudder pedal. See the nose move away from a landmark directly over or next to the cowl. Now repeat with the same pressure and watch the ball (or that thing on the G1000 display that shows that info). Which one was a better indicator?

Now this will sound "mean" or like a rant, but hear me out.

How I would stop you from looking inside( if it wasn't the jacket)? I would mandate an outside scan. I'd Doug it off and tell you exactly where to look to get your eyeballs off the panel.

"We look outside VFR because? Traffic. Will anything on that panel kill you immediately? No. Will the ground suddenly rise up to kill you? Probably not. What can kill you? Traffic. Let's build a scan based on that."

" Look out your side window. Look out at our altitude? Any airplanes? No? look down. Any there? No. Look up. Any there? No. Okay take a quick look inside at the primary flight instruments. We know attitude is okay we can see that out the window, so airspeed? Good? altitude? Good? Notice when you're trimmed it doesn't change much?"

"Okay back outside. Left half of the front window. Look ahead. Aircraft? no. Up. Aircraft? no. Down? Aircraft? no. Okay, back inside and check engine instruments and fuel. Good?"

"Okay right half of the front window. Look ahead? aircraft? No. Up. Aircraft? No? down. Aircraft? No? Okay back inside and check airspeed and altitude again. Correct those. Trim. Nice. It'll stay there, plus you can see it changing when you're looking outside."

"Okay, my side window. Level. Aircraft? No. Up. No. Down. No. Notice the angle of the wing to the horizon just changed and it's not level? You're probably climbing. Push forward a little without looking inside and make that level. Okay now look inside. 100' high. Makes sense, right? You saw the wing angle out the window change. Cool. Start a very shallow dive and trim."

"Okay, left window. See the angle to the horizon of the wing is reversed? That's was what? About 100 ft/min down? We need to come down 100' so we have a minute to scan. Level. Aircraft? Up. Aircraft? Down. Aircraft? Okay that's 30 seconds. Look inside at the altimeter. What do you know? passing through 50 feet high."

"Left front window..."

You get the idea. I wouldn't LET you look inside long enough for me to complain about a one knot change in a turn. Seriously. Slap that dude.

You watch for TRENDS and RATE. If you keep the TRENDS under control, and arrest a fast changing RATE and correct the trim and whatever sped up the rate... the airplane will fly itself while you're looking outside.

And then you'll start to actually see the hints.

Look outside. It's cool. Very cool. That's flying. Not chasing a speed tape for one knot. We can work on that level of precision later.

Fly the plane, not the panel. This is VFR. :)

Make sense? You can do this yourself if your instructor doesn't mandate it. Start a scan. Count it off to yourself. 80-90% eyeballs outside. Methodical. Step by step at first. Left. Up. Level. Down. In. Front left. Up. Level. Down. In. Front right. Up. Level. Down. In. Right. Up. Level. Down. In.

Break it down into the ultra simple at first. After a while you'll learn the cues that you need a piece of information from the panel and you'll come "inside" to get it and then you'll look back outside.
 
From my experience instructing, my glass students spent way too much time looking inside. So much that I just put a sectional over the screens and told them to look outside. With steam gauges, they still fixated slightly on the instruments but a lot less than if they had glass. I really don't even talk about the instruments until we a few lessons in. This approach seemed to work a little better than introducing and explaining each instrument in lesson one.
 
jordane93 said:
From my experience instructing, my glass students spent way too much time looking inside. So much that I just put a sectional over the screens and told them to look outside. With steam gauges, they still fixated slightly on the instruments but a lot less than if they had glass. I really don't even talk about the instruments until we a few lessons in. This approach seemed to work a little better than introducing and explaining each instrument in lesson one.
Click to expand...

I am not a student (PPSEL, IR) and a couple years ago I decided to get checked out in a C-182 in case I needed more capability. By the way, I already had some 182 time and like the airplane. Anyway, the local FBO with rentals had a G1000 equipped C-182 (but no analog 182's). I flew a VMC trip with a CFII on a 1 hour plus cross country to another airport where I had a meeting scheduled. We flew back later that afternoon. The CFII was trying to show me the capability of the G1000 and how to turn the knobs and push the buttons. She looked outside very little (which made me pretty nervous by the way). I learned and own an analog airplane. After considerable thought, I decided there was absolutely no way I could keep the C-182 "in reserve" for when I needed more capability unless I flew it on a very regular basis. I didn't feel like this would be justified for infrequent use. So, I dropped the idea. Based on this admittedly limited experience with a G1000, I agree with most of you on this thread that it tends to contribute to keeping your eyes on the screen instead of outside, and I think it would hurt the teaching of stick and rudder skills. I encourage the OP to try "steam gages" and see how it goes.
 
It's essentially impossible to learn the G1000 buttonology in a reasonable time without buying the $25 trainer from Garmin. Especially IFR, but it's an issue for VFR, too.

I've been flying G1000 182s quite a lot lately, up to about 140 hours. I'm IFR proficient and regularly practice approaches with all levels of automation (hand-fly, HDG/ALT/VS, coupled LNAV and fully automated), including the occasional partial panel approach.

I still think it's overkill for almost anything VFR, and for some IFR uses as well.
 
MAKG1 said:
It's essentially impossible to learn the G1000 buttonology in a reasonable time without buying the $25 trainer from Garmin. Especially IFR, but it's an issue for VFR, too.
Click to expand...

The G1000 simulator is useful especially for chair flying approaches. The simulator also lets you explore the menus and options and get used to the digital look and feel, agreed.

It is easily possible to fly a plane using either glass or analog gauges.

The extra level of situational awareness may not be something needed if you fly mostly short routes, no flight plan, day VFR near familiar terrain and airfields. But if you fly long cross-country using complex flight plans over varied terrain and near restricted airspaces. Or in marginal weather or at night. You may find the glass a better friend.
 
Last edited:
citizen5000 said:
The G1000 simulator is useful especially for chair flying approaches. The simulator also lets you explore the menus and options and get used to the digital look and feel.

Comparing glass to round gauges is really not productive since it's entirely possible to fly a plane using either. But the G1000 enhances situational awareness far beyond a six pack of round gauges. The extra level of sit awareness may not be something needed if you fly mostly short routes, day VFR near familiar terrain and airfields. But if you fly long cross-country over varied terrain and near restricted airspaces. Or in marginal weather or at night. You will want the glass.
Click to expand...
True, but u can do the same with a panel mount GPS or even an iPad with something like gdl 39 or just a GPS chip. It sure takes a heck of a lot more time to get used to G1000 and learn to fly at the same time

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
citizen5000 said:
The G1000 simulator is useful especially for chair flying approaches. The simulator also lets you explore the menus and options and get used to the digital look and feel.

Comparing glass to round gauges is really not productive since it's entirely possible to fly a plane using either. But the G1000 enhances situational awareness far beyond a six pack of round gauges. The extra level of sit awareness may not be something needed if you fly mostly short routes, day VFR near familiar terrain and airfields. But if you fly long cross-country over terrain and near restricted airspaces. Or in marginal weather or at night. You will want the glass.
Click to expand...
The situational awareness can come from many other simpler configurations than G1000. For VFR, that includes looking out the window.

People like to throw that term around a lot. SA is actually REDUCED if the pilot is overwhelmed or behind the aircraft, or if an "automation surprise" strikes. And the OP noticed this.
 
MAKG1 said:
The situational awareness can come from many other simpler configurations than G1000. For VFR, that includes looking out the window.

People like to throw that term around a lot. SA is actually REDUCED if the pilot is overwhelmed or behind the aircraft, or if an "automation surprise" strikes. And the OP noticed this.
Click to expand...

My use of the term refers to the G1000 Synthetic Vision, moving map, colorized weather (nexrad, XM or weatherscope), colorized terrain/topo, TAWS alerting/obstacle/terrain, Flitecharts and Safetaxi, integration with GFC autopilot (fully coupled approach, georeferenced plates), integration with TIS/TCAS & ADS_B traffic, inset traffic display on PFD, integrated flight management and checklists.
 
citizen5000 said:
My use of the term refers to the G1000 Synthetic Vision, moving map, colorized weather (nexrad, XM or weatherscope), colorized terrain/topo, TAWS alerting/obstacle/terrain, Flitecharts and Safetaxi, integration with GFC autopilot (fully coupled approach, georeferenced plates), integration with TIS/TCAS & ADS_B traffic, inset traffic display on PFD, integrated flight management and checklists.
Click to expand...
So, since I don't have synthetic vision, I don't have SA? Even in VMC?

It has a specific meaning. Knowing where you are, where you are going, where you are expected to go (e.g., procedures), and what is around you.

It's good you enjoy having all the gadgets, but asserting that that gives you SA all by itself exposes a rather serious misunderstanding.

Considering the NTSB has found no difference in overall accident rates and an increase in fatality rates in glass (by a factor of TWO), people are clearly digging deeper holes, and the "SA" doesn't seem to be helping much.
 
Glass is the future, but the gauges are just as good IMHO. We are analog beings and our peripheral vision is cued to movement...it's a survival reflex. Any decent scan of the instruments will work. Change = movement, and when you see (even unconsciously) movement in the periphery, you will instinctively look. I note that pilots STARE at the glass and I think it takes a bit more discipline to learn a scan. The beauty of glass is all the automation that comes with it...but the pitfall to that is that people do a bad job of monitoring that automation. I split the difference in my Warrior and installed a G5 PFD. I think it gets the best of both worlds, at half the price of even a basic Aspen display. To the right of my radio stack is a 7 inch tablet with ADS-B Weather and Traffic In via a GDL-39. With ADS-B out on the KT-74 Transponder, I get all the traffic...an important safety feature in or out of the clouds.
upload_2017-4-3_21-43-17.png

OBXFLIGHT.COM
 
Being a student pilot my self I really enjoy the gauges. They are there to scan over and look back outside. If your getting caught up staring I side at the beautiful colors things will catch up to you quick. Don't get me wrong I love technology and do believe it's the future but But I just love the gauges. Just fly and have fun
 
One day one the ground, my CFI took a beach towel and covered the entire panel. He had me to a takeoff, full circuit and land with no instruments at all... no airspeed, no altimeter, no tach, nothing. You should be able to do this.
 
I think you should not touch a glass cockpit for the first 200 hours, because it makes you lazy, you don't have to think. If you are going to fly professionally. There are still more steam gage aircraft than glass cockpit aircraft and steam is not going away for many years, so it's good to learn steam first, even IFR with steam gauges, it makes you a far better pilot. The other factor, being that flying is so expensive, you can usually rent a steam gauge aircraft for half the price of a glass cockpit aircraft, so flying glass has no advantage, more distraction and a waste of money.
 
airdale said:
Very perceptive post. I learned with steam gauges but I have a couple of hundred hours in G1000 airplanes, mostly as PIC. The most common thing heard in a G1000 cockpit is said to be: "What's it doing now?" They are wonderful toys.

Re the speed and altitude tapes. You are having trouble with these because they are, from a human factors point of view, an exceedingly stupid way to display information. .
Click to expand...

I've not flown a G1000. Do they have bugs the pilot can set for targeted altitude and airspeed? We had those in the F-111, and they give an analog display showing your distance from your targeted value.
 
Profile climb said:
I think you should not touch a glass cockpit for the first 200 hours, because it makes you lazy, you don't have to think. If you are going to fly professionally. There are still more steam gage aircraft than glass cockpit aircraft and steam is not going away for many years, so it's good to learn steam first, even IFR with steam gauges, it makes you a far better pilot. The other factor, being that flying is so expensive, you can usually rent a steam gauge aircraft for half the price of a glass cockpit aircraft, so flying glass has no advantage, more distraction and a waste of money.
Click to expand...

The FBO called...you left your sectional behind...

ancient-map-world-compass-5176930.jpg
 
JimNtexas said:
I've not flown a G1000. Do they have bugs the pilot can set for targeted altitude and airspeed? We had those in the F-111, and they give an analog display showing your distance from your targeted value.
Click to expand...
Thy have an altitude pre select. Cirrus Perspective has a speed bug. Haven't flown any Cessna's with an airspeed bug. Maybe one that has a GFC700 AP has one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top