"jsmith" wrote in message ...

For example, will an pilot trained from the onset in an aircraft
equipped with a Garmin G-1000 panel from private through instrument
ratings be restricted to only those airplanes with Garmin panels?

Formally, as in "by the FAA?" Probably not for some time. There are no
"equipment ratings" required for GPS, WAAS, HSI, autopilots, or pretty much
anything else. FITS suggests this may get a little tighter but the reality
is that while the FAA gets to paint the bus, it will be driven by the
insurance companies. They *already* require more type-specific training than
the FAA ever did.

Without the training in how to interpret the steam gauges, could they
safely fly in a traditional paneled airplane in heavy IFR?

I suspect it will be a *long* time before pilots are trained ab-initio on
glass. From what I hear, places like Embry-Riddle et. al. are eager to get
glass-panel trainers primarily to "familiarize" students with them so the
first time they fly one *isn't* on an airline simulator interview. Likewise,
round gauges are hardly disappearing anytime soon. Most older jets (up to
big birds like DC-8s) and turboprop commuters still have them, and it's
quite likely that's where an E-R graduate will get his or her first flying
job.

How about the pilot trained in "traditional" panel airplanes with "steam
gauges"?
Will they require an endorsement before being permitted to rent or fly
"glass panel" aircraft in instrument conditions?

Almost certainly. When I rented, you needed a checkout to operate the FBO's
'98 Skyhawk just because it had fuel injection, while all their other birds
were carbureted. In any case I doubt glass-panel planes will enter the
general rental fleet that fast, as not that many FBOs have the cash flow to
justify buying a $200,000 new 172 when $50k will buy a perfectly sufficient
older one. Likewise, I wonder how much IFR is flown in rental planes without
a CFII in the right seat. My guess is "not very much."

-cwk.