Glass Panel Training

In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"

Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak) would appear to be an issue. My
expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look forward to
curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be Cessna (std
gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared..

Comments appreciated.

This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.
The bigger issue appeared to be teaching them to land cessna's and pipers.
The Diamonds land "flat" with long glider wings and have a low instrument
panel. Their transition to cessna's found that they were not getting the
nose high enough to keep the nose wheel off the ground.

BT

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"

Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak) would appear to be an issue. My
expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look forward to
curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be Cessna (std
gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared..

Comments appreciated.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:17:26 -0800, BT wrote:

This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?

The bigger issue appeared to be teaching them to land cessna's and pipers.
The Diamonds land "flat" with long glider wings and have a low instrument
panel. Their transition to cessna's found that they were not getting the
nose high enough to keep the nose wheel off the ground.

Yeah, I found this out the reverse having trained on the Cessnas.

Would you agree that

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

who claims once glass trained, then go get "typed" on the Cessnas makes
better sense than going Cessna training from the get-go? Consider what
the cost is of rentals of the two and the availability of rentals.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:17:26 -0800, BT wrote:

This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel,
but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?

Most (ok some) that have always flown "steam" but have dealt with Garmin
430/530 Comm/Nav/GPS units will find the transition to glass easier. If
you've never used a Garmin then it is a little more to learn the "all glass"
G1000.
I found that IFR cross checks in the G1000 much simpler, just need to get
used to tapes instead of round dials.
Maybe it's just me for the easy transition but I've flown "tapes" and
computer systems in my lifetime before the advent of G1000 and Avidyne
systems.

The big issue of the transition to "all glass" is to learn the software and
know what pages on the MFD to find certain items or to be able to input
certain items. Most schools will have a 5 hour academic course and then
flying, flying to the proficiency of your rating. If Private Pilot, not as
much detailed as full IFR Approaches with and without the auto pilot
interface.

Not knowing the software means too much head down in the cockpit and not
eyes outside looking for traffic.
JMHO
BT

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:05:27 -0800, BT wrote:

Most (ok some) that have always flown "steam" but have dealt with Garmin
430/530 Comm/Nav/GPS units will find the transition to glass easier. If
you've never used a Garmin then it is a little more to learn the "all glass"
G1000.

Most training for PPL doesn't require or have Garmin as part of the
schema.

I found that IFR cross checks in the G1000 much simpler, just need to get
used to tapes instead of round dials.
Maybe it's just me for the easy transition but I've flown "tapes" and
computer systems in my lifetime before the advent of G1000 and Avidyne
systems.

I think it is, you're an experienced guy. Think about what it is like
when you are somewhat overwhelmed in the PPL training process. That's
the point I am trying to make central to this question regarding the
PPLK training under glass when the transition to "steam" is most
probably inevitable when newbies go to rent GA.

The big issue of the transition to "all glass" is to learn the software and
know what pages on the MFD to find certain items or to be able to input
certain items. Most schools will have a 5 hour academic course and then
flying, flying to the proficiency of your rating. If Private Pilot, not as
much detailed as full IFR Approaches with and without the auto pilot
interface.

Not knowing the software means too much head down in the cockpit and not
eyes outside looking for traffic.

The training institute I mentioned has several follow on courses with
stationery "simulators", videos and other training to sell. It seems to
me, imo, opinion, bassackwards.

Most newbie PPLs will rent Cessnas, think about how that will be when
their first rental solos are in steam gauges.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:05:27 -0800, BT wrote:
when the transition to "steam" is most
probably inevitable when newbies go to rent GA.

My situation is quite different. At my local FBO/flight school the "steam
guage" rental Cessnas have been disappearing in favor of much newer planes
with glass. For insurance reasons I don't fly anything worth that kind of
money, so the pool of planes available to me has been shrinking.

Secondary question: Why do folks rent $250,000 planes when the most renter's
insurance you can buy is usually $100,000?


Most newbie PPLs will rent Cessnas, think about how that will be when
their first rental solos are in steam gauges.

Don't most newbie PPLs train at their local FBO? The same place where
they will be renting?

Vaughn

Transition "From Glass" is not the issue.. it is easy to learn to read
steam.
The issue would be Diamond Star or Cirrus to Cessna or Piper which is no
more than an aircraft check out to learn how a different design handles,
operates and how the information is displayed.

Your comment that most training for PPL does not require to have Garmin is
true. You are required to be able to use the equipment in the aircraft that
you present for the examiner during your flight test.

Where are you?
I have been answering based on USA considerations.

Right now in the US, the "insurance drives the boat".
Any pilot transitioning into the Cirrus currently requires 10 hrs dual in
Cirrus for coverage under most rental concerns. Some of that is the "glass
software", the other is the "slick wing performance" issues.

As to the question of why most people do not carry "renters insurance" for
the full hull value?
It's what the person renting the aircraft want you to carry. Also in the US,
"renters" insurance provide coverage if the pilot renter was at fault in the
accident. If the accident is the result of a mechanical issue that the
renter would have not control over, then the renters insurance would not pay
out.

As a renter, if I loose control on landing and clip a runway light or run
off the side of the runway and damage the aircraft, or if I fail to put the
gear down. The renters insurance will cover, rarely does this result in the
aircraft being totaled. But, lets say the gear fails to extend when
commanded. Fire/Rescue crews are alerted, communication with the ground on
"what to try" for emergency extend, and even with the published emergency
extend procedures, the gear is not down. Then the renter is no longer at
fault and the renters policy would not pay for damage during the subsequent
landing. That responsibility falls back to the owner.

BT

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:05:27 -0800, BT wrote:

Most (ok some) that have always flown "steam" but have dealt with Garmin
430/530 Comm/Nav/GPS units will find the transition to glass easier. If
you've never used a Garmin then it is a little more to learn the "all
glass"
G1000.

Most training for PPL doesn't require or have Garmin as part of the
schema.

I found that IFR cross checks in the G1000 much simpler, just need to get
used to tapes instead of round dials.
Maybe it's just me for the easy transition but I've flown "tapes" and
computer systems in my lifetime before the advent of G1000 and Avidyne
systems.

I think it is, you're an experienced guy. Think about what it is like
when you are somewhat overwhelmed in the PPL training process. That's
the point I am trying to make central to this question regarding the
PPLK training under glass when the transition to "steam" is most
probably inevitable when newbies go to rent GA.

The big issue of the transition to "all glass" is to learn the software
and
know what pages on the MFD to find certain items or to be able to input
certain items. Most schools will have a 5 hour academic course and then
flying, flying to the proficiency of your rating. If Private Pilot, not
as
much detailed as full IFR Approaches with and without the auto pilot
interface.

Not knowing the software means too much head down in the cockpit and not
eyes outside looking for traffic.

The training institute I mentioned has several follow on courses with
stationery "simulators", videos and other training to sell. It seems to
me, imo, opinion, bassackwards.

Most newbie PPLs will rent Cessnas, think about how that will be when
their first rental solos are in steam gauges.

On Jan 24, 2:38*pm, Gezellig wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:17:26 -0800, BT wrote:
This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?


I teach G1000 transition using the Cessna FITs syllabus. The short
answer is that it really depends on the pilot. Some pilots take to the
glass as if were nothing; others never really get it. Sadly, there
appears to be a strong correlation between the ability to learn this
stuff and age. In almost 1/4 of the cases we find ourselves having to
sign pilots off as "VFR only" in the G1000 even though they are highly
experienced instrument pilots. It isn't too big of a deal for a VFR
pilot to stumble around with the buttonology but it could be very
dangerous for a pilot to do the same in IMC trying to set up an
approach.

-Robert

On 01/26/09 11:15, Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 24, 2:38�pm, Gezellig wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:17:26 -0800, BT wrote:
This was discussed some years ago with the beginning of the glass panel, but
also with the beginning of DA20s and DA40s used for primary training.
Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

OK. What about steam to glass transitions?


I teach G1000 transition using the Cessna FITs syllabus. The short
answer is that it really depends on the pilot. Some pilots take to the
glass as if were nothing; others never really get it. Sadly, there
appears to be a strong correlation between the ability to learn this
stuff and age. In almost 1/4 of the cases we find ourselves having to
sign pilots off as "VFR only" in the G1000 even though they are highly
experienced instrument pilots. It isn't too big of a deal for a VFR
pilot to stumble around with the buttonology but it could be very
dangerous for a pilot to do the same in IMC trying to set up an
approach.

-Robert

Really a sad state, considering the glass was supposed to reduce
cockpit workload and increase situational awareness :-(


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Jan 26, 11:22*am, Mark Hansen wrote:

Really a sad state, considering the glass was supposed to reduce
cockpit workload and increase situational awareness :-(

Its a lot like using a PC vs a typewriter. If you've never used a PC
or aren't comfortable using a PC its much faster to type your letter
using the typewriter. You don't have to search for the "Print" icon,
figure out the printer drivers, etc. However, once you know how to set
up a coupled approach in the G1000 its pretty cool to watch it
intercept the loc, then capture the GS and fly itself right down to
the runway.

-Robert