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.

On Jan 24, 8:14*am, Gezellig wrote:
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.

We just added a glass 172 to the fleet. There's a learning
curve for us older guys but the young will get it easily. The airplane
still flies like a 172, the PFD is no harder to read than the steam
gauges after a few minutes, and anyone with a few hours solo in a 172
could fly it safely. The bigger learning involves the multiple pages
and functions of the MFD and the procedures taken if an electrical
problem arises. Most 172s have one electrical bus, maybe two if it has
an avionics master. The glass airplane has SIX buses and you need to
know their management.
There was a similar steam-gauge versus digital argument when
digital watches and clocks and calculators came out. Expensive they
were, but actually cheaper to build since much of the assembly is
easily automated as opposed to the old units with tiny gears and
levers and sensitive and fragile bits, just like an airplane's
instruments. Whether we like it or not, glass is going to become the
norm on newer airplanes, not just because of its capabilities nor its
selling power, but because it's cheaper to make. And many older
aircraft will get retrofitted once the competition builds and the
glass makers have to take less profit and find new markets.
So find a school with glass and get with it. Or fool with a
simulator that has it.

Dan

Gezellig wrote in news:glfb8a$2v2$1
@news.motzarella.org:

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.

Learn to fly in a cub. Then learn to use the toys as an iad rather than a
beast that has to be fed.





Bertie

"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.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:44:27 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

We just added a glass 172 to the fleet. There's a learning
curve for us older guys but the young will get it easily. The airplane
still flies like a 172, the PFD is no harder to read than the steam
gauges after a few minutes, and anyone with a few hours solo in a 172
could fly it safely. The bigger learning involves the multiple pages
and functions of the MFD and the procedures taken if an electrical
problem arises. Most 172s have one electrical bus, maybe two if it has
an avionics master. The glass airplane has SIX buses and you need to
know their management.

I don't thinl, in the PPL, that the aforementioned flight training
school teaches those things. Even if they did, what value does that have
to a newbie pilot who finds that Cessnas dominate the rental
marketplace?

There was a similar steam-gauge versus digital argument when
digital watches and clocks and calculators came out. Expensive they
were, but actually cheaper to build since much of the assembly is
easily automated as opposed to the old units with tiny gears and
levers and sensitive and fragile bits, just like an airplane's
instruments. Whether we like it or not, glass is going to become the
norm on newer airplanes, not just because of its capabilities nor its
selling power, but because it's cheaper to make. And many older
aircraft will get retrofitted once the competition builds and the
glass makers have to take less profit and find new markets.

This is a valid argument and is the one that EAA flight training makes.
But in this time when the next few years, money is tighter and newbies
fewer, I am not sure this makes initial sense in the training regimen.

So find a school with glass and get with it. Or fool with a
simulator that has it.

When I walk out to rent a plane, 4 of 5 have steam gauges. The remaining
are more expensive. It's not getting with it, it's practicality
especially in today's ever increasing demands on new GA pilots, Dan.

Glass is a superior system in many ways, that I have no argument with.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:09:57 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Learn to fly in a cub. Then learn to use the toys as an iad rather than a
beast that has to be fed.

yeah, go back to your booze bottle.

"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