Glass Panel Training

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

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:15:42 -0800 (PST), 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

The age issue is what slants me to what I perceive as a bigger issue in
the steam-glass transition since I am older. I also have a technology
background and find this helps in (planning) the transition.

In article , says...


Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

How do you justify this statement?
I'm not being argumentative, but I wonder if you have specific instructing
experience or published results from those who do to support this statement.

Also, are you referring to IFR or to ab initio VFR training?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:18:43 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:

In article , says...


Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

How do you justify this statement?
I'm not being argumentative, but I wonder if you have specific instructing
experience or published results from those who do to support this statement.

Also, are you referring to IFR or to ab initio VFR training?

The thread is about PPL training glass v.s. steam, I believe he means
that transition for the newbie pilot.

On Jan 26, 10:18*am, Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:18:43 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:
In article , says...

Transition from glass to steam gauges is a minor transition.

How do you justify this statement?
I'm not being argumentative, but I wonder if you have specific instructing
experience or published results from those who do to support this statement.

Also, are you referring to IFR or to ab initio VFR training?

The thread is about PPL training glass v.s. steam, I believe he means
that transition for the newbie pilot.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a newbie pilot needs to
transition from anything? I've never transitioned a pilot from glass
to steam (doesn't happen very often) but I would imagine that it woudl
be difficult. The glass takes a lot of the "scan and interpret" away
from the flying duties. Going back to steam means that you need to
look at several instruments and develop a mental picture of what is
happening.

-Robert, CFII

In article ,
says...


That doesn't make any sense. Why would a newbie pilot need to
transition from anything? I've never transitioned a pilot from glass
to steam (doesn't happen very often) but I would imagine that it would
be difficult. The glass takes a lot of the "scan and interpret" away
from the flying duties. Going back to steam means that you need to
look at several instruments and develop a mental picture of what is
happening.

-Robert, CFII

My thoughts exactly.
Without supporting documentation from the original author, we have to take this
as a flippant affirmation. . .

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:27:19 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:

In article ,
says...


That doesn't make any sense. Why would a newbie pilot need to
transition from anything? I've never transitioned a pilot from glass
to steam (doesn't happen very often) but I would imagine that it would
be difficult. The glass takes a lot of the "scan and interpret" away
from the flying duties. Going back to steam means that you need to
look at several instruments and develop a mental picture of what is
happening.

-Robert, CFII

My thoughts exactly.
Without supporting documentation from the original author, we have to take this
as a flippant affirmation. . .

I'm the OP, here's the opening post.

================================================== ============

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, "steam"
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 to glass) 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.

"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, "steam"
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 to glass) 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.

My best guess is that the new designs will haul about the same payload as a
Cessna 152 at about the same speed as a Cessna 172 for a lower cost per mile
than either of the other two. That will probably work out for both hobbs
time and tach time in the very near future--assuming that it is not already
the case.

That does not mean that I am in the least bit pleased. Based upon my belief
that the LSA standard will form the basis of the next new training fleet,
and I remain disgusted by those standards! I believe that the weight limit
should have been at least 750Kg instead of 600Kg, the maximum cruising speed
should have been at least 130Kts instead of 120Kts, and that the standards
should have amended as needed to include the maximum number of type
certificates already owned by US manufacturers for w seat aircraft.

Peter
Comment as requested