Glass Panel Training

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

In article ,
says...


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


In light of your chosen adjectives, I cannot doubt the sincerity of your
opinion on the matter, however in purely objective terms I would have
difficulty imagining a more off-topic post. . .

Perhaps you intended to respond to a different thread ? ? ? ?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:53:23 -0500, Peter Dohm wrote:

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

Peter, why those numbers? I agree but would appreciate your additional
comments.