Glass Panel Training

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:44:22 GMT, vaughn wrote:

"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?

Prolly for the same reason they buy medical insurance with $35K limits,
the rest they say "sue me" over


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

Here we have six training and four of them rent, two other rents only,
mostly Cessnas.

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.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:44:22 GMT, vaughn wrote:
Secondary question: Why do folks rent $250,000 planes when the most
renter's
insurance you can buy is usually $100,000?

Prolly for the same reason they buy medical insurance with $35K limits,
the rest they say "sue me" over

That is a great strategy if you have no attachable assets. Otherwise...

Vaughn

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:42:36 -0800, BT wrote:

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.

SW FL Naples, Marco Island, Ft. Myer's and Tampa

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.

Oooh, no one mentioned that at the FBOs, thanks!

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 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 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

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

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?