Glass Panel Training

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

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?"

Comments appreciated.

I think glass IS the standard instrumentation anymore . I dont think
you can buy a new plane with round dials (Exept for a few specialty
airplanes like the American Champion . Even most LSA's come with at
least a MFD . In order to answer your question you need to ask what
type of flying you will do . If you plan to fly an old Cub then dont
worry about a modern panel . I think it would be cheaper to train in a
modern plane for the IR because of the ease of use you will get done
faster .
FB

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!


The Cirrus is more of a "machine" than a Diamond Star DA40 and would require
a higher checkout.
A primary student learning in a DA40 would (*should) meet all Insurance
requirements at the time of solo, or the FBO/Instructor is not doing his
job. Yes, it would be good to get renters insurance to at least cover the
deductible that you as a student would be responsible for if the accident is
your screw-up. It would be very difficult to get "Renters Insurance" to
cover the full hull value and lose of use of the aircraft.

BT

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. . .

F. Baum wrote:
On Jan 24, 8:14 am, Gezellig wrote:

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?"

Comments appreciated.

I think glass IS the standard instrumentation anymore . I dont think
you can buy a new plane with round dials (Exept for a few specialty
airplanes like the American Champion . Even most LSA's come with at
least a MFD . In order to answer your question you need to ask what
type of flying you will do . If you plan to fly an old Cub then dont
worry about a modern panel . I think it would be cheaper to train in a
modern plane for the IR because of the ease of use you will get done
faster .
FB


There are pretty good technical grouds why the instrument
panels are going to glass: If you have ever looked inside
a conventional instrument, it is pretty obvious that the
change is of the same cause as the common watches. An analog
instrument is a two to twelwe inch long box filled with
watchwork mechanics. It is far more expensive to produce and
maintain than a digital instrument.

Agreed - even the glass panel components are very complex
inside, but the parts are automatically mass-produced to all
data processing, and this is where the economics come in.

--

Tauno Voipio, Avionics engineer, CPL(A)
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

I'm sure its much easier for the factory to just plug in a glass panel
than to route power, data, static, and pitot through the back of the
panel. Just a couple data cables and you're ready to go.

-Robert


On Jan 27, 10:20*am, Tauno Voipio wrote:


There are pretty good technical grouds why the instrument
panels are going to glass: If you have ever looked inside
a conventional instrument, it is pretty obvious that the
change is of the same cause as the common watches. An analog
instrument is a two to twelwe inch long box filled with
watchwork mechanics. It is far more expensive to produce and
maintain than a digital instrument.

Agreed - even the glass panel components are very complex
inside, but the parts are automatically mass-produced to all
data processing, and this is where the economics come in.

--

Tauno Voipio, Avionics engineer, CPL(A)
tauno voipio (at) iki fi- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:47:59 -0800, BT wrote:

It would be very difficult to get "Renters Insurance" to
cover the full hull value and lose of use of the aircraft.

"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

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.

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.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:20:18 GMT, Tauno Voipio wrote:

There are pretty good technical grouds why the instrument
panels are going to glass: If you have ever looked inside
a conventional instrument, it is pretty obvious that the
change is of the same cause as the common watches. An analog
instrument is a two to twelwe inch long box filled with
watchwork mechanics. It is far more expensive to produce and
maintain than a digital instrument.

Agreed - even the glass panel components are very complex
inside, but the parts are automatically mass-produced to all
data processing, and this is where the economics come in.

And the profits especially as the mfg numbers go up and the cost/unit
goes down.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:07:35 -0800 (PST), F. Baum wrote:

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

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?"

Comments appreciated.

I think glass IS the standard instrumentation anymore . I dont think
you can buy a new plane with round dials (Exept for a few specialty
airplanes like the American Champion . Even most LSA's come with at
least a MFD .

Are most purchases from new pilots of new airplanes? My guess is No. Are
most planes that are bought steam gauged? Yes. Do most new pilots buy or
rent? Rent. What do they rent? Cessnas for the most part, steam gauged;
which leads us back to the original 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
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."

In order to answer your question you need to ask what
type of flying you will do. If you plan to fly an old Cub then dont
worry about a modern panel.

The question is problematic, I don't know the %s but how many new pilots
know what they ultimately will end up doing? I didn't and I spent a
great deal of time researching, talking and I did not see the need for
multi or glass or traveling over water and rougher terrains (where a
multi might/would be preferable).

Others who have better defined limitations (budget, job considerations,
sport piloting) you can apply your "type of flying" directly and
accurately.

I think it would be cheaper to train in a
modern plane for the IR because of the ease of use you will get done
faster .
FB

Agree with that.