Am I oldschool for prefering to train on the steam guages?

PrincessPilotNJ

PrincessPilotNJ

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
106
Display Name
Display name:
WATXNJMA
My flight school is great, I couldn't ask for a better group of people or planes. Many of my friends opted to start their training using a G1000. I actually love learning to fly the traditional way, then advancing from there.
 

Attachments

  • Cockpit-instruments1974.jpg
    Cockpit-instruments1974.jpg
    95.4 KB · Views: 99
Either works. Probably less expensive with the steam instruments.
 
I could argue that it is easier to learn glass then transition to steam easier than it is to only learn steam then try and transition to glass.

I trained in a G1000 as my primary trainer...by accident...was supposed to be steam but school put me in G1000 due to a conflict with the steam plane, but knew I would be flying steam gauges post PPL with my budget and what I planned on flying. Well, I wound up with a partial glass plane with an Aspen panel in the plane I ultimately bought. Funny thing is that I fly almost solely by the steam gauges even though I have glass right in front of me and that is what I trained on.

Glass is just how the information is presented. Navigation is what everyone needs to learn "old school" then how to apply the technology. IFR is where the G1000 excels, but learning during your PPL can be very valuable.

I own my plane but while renting post PPL, I had many more option available to me being comfortable in both and made my transition into a 430W which is a common GPS in many planes a no brainier coming from a G1000.
 
Last edited:
I look at steam gauges as being able do to math with pencil and paper and glass as using a calculator.


Any idiot can use a calculator.
 
Far more steam aircraft than glass, if that's a factor for you. Many, many hybrids, with steam for primary flight instruments and glass-like navigators.

Having flown both, VFR and IFR, more is made if the diffrence than is likely warranted.
 
EdFred said:
I look at steam gauges as being able do to math with pencil and paper and glass as using a calculator.


Any idiot can use a calculator.
Click to expand...

I'll give ya the analog vs digital analogy but any "idiot" can not just hop in a G1000 cockpit like anyone can hop in a steam gauges cockpit.
 
I did my first ten hours in a steam gauge C172S, and then continued on to the G1000. I think it's important to experience both, ironically enough originally I was a huge proponent for glass panel, and when I picked up my plane in Arizona I had to fly it back to the east coast steam gauge before it was retrofitted with the glass panel. I was happy to have the original seat time to immediately feel comfortable in the cockpit opposed to it feeling foreign.

I truly think it depends on what the majority of your flying will be; for cross country flying I like the glass panel, for flying aerobatics and local flight I'm content with steam gauge.
 
I think that if you are transitioning between different versions of glass it is a bigger step than transitioning between different round-dial panels. You see the resistance to the new forum software here? It's the same with going from system to system in glass. They are computers, with different inputs you need to learn.
 
Shawn said:
I'll give ya the analog vs digital analogy but any "idiot" can not just hop in a G1000 cockpit like anyone can hop in a steam gauges cockpit.
Click to expand...

you'll learn more about the "why" on steam vs glass just barfing up the information. But if you don't care about the "why" feel free to drone on.
 
Maybe it's "old school," but so what?

You can dumb down glass so that the experience is similar to steam, but you really have to leave a lot out to do that. Like not touching autopilot nor GPS. Once you add both those in, plus all the auxiliaries, you have much more complexity to deal with in glass.

At least one person has confused glass with PFD. Complexity in G1000 comes mostly from the MFD and autopilot.
 
Starting on steam definitely has some advantages.

With the same inputs you can generally get the same result whether it's steam or glass. The difference is that steam requires your brain to do a lot of the processing of the inputs, whereas the glass does it for you.

The Law of Primacy states:
Primacy, the state of being first, often creates a strong, almost unshakable, impression. Things learned first create a strong impression in the mind that is difficult to erase. For the instructor, this means that what is taught must be right the first time. For the student, it means that learning must be right. “Unteaching” wrong first impressions is harder than teaching them right the first time.
Click to expand...

Learning to become a pilot really consists of one primary thing: building blocks. We flight instructors know that a student can't accomplish X unless they've already mastered blocks A, B & C. We know that they can't complete C unless they've completed B and A. And so on. These blocks get incredibly burned into a student. They get really good at executing these blocks.

Steam gauges require that pilots do a lot of interpretation of information and context. Really too damn much of it. That's why we got glass in the first place. The engineers have put a LOT of work into displaying information to a pilot as efficiently as possible. Easier. That's a good thing really.

Problem is when you put one of those glass-only pilots into a steam gauge aircraft things get ugly. They now are required to do a LOT more interpretation throughout all the phases of flight. The building blocks they were originally taught, that have served them well, and kept them alive so far, suddenly don't contain what they need. They need to learn a considerable amount, if gauges fail, they actually have no training on how to recognize it. They don't get big X's and computer warnings. They have to be the computer and figure it out... It can certainly be done, they can transition, but it'll never be as programmed into them as the other things they learned on their first flying lesson.

Of course a steam only guy can't safely just jump in glass and fly on a 200 ft ceiling day, especially if he had never operated a garmin product or an IFR GPS. Transitioning between either types should be taken seriously.
 
image.jpg There's nothing wrong with steam gages. I've flown west to Yellowstone, south to Miami and north to Niagara Falls with steam gages, a Garmin 430 WAAS and simple autopilot. I much prefer glancing at needles for airspeed and altitude than trying to read the number on a tape. Just like with a clock, I can glance and see the altimeter needle pointing straight down and know my altitude is correct.

With glass, I have to look longer to see what the number is, then think "is that correct?" And what's with the VSI going away, then suddenly appearing at say 100-150 fpm? Go up / down 50 fpm for several,minutes and don't notice your number is changing, there you are, fat and happy at the wrong altitude,with no clue something is wrong.
 
Not old school. It'll be cheaper to train, and a far more portable skill. Having just transitioned to glass, I'm blown away by a) the difference (don't underestimate the transition time) and b) the improvement in situational awareness. I can imagine that the transition would be harder in the other direction.

If I had to do it again, I'd go the same way. Learn on steam and transition later.
 
With steam, you will be twice as safe:

attachment.php

​
dtuuri
 
If the steam gauge airplane is cheaper, train there. When you buy, or rent something fancier, transition then.

BTW, why are they called steam gauges? There hasn't been a flight of a steam powered airplane since the mid 30's.
 
Bill Jennings said:
BTW, why are they called steam gauges? There hasn't been a flight of a steam powered airplane since the mid 30's.
Click to expand...

Just an expression or term for the old instruments vs the new stuff such as 430, G1000 etc.
 
Last edited:
I personally went the "steam gauge" route for training even though they pushed the G1000 C172 on me at times. Reason being that I probably would one day own a plane and that plane would NOT be glass panel.

If you plan to buy, fly what you are going to own. If you have 500K lying around for a new Cirrus or something then yeah go glass. Most older planes out there are "steam" and the ones that do have some glass added are usually an Aspen or a GTN 750, etc. Hardly a full glass panel. If you are going to rent, then fly what fits into your budget.

There's nothing "old school" about steam gauges and it doesn't make you cooler. It's just a preference.

Nothing wrong with glass panels either, but they DO spoil you. The one thing I loved about them was the "fly the box" feature. You could load up an approach path, heading, etc and it would show boxes that you just fly through to stay on course. Really made IFR flying stupid easy.
 
Bill Jennings said:
If the steam gauge airplane is cheaper, train there. When you buy, or rent something fancier, transition then.

BTW, why are they called steam gauges? There hasn't been a flight of a steam powered airplane since the mid 30's.
Click to expand...
They look like this panel:

373181190_3bf4007234_b.jpg


dtuuri
 
Fly both steam and glass for work. The basic instrumentation "six pack" really doesn't matter to me. I can fly either one and be just as comfortable.

Where glass separates itself from steam are the enhancements that you can get on glass. Having NEXRAD, traffic, SVT and TAWS depicted on a glass display is a significant benefit over a steam cockpit.
 
The FAA still tests on steam. I'd start there then do a transition to glass.
 
The FAA tests on glass too, I got a question about the air data computer failing on my PPL written. But I agree that you should have the "steam gauge" as the base before you jump into glass. After all, if the glass fails (checkride for example) you will be expected to use what's left.
 
It's funny to me that this topic just popped up. I am returning to my training later this week and all my past training has been in glass cockpit. While the school does have a glass C172, due to a scheduling conflict I will be getting the steam gauge C172. I was originally nervous about this but the more I think about it i'ts probably a good idea to be familiar/comfortable with both. This way no matter what type of cockpit you end up in you will be able to familiar with the set up and more comfortable flying it. I might try alternating each flight one in glass and then the next in steam and so on and so on as training progresses. It's only a $10 difference in price for the plane so really nothing I am going to sweat over but we'll see I guess.
 
When I was training, the G1000s were a good $50/hour more. No thanks, I'll be on steam gauges for as longs as I'm footing the bill. But if the cost isn't as much of a concern for you and it's just a matter of preference, good for you for preferring the "old school" method.
 
Flyguy8911 said:
It's funny to me that this topic just popped up. I am returning to my training later this week and all my past training has been in glass cockpit. While the school does have a glass C172, due to a scheduling conflict I will be getting the steam gauge C172. I was originally nervous about this but the more I think about it i'ts probably a good idea to be familiar/comfortable with both. This way no matter what type of cockpit you end up in you will be able to familiar with the set up and more comfortable flying it. I might try alternating each flight one in glass and then the next in steam and so on and so on as training progresses. It's only a $10 difference in price for the plane so really nothing I am going to sweat over but we'll see I guess.
Click to expand...
If the glass is a G1000, I'd really suggest transitioning there after completing your training. It will take a lot longer than you think. If it's a retrofit, it depends on what's installed. Much of the complexity in glass comes from coupled autopilots and terrible GPS interfaces. The basics of flight are the same regardless of the panel, so all that complexity does not contribute to your goal of becoming a pilot.
 
The easiest airplane to get the IFR in is a 6 pack with two VOR's, one with a glideslope. No GPS. Still true.

Once you have the ticket, train on what you fly, get good at it.
 
coloradobluesky said:
The easiest airplane to get the IFR in is a 6 pack with two VOR's, one with a glideslope. No GPS. Still true.

Once you have the ticket, train on what you fly, get good at it.
Click to expand...

Why is that? Because you won't be tested on all the other stuff? I understand that reasoning, but seems like you'd want to get your rating in something as close to what you usually fly.

If you usually fly with that setup, awesome. But to me, you do yourself a huge disservice by dumbing down the plane to get your ticket. Look at some of the accidents that happened over the last few years where people did that, and then got into a TAA thinking they could handle it because they were rated, when instead they should have TRAINED in the TAA, not the "minimally" equipped IFR aircraft.
 
Train in the aircraft configuration you are going to end up flying in the future.
 
Old school for PP and glass for IR. I'm now comfortable with either.
 
PrincessPilotNJ said:
My flight school is great, I couldn't ask for a better group of people or planes. Many of my friends opted to start their training using a G1000. I actually love learning to fly the traditional way, then advancing from there.
Click to expand...

A few years ago at a biz aircraft show I spent more than an hour on the ground with a bored Beech corporate pilot taking me through the G1000 in a new Baron (he had time on his hands because everyone else was oogling the jets). I came away with the impression that some considerable time investment would be required just to use the G1000 proficiently.

If it's PPL training you are doing the primary purpose should be to learn to fly the airplane, not the panel. I don't think it should make much difference what is in the panel, go with you preference, but would be wary of becoming absorbed in "systems management" training time with a G1000.
 
I prefer steam. I spend enough time looking at screens. But I don't fly far, nor fast, nor anything else that requires anything other than my brain and eyeballs. If I did, I might feel differently.

Rich
 
I think the brain digests a needle location faster than a number readout. Especially a rapidly changing number. Unless the comparison is with tapes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top