Ye Olde Learn on Glass or Steam Gauges Debate

FWIW I think it’s easier to go from steam to glass than vice verse. I flew on steam forever until I got my instrument rating (which I did behind a G1000) and I have glass in my own plane. For me the transition to glass was a complete non-issue.
 
The benefits of glass over steam are minor. I can fly steam just as easy as flying glass. Actually did it this week for work.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
New article in Plane and Pilot on this. I did not have a choice as my Cardinal had steam gauges. I feel like it will take a bit of adaption to a glass cockpit, if I ever upgrade.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/in-praise-of-analog-gauges/#.Xn6AYS-ZPh8
Click to expand...

Student pilots tend to place excessive emphasis on the avionics as if it defines their entire experience. IMHO, it would be best if everyone flew an airplane with just an airspeed, altimeter and compass (glass or analog) until at least the first solo.
 
I went from steam (172) to glass (Cirrus, CRJ) and now I’m back to steam (MD88/90). My scan definitely needed some work but after the second lesson, everything made sense again.
 
If possible, learn what you are going to fly. But to be honest, the transition to glass is not that hard. The most difficult part for me is getting used to the altimeter tape. I am still really conditioned to scanning the analog instrument to verify altitude control. The tape is just as sensitive if not more, it just doesn't register as fast in my brain. For some reason, the ASI tape seems easier to fold into the old brainwaves. I'm tempted to cover it up on a training flight or IPC. Having the CDI right there is awesome, though. It's so easy to nail the CDI on an LPV or ILS when you don't have to scan for a separate CDI.
 
I am definitely a fan of first learning with analogue gauges and then incrementally working your way up through more modern instruments (and avionics) as your flying hobby/career progresses. In general, you can learn with anything legal so long as you take transition training seriously. I am in a bit of an awkward situation where I did my IFR training in a G1000 and now I’m trying to fly practice approaches using much less convenient setups... how spoiled I was!
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
New article in Plane and Pilot on this. I did not have a choice as my Cardinal had steam gauges. I feel like it will take a bit of adaption to a glass cockpit, if I ever upgrade.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/in-praise-of-analog-gauges/#.Xn6AYS-ZPh8
Click to expand...

Didn’t read the article but it’s a situation close to my heart. I was raised on steam where you had to see the ‘picture’ in your head from the information on the ‘dials.’ Took about 25 years off from flyin then started again. After check out and Flight Review moved on to IPC. New world. Buttons, buttons, buttons. Gotta make sure you push the right button, in the exact right sequence, or, sheet, gotta start over. Oh sheet, where’d my ‘scan’ go. Disclaimer, I’m doin this without autopilot. My punchline became, GPS was invented to increase autopilot sales. But yeah, I get it. Something different from what you were raised on is, well, different.
 
I think that if you learned solely on glass, learning to build the picture in your head when switching to steam would take a while.

I went from flying with a 430 to a G1000 in about 45 minutes. Entering the flight plan, choosing approaches, etc is exactly the same on the G1000 as it is on the 430. What took the longest was just that my interpretation of airspeed and altimeter tapes wasn't automatic as it was with dials.

I actually kinda like the dial for altimeter, you don't really have to even look directly at it, just keep the needle vertical which you can do in your peripheral vision.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think that if you learned solely on glass, learning to build the picture in your head when switching to steam would take a while.

I went from flying with a 430 to a G1000 in about 45 minutes. Entering the flight plan, choosing approaches, etc is exactly the same on the G1000 as it is on the 430. What took the longest was just that my interpretation of airspeed and altimeter tapes wasn't automatic as it was with dials.

I actually kinda like the dial for altimeter, you don't really have to even look directly at it, just keep the needle vertical which you can do in your peripheral vision.
Click to expand...

430 has the map page. That’s kinda like ‘glass.’ Not disputing you, just makin a point
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I actually kinda like the dial for altimeter, you don't really have to even look directly at it, just keep the needle vertical which you can do in your peripheral vision.
Click to expand...
I suppose the analog (pun intended) to that on the G1000 would be to bug the altitude and keep the blue thing caged. Don't really need to read the numbers directly.
 
asicer said:
I suppose the analog (pun intended) to that on the G1000 would be to bug the altitude and keep the blue thing caged. Don't really need to read the numbers directly.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's why it is SOP on glass to always use the bug.
 
luvflyin said:
430 has the map page. That’s kinda like ‘glass.’ Not disputing you, just makin a point
Click to expand...

My point was just that the similar operating logic was a contributor to being able to switch so quickly. Someone who used a different GPS, or no GPS, would have a longer learning curve.

Also, when talking "glass" vs "steam" we're generally speaking of the instruments used to control the aircraft, of which the GPS is not one. ;) But having experience with an IFR GPS, especially one that's from the same manufacturer or otherwise similar, definitely helps.

asicer said:
I suppose the analog (pun intended) to that on the G1000 would be to bug the altitude and keep the blue thing caged. Don't really need to read the numbers directly.
Click to expand...

IMO it's not nearly as easy to see the bug in your peripheral vision as it is to see whether a needle is vertical or not.

That said, I greatly prefer glass. I fly behind G1000 (TBM 850/900) and G1000 NXi (TBM 910) for work. Can't wait to get glass in the Mooney!
 
Funny thing... I am techno geek gadget boy as they come. Trained in a G1000 but then bought my 182 with kida the best of both worlds. 6 Pack steam PLUS a Aspen panel which essentially give me partial glass panel.

I fly by steam gauges 95% of the time...find it easier to see the trends and tell the story on what is happening. Glass is now just "meh" for me as a priority.

I would agree that the transition from glass to steam is easier than steam to glass.

...but in the end the the stick, the rudder, and aerodynamics don't care what is in the panel.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Did you type that wrong? It seems the consenus is that steam->glass is easier than the other way...
Click to expand...

No, but I will acknowledged there is no right or wrong answer cuz everyone is different in how they process information, nor is either way really that big of deal.

I can recall towards the end of my training in the G1000 which was the only plane I ever flew asking my CFI to go up in a steam gauge and get some time in that cuz I knew I was gonna buy a plane but unlikely to afford a glass panel and wanted to know what to expect. It was a non issue and was immediately comfortable on steam then back to the G1000 to finish up with no need for more time in steam.

Now, some may have more issues immediacy interpreting the information on a busy glass screen vs steam dials...but that all deepens on what your are used to. Play video games a lot...likely no problem...prefer an along watch and have no idea what Minecraft even is...may be a bit more difficult at first...but again, gross generalization IMO.
 
Last edited:
I trained in steam, did my IFR MOSTLY with G5s, own a steam (getting G3x) and a G3x plane. Prefer glass and tapes, but I really enjoy steam too. I get a lot of information from the classic TC and VSI that I interpret better than tape presentation. I much prefer glass attitude and airspeed presentation.
 
Manageable either way, but generally it is considered "easier" to transition from steam to glass than the other way around. That has certainly been my experience, observing up close and personal.

I think as for training there's probably not a strong universal argument to be made for one vs. the other. Look at all the factors and do what fits your personal situation the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top