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

drotto said:
Good point. Honestly, many of the planes we fly today are in essence a hybrid between all glass and all steam. A G530W coupled to an AP and a standard HSI is going to fly IFR no different than if that 530 was slaved to a G1000. The GPS system is basically a MFD regardless or what the rest of the gauges may be. It is really the navigation and approach abilities that are the main difference between steam and glass, and a GPS negates a lot of that.
Click to expand...

It's similar, but still not "the same."

My first coupled autopilot was an STEC 50 coupled to an Aspen Evolution and GNS430W. That Aspen never tried to switch the CDI for me automatically, nor had any VNAV capabilities at all. STEC 50 doesn't have "armed" modes such as altitude capture. G1000 does all those things. If you do it the way Garmin expects (e.g., don't try pushing the VNV button too far ahead of descent, or it won't do it).
 
MAKG1 said:
It's similar, but still not "the same."

My first coupled autopilot was an STEC 50 coupled to an Aspen Evolution and GNS430W. That Aspen never tried to switch the CDI for me automatically, nor had any VNAV capabilities at all. STEC 50 doesn't have "armed" modes such as altitude capture. G1000 does all those things. If you do it the way Garmin expects (e.g., don't try pushing the VNV button too far ahead of descent, or it won't do it).
Click to expand...


My plane has a G500 with a G750, and a King 200 AP. That thing will fly everything for you basically right into the ground (except for power management) if you let it. The plane does have an old HSI that can be use as a backup if the G500 fails. I am still training for IFR and have not tried the plane configured that way yet.
 
dtuuri said:
With steam, you will be twice as safe:

attachment.php

​
dtuuri
Click to expand...

I'm glad dturri found this. I was recently reading an article which described in words the information shown in this chart, but can't remember where I read it. Might have been Avweb, or Flying. The point was that when things go south it appears conventional instruments are easier to use in salvaging a bad situation. It could be that one gets used to having everything on a screen in front of you, in one place, so when the screen goes dark or goes screwy (such as pitot icing up or other sensor malfunction), even with conventional back-up instruments situational awareness is more difficult to recover if one has gotten accustomed to glass.
 
Isn't the graphic five years and a few months out of date at this point?
 
While interesting, I am not sure you can draw any useful conclusions from the graph. There are too many factors at play. I think the best way to determine the safety of analog vs. glass would be by measuring pilot performance in a simulator under various scenarios.
 
I had a nice flight with my steam gages this evening. I did, however use the Garmin 430W to establish my initial track, and to confirm groundspeed was lower than airspeed on downwind. The winds were twitchy and gusting, often swinging 90°, sometimes more than 135°. That makes it hard for me to judge which way to aim the point end.
 
Hank S said:
I did, however use the Garmin 430W to establish my initial track, and to confirm groundspeed was lower than airspeed on downwind.
Click to expand...
You're in the habit of landing downwind? :eek:

dtuuri
 
Well, I departed from 13, and 10 miles to the NW set up to also land on 13. But groundspeed was lower, indicating that I should have flown straight in, on a 10-mile final to 31. Instead, I got to circle the airport, because my downwind for 13 was the way I should have landed . . . So much easier to do than to write . . .
 
Hank S said:
Well, I departed from 13, and 10 miles to the NW set up to also land on 13. But groundspeed was lower, indicating that I should have flown straight in, on a 10-mile final to 31. Instead, I got to circle the airport, because my downwind for 13 was the way I should have landed . . . So much easier to do than to write . . .
Click to expand...
You took off to the southeast, came waaayy around to the northwest, lined up on final to the southeast (with a headwind) and noticed your groundspeed was "lower". So, you figured you should have been on a 10-mile final for the opposite runway? :confused: Either someone spiked my wine tonight or you have made a mistook.

EDIT: Maybe you meant you extended your downwind for rwy 13 10-miles and "noticed" as opposed to "confirmed" your groundspeed was lower rather than higher? That makes more sense if a downwind can be 10-miles long. I'd prolly log it as x-country.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
I took off SE, into the variable, gusty wind. ASOS 15nm NE was calling 14G22, but I forget the direction; the windsock was often direct E crosswind. No weather reporting here. Flew way around and off the the NW to another small field, 10 nm away.

Entered pattern at downwind location to land back to the SE (flying NW). Looked at windsock, saw I need to land to NW. Crosswind, downwind back to NW runway (flying SE). Look at groundspeed, 10 knots below airspeed.

Windsock now pointing the other way. Crosswind again, ignored windsock, called downwind to land back to SE (flying NW again). Landed to SE. Interesting things on short final over the river, which was flowing south ~1/2 nm below dam. Nose drop, tail slide, rocky rocky, add power to stabilize, pull power to descend, roll to end of 3200' runway to save brakes because the whole final-over-the-river thing made me unexpectedly fast. Now I know it's there, won't be bothered again. Buddy waiting in the ground laughed about the final sink-and-twist, it catches many by surprise.

Hard to write, easy but frustrating to do. Used groundspeed display to confirm / quantify indecisive windsock. Ignored display on final, windsock barely visible. No problem landing once I made up my mind which way to go; the wind was changing faster than I could reverse my pattern.

Going home later, departed on 13; call it 20-25°right crab at 1200 agl. Called 3nm final to 13. At ~300 feet, still lots of right crab as I changed over to right wing low and almost half left rudder. Landed almost wings level with a little left rudder, just at sunset. Made the midfield turnoff (2500' from each end) with only light braking, taxied back to hangar. I forget the groundspeed readout in this, a 10nm flight barely leaves time to reduce power and lean. But I did so for each flight, just no ignominious circling the airport the second time.
 
Hank S said:
Used groundspeed display to confirm / quantify indecisive windsock.
Click to expand...
Sorry you had to write such a lengthy explanation on my account. The earlier post sounded to me like you wanted to make sure you had a slower groundspeed on downwind. I see what you meant now. Carry on. :)

dtuuri
 
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...
I'm with you, I'm 29, my generation typically frowns on anything old school. I have a PPL and getting close to getting my instrument training done. I like the 6 pack with just a garmin 430. I really don't have much desire to fly anything glass cockpit. Nothing wrong with being old school if you ask me.
 
TRocket said:
I'm with you, I'm 29, my generation typically frowns on anything old school. I have a PPL and getting close to getting my instrument training done. I like the 6 pack with just a garmin 430. I really don't have much desire to fly anything glass cockpit. Nothing wrong with being old school if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't know if it's been said above, but...

I'm 35. I don't think steam gauges are "old school," I think old school is flying cross-country with sectionals and dead reckoning and or VORs, and quite frankly while if I'm flying IFR I have to fly VORs because my personal plane is /a, give me an iPad and foreflight anyway. Now if you'd prefer flying without an iPad or equivalent...that's old school.
 
gov98 said:
Eh, I don't know if it's been said above, but...

I'm 35. I don't think steam gauges are "old school," I think old school is flying cross-country with sectionals and dead reckoning and or VORs, and quite frankly while if I'm flying IFR I have to fly VORs because my personal plane is /a, give me an iPad and foreflight anyway. Now if you'd prefer flying without an iPad or equivalent...that's old school.
Click to expand...

I like the argument that nobody (or very few) are really flying old school anymore. Yes some have steam, and some have glass, but if would bet there are virtually zero pilots that do true XC without an iPad or equivalent on their lap. Now I did my initial training XC with paper everything, but now I would not get in a plane without and EFB, and more so if you are doing anything IFR. That iPad with GPS while not certified gives you more capability then virtually any device ever specifically designed for a plane.
 
What changes things is the ability to go direct to any waypoint with GPS. THAT was a drastic change from having to fly VOR ot VOR usually via airways.
 
I mostly learned ifr flying with steam gauges but my cross country plane had a g1000. I was pretty familiar with g1000 so wasn't much to transition to it. I took test in a steam warrior with fsdo examiner. He asked why I took test with steam if my cross country plane was glass. He said far was considering limiting you to what you had taken your test in possibly in future but people who already had ifr would be grandfathered in most probably. I flew home from my test ifr with glass and was comfortable. Did learn about going thru ice layer on approach which I wasn't so comfortable with however. Once was enough in non fiki plane. Took care of that in my next plane.
 
drotto said:
I like the argument that nobody (or very few) are really flying old school anymore. Yes some have steam, and some have glass, but if would bet there are virtually zero pilots that do true XC without an iPad or equivalent on their lap. Now I did my initial training XC with paper everything, but now I would not get in a plane without and EFB, and more so if you are doing anything IFR. That iPad with GPS while not certified gives you more capability then virtually any device ever specifically designed for a plane.
Click to expand...

If you wouldn't get into an airplane without an EFB, you need to fix that.

I'm headed out to Australia in a few weeks. An iPad and Foreflight is not useful there. I do intend on flying.

I guess I must be "virtually zero" because I don't hesitate to do a spur-of-the-moment cross country if I don't have my iPad with me, even IFR. And it happens occasionally on unexpectedly nice days, sometimes while on travel. I don't generally take the iPad to work.
 
coloradobluesky said:
What changes things is the ability to go direct to any waypoint with GPS. THAT was a drastic change from having to fly VOR ot VOR usually via airways.
Click to expand...

Also an easy way to fly through special use airspace going direct if one isn't careful.
 
I still flight plan airways where feasible.

I was leaving KOSH and approach asked "I noticed you're slant golf and you filed airways... would you like direct?"

I was floored, it was like they were offering free candy. "....yes please! arrow blah blah blah".

"Arrow blah blah blah, cleared direct blah blah blah."

Again, just shaking my head at the sheer awesomeness of it all.

"Cleared direct blah blah blah, arrow blah blah blah."

I did my private training with one VOR, no DME. I did a chunk of my instrument in a similar setup, one VOR/ILS, no DME.

The last bit of my instrument training I was introduced to GPS approaches; so GPS is still "new" to me, and not my first instinct (yet).
 
I spent 20 years on "steam", and when I first went to a glass cockpit, I thought that I did a better job on steam, using peripheral in my scan to see actual needle movements and staying tighter on it that way...but my first official insurance checkout flight in the plane was in IMC shooting an approach into Indy, and I had absolutely no trouble transitioning to the glass. These days it seems easier, especially with the SV. However, to the reverse, I've seen quite a few people who learned on glass who are sloppy as heck when they get to "steam", because their scan is different, they're not used to having to look at different instruments and look at needles, it's normally all in one spot in front of their eyes and now it isn't. I'm going to teach my kid on steam first--there are still more planes so equipped than are equipped with glass, and I like the foundation of it. Plus it's cheaper to train in and more rental places have steam. If a person was going to buy their own airplane, then learn in what they buy, steam or glass. Otherwise, I'd go with less expensive and good foundation first, then if one wants to transition to glass, it's pretty easy, just takes some training on the specific equipment in the airplane, which is true no matter what, regardless. You learn in a G1000 and move to an Aspen 1000Pro, or an Avidyne whatever, you still have to do transition training on the specific equipment and avionics in the plane. Why spend so much extra on learning to land with a glass panel, or learning the IR basics in it (unless that's what you're going to fly from then on). But for me, I found going from steam to glass to be a non-event piece of cake.
 
gov98 said:
Eh, I don't know if it's been said above, but...

I'm 35. I don't think steam gauges are "old school," I think old school is flying cross-country with sectionals and dead reckoning and or VORs, and quite frankly while if I'm flying IFR I have to fly VORs because my personal plane is /a, give me an iPad and foreflight anyway. Now if you'd prefer flying without an iPad or equivalent...that's old school.
Click to expand...

Nah, I don't fly with a tablet of any kind. Sometimes I'll take it along if I think about it and I've updated everything, but often then forget to turn it on. I do keep a current sectional in the plane, complete with drawn and highlighted lines from past long XCs. An hour or so doesn't really count as "long" though; most of my long XCs involve at least two sectionals.

drotto said:
I like the argument that nobody (or very few) are really flying old school anymore. Yes some have steam, and some have glass, but if would bet there are virtually zero pilots that do true XC without an iPad or equivalent on their lap. Now I did my initial training XC with paper everything, but now I would not get in a plane without and EFB, and more so if you are doing anything IFR. That iPad with GPS while not certified gives you more capability then virtually any device ever specifically designed for a plane.
Click to expand...

There you go again,thinking the whole world is like you . . . But I'm not, and I'm not the only one who isn't. My Garmin 430W is much more powerful than your silly iPad, or even my own silly iPad, which is why I fly with the Garmin and not the ithing. It's even cellular, which has its own GPS. But why do I need the tablet when I have the 430? The problem with the tablet is twofold: 1) it's not legal (or smart) to use for primary IFR navigation, much less an approach in actual; 2) the zoom is problematic, when you zoom out to look around more than 20-25 nm ahead, you lose all the detail. That doesn't happen with my sectional, I can unfold it and look a hundred nm ahead in great detail. The Garmin keeps me on course in VMC and IMC, and it has everything in it that ATC will reference except airways, so I just look ahead and put in the VORs where the airway turns. But then again, I've only been given airway routings once outside of Florida.

Let's just agree to all get along, and stop pretending that each other don't exist, or that the other is hopelessly behind the times or incompetent to fly without electronic assistance. Shut off my GOS, I can still reach my destination two states away. And I can fly all day and not worry about batteries running out or handheld stuff overheating or shutting down, or oops, I out running errands and get a call to join a dinner flight and don't have time to run home, grab my tablet and update the charts that expired four or five days ago . . . .

P.S.--I don't have wires strung all over the cockpit, nor do I have to carefully climb in and out around things hanging off the yoke and/or windows,and it doesn't take me five or ten minutes to out everything together before I can crank up and taxi away. Here in the South, that's about to get important, planes get hot sitting in the sun with the prop not turning.
 
Last edited:
Hank S said:
Let's just agree to all get along, and stop pretending that each other don't exist, or that the other is hopelessly behind the times or incompetent to fly without electronic assistance. Shut off my GOS, I can still reach my destination two states away. And I can fly all day and not worry about batteries running out or handheld stuff overheating or shutting down, or oops, I out running errands and get a call to join a dinner flight and don't have time to run home, grab my tablet and update the charts that expired four or five days ago . . .
Click to expand...
I think this is key. Nobody cares if you navigate with GPS or with an iPad. If you can still navigate when both of these crap out you're good. The problem is when you rely on these and do not know how to get to your destination without them. I'm all for the newest technology but it should not take the place of basic pilot training and navigation skills.
 
And if you can navigate if the VOR craps out, too. GPS has become basic pilot training and navigation skills, I think. And GPS is fundamental now, and primary for a large segment of us, glass or steam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top