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

I prefer steam gauges as well but if career pilot is your goal you are better off learning in a glass cockpit since most commercial planes now have them.
 
I'd rather fly 1.3 on steam than 1.0 on glass.
 
Grum.Man said:
I prefer steam gauges as well but if career pilot is your goal you are better off learning in a glass cockpit since most commercial planes now have them.
Click to expand...
Except for the DC-9!

sim_zps8bb24443.jpg
 
Career pilots might end up flying glass eventually, but there are plenty of working airplanes with round dials.
 
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 disagree. g1000 and similar takes training and study to use effectively. (just like steam gauges.). There is so much data and so many configuration choices that its easy to get lost in the forest.
 
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
????
Why would you exclude autopilot and GPS from steam? Plenty/most steam have GPS, many with AP. I flew a G-1000, now fly a steam with G-530 and STEC autopilot, with engine analyzer and fuel computer. By most folks r koning, it's a steam because the primary flight instruments are the traditional six-pack.
 
Sundancer said:
????
Why would you exclude autopilot and GPS from steam? Plenty/most steam have GPS, many with AP. I flew a G-1000, now fly a steam with G-530 and STEC autopilot, with engine analyzer and fuel computer. By most folks r koning, it's a steam because the primary flight instruments are the traditional six-pack.
Click to expand...
There are still a HELL of a lot of non GPS aircraft out there, even IFR. They fly just fine without them. You don't need that to learn to fly, but rather you can learn it later IF it's necessary.
 
A fairly good IFR setup is one, or two VOR/GS, and IFR/GPS (doesnt have to be WAAS) and a simple wing leveler autopilot with six pack. Also, a VFR handheld GPS. This will allow the pilot to go direct anywhere under IFR rules and fly the ILS down to 200'. He can also fly the RNAV (GPS) approaches. And there is quite a it of redundancy. But its just one solution. There are many, many others. In fact, you rarely see two identical panels.
 
True, true, but you mentioned dumbing down glass until it was similiar to steam. Steam is often as "smart" as glass, as in the configurations I mentioned.
 
I honestly don't think that is that "old school". In 15 years of flying, I have yet to fly a G1000 or even a GPS approach. I don't feel "old school" at all……I also don't think I'm a better or worse pilot for it. It just hasn't been required or even available to me. I'll tell you what didn't make me a better pilot……the dozens of NDB's I shot during initial IR training. You can be generally pointed somewhere kind of in the vicinity of the airport at MDH? Cool, you can also crash into a mountain doing that. Not really sure where I am going with this one other than the fact that I think we should divorce the idea of good aviating (what I think most associate with "old school") with the technology available in the cockpit. Some will make the most of what they have, while most will flounder at times with whatever they have.
 
Sundancer said:
True, true, but you mentioned dumbing down glass until it was similiar to steam. Steam is often as "smart" as glass, as in the configurations I mentioned.
Click to expand...
Fly a G1000 coupled VOR approach with VNAV and tell me if you still think that's true.
 
Is this private training? If so your eyes should be outside 90+% of the time and so glass vs 6 pack shouldn't make too much of a difference. I made my choice based on the cheapest airplane I could fly which happened to be a no GPS 6 pack plane.
 
35 AoA said:
I honestly don't think that is that "old school". In 15 years of flying, I have yet to fly a G1000 or even a GPS approach. I don't feel "old school" at all……I also don't think I'm a better or worse pilot for it. It just hasn't been required or even available to me. I'll tell you what didn't make me a better pilot……the dozens of NDB's I shot during initial IR training. You can be generally pointed somewhere kind of in the vicinity of the airport at MDH? Cool, you can also crash into a mountain doing that. Not really sure where I am going with this one other than the fact that I think we should divorce the idea of good aviating (what I think most associate with "old school") with the technology available in the cockpit. Some will make the most of what they have, while most will flounder at times with whatever they have.
Click to expand...

Yep. 12 years in the military with no AP, steam and no IFR GPS...up hill both ways. :)

I will say the last two years in, we got a crappy IFR GPS. Since it's non precision, I rarely used it.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
I think the brain digests a needle location faster than a number readout. Especially a rapidly changing number. Unless the comparison is with tapes.
Click to expand...

That, and I think the brain can recognize trends faster with needles. Ever drive a car with a digital speedo? It's hard to maintain a set speed, as its hard to recognize how fast the speed is moving. Most good drivers can nail a speed on a dial speedo even without cruise control as you have very good trend info.
 
35 AoA said:
I'll tell you what didn't make me a better pilot……the dozens of NDB's I shot during initial IR training. You can be generally pointed somewhere kind of in the vicinity of the airport at MDH? Cool, you can also crash into a mountain doing that.
Click to expand...
Before you get carried away with that thought, if I'm not mistaken the less accurate the system the more room you get for error. Think about that the first time you shoot a GPS approach. That old ADF might not be too bad after all, if you're any good at it.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Before you get carried away with that thought, if I'm not mistaken the less accurate the system the more room you get for error. Think about that the first time you shoot a GPS approach. That old ADF might not be too bad after all, if you're any good at it.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

ADF/NDB approaches could be fairly accurate but you had to be proficient at them. A bit of mental math so room for screwing it up too. Don't miss 'em!
 
mscard88 said:
ADF/NDB approaches could be fairly accurate but you had to be proficient at them. A bit of mental math so room for screwing it up too. Don't miss 'em!
Click to expand...

Don't miss them either, but I have to say it was a hell of a thing when the lightbulb lit and you FINALLY got it!
 
Bill Jennings said:
Don't miss them either, but I have to say it was a hell of a thing when the lightbulb lit and you FINALLY got it!
Click to expand...

A better feeling was when you broke out at minimums and right on the money with the airport right where they put it! :D
 
RalphInCA said:
I disagree. g1000 and similar takes training and study to use effectively. (just like steam gauges.). There is so much data and so many configuration choices that its easy to get lost in the forest.
Click to expand...

And can only add 2+2 by pushing buttons. Take away the calculator and it's deer in headlights.
 
I prefer steam gauges - I really do not care for glass cockpits; the more reliant we become on technology the less skill we develop; that said if you are going as a career pilot you probably don't have much choice.
 
MAKG1 said:
Fly a G1000 coupled VOR approach with VNAV and tell me if you still think that's true.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, I have, and yes, it's true. Coupled approaches aren't new, or unique to glass. You need a nav source and an autpilot withe the capability. No requirment fir the orimary flight instruments to be pictures vs gauges.
 
The two things I would miss if they were gone, at least as far as IFR is concerned, are an HSI and a GPS with moving map. I don't care one way or another about steam or glass.
 
Everskyward said:
The two things I would miss if they were gone, at least as far as IFR is concerned, are an HSI and a GPS with moving map. I don't care one way or another about steam or glass.
Click to expand...

Never flown with an analog HSI, but moving map GPS, yes, that will make me sad when it's gone. Got my plane equipped to the gills right now and selling it to either downgrade or take a break. I am going to REALLY miss the GTN-650...
 
Did my first flight in a steam gauge equipped C172 today. (All my previous training was in a glass warrior) Maybe it was just because I am not used to it, but i definitely prefer the glass setup. My scan was all over the place today, where as in the glass its all sort of right there and is much easier to do/keep on top of. At least for me.
 
Flyguy8911 said:
Did my first flight in a steam gauge equipped C172 today. (All my previous training was in a glass warrior) Maybe it was just because I am not used to it, but i definitely prefer the glass setup. My scan was all over the place today, where as in the glass its all sort of right there and is much easier to do/keep on top of. At least for me.
Click to expand...

The first plane I flew was a 152, no glass. Fast forward about 20 years and I'm in a C162 LSA with a Garmin G300. Spoiled the hell out of me to have "fly by box" on the glass, wind direction, speed, etc.

Then I decided to go back to a 172, non-glass. Took a bit of getting used to again like you. But, needles are easier to follow for me then that G300 or G1000 in the glass 172 I did some time in. I almost felt like the glass panels were TOO sensitive. Being so particular I wanted a ZERO VSI indication at straight and level with no autopilot. Constantly have a +10/-5, etc drove me up a wall. But on my Cherokee it's always on the zero (even if it's not actually in reality). Gives me the warm and fuzzies to not have the gnats arse level of detail and to see things at a more general level.
 
Caramon13 said:
...I almost felt like the glass panels were TOO sensitive. Being so particular I wanted a ZERO VSI indication at straight and level with no autopilot. Constantly have a +10/-5, etc drove me up a wall....
Click to expand...
lol ok I will grant you that is a problem that i struggled with as well in the glass. It was definitely a chore to get over that. On the other hand though I was able to read the glass better and once I stopped stressing about a few feet difference in my altitude it became easier to stay ahead of the plane because I could see changes happening much faster than I did today with the gauges.
 
I did all my primary training on steam. The flight school did not even have a glass panel plane. So they may have been biased in their preferences, but they felt learning on steam first then moving to glass was better. The logic being that most GA planes are still steam, or partially steam. So learn to fly what you are likely to own after training. In addition steam forces the pilot to learn some basic airman skills that are often to easy to "cheat" with glass. For instance doing your first solo using dead reckoning and pilotage when you have everything that a glass panel offers is hard. Also people make the argument that glass can be distracting at time because it does too much. I have seen this some, now that I fly a mainly glass panel plane, doing IFR training. I know I am using only about 50% of what the displays are capable of.
 
I love flying steam gauges. They are so quaint and analog and hide all the imperfections. You don't even notice yourself drifting up or down a 100 feet, and you're fat, dumb and happy thinking you're an INCREDIBLE pilot able to control the plane easily. Everyone understands the steam gauges. They make sense. They're analog so you can see the full range. By the same token everyone prefers analog clocks to digital clocks. They just look better and give you a better sense of relative time.

I'm a huge fan. Are they better technically? Of course not they are less precise and based on inferior technology that fails all too easily. But who cares. They're cool and cheaper so what more could you ask for?

As for the question... It doesn't matter for training. They both present the same data in different ways, but the same data nevertheless. Any good CFI teaching on glass will turn off all the cheating stuff, like the GPS moving map, and the wind vector, etc. All that stuff can be turned off, and should be for training.
 
I started on steam then switched to glass somewhere in the middle of my instrument training. I think steam makes your scan better, and you have to put the information together in your head more. I definitely prefer teaching in steam. You should learn glass, but to me it's kind of like learning on paper charts vs learning on foreflight. I've seen a lot of guys around here that have never seen the round instruments until they jump in an arrow for their commercial, and they seem to struggle a bit with it, especially in IMC.
 
35 AoA said:
I honestly don't think that is that "old school". In 15 years of flying, I have yet to fly a G1000 or even a GPS approach.
Click to expand...

I can see not flying a G1000 as most planes don't have that. But how have you not done a GPS approach? Only fly VFR?

Many of the airports I've flown into only have GPS approaches. Only way into them in IMC is a GPS approach.
 
wayne said:
I can see not flying a G1000 as most planes don't have that. But how have you not done a GPS approach? Only fly VFR?
Click to expand...

Never flown an aircraft with an IFR certified GPS. PAR or TACAN only, aside from USS boat, where you have ICLS (like civilian ILS) and ACLS (no civilian equivalent). I've also never filed RNAV waypoints…..honestly, I don't even know if what I am talking about is "rnav" because I have never done anything but J/V airways, or INS direct.
 
VFR pilot? Either one is fine, but I find I spend little time looking at the instruments and more time looking outside. I'll compare what I see outside with an chart. I'll glance at altitude, compass, and the engine gauges but I don't look at the rest very much. I built one of the Stratux receivers and find I don't look at it much.

IFR....may be another thing, but I don't fly IFR.

Just my opinion....
 
wayne said:
I can see not flying a G1000 as most planes don't have that. But how have you not done a GPS approach? Only fly VFR?

Many of the airports I've flown into only have GPS approaches. Only way into them in IMC is a GPS approach.
Click to expand...

Military. They spend money on things that apply to surviving in warfare, not fancy avionics.

Like 35, I spent most of my time without an IFR GPS. Didn't get an IFR GPS until around 2010. Even then, didn't use it much. Still had NDB, VOR, ILS and of course GCA capability. No auto pilot as well. Every IAP I flew in the Army was hand flown.

They've come around in recent years. Most aircraft are all glass, autopilot and IFR GPS equipped now. Still can't use EFB is most units though.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Old School is Good School!
Click to expand...

+1 on that. When those fancy boxes go Tango Uniform, it's good to know the 'old' tech.

Last week I even used the VOR for navigation, first time in a while and there was rust in the brain on that one, the old Whizz wheel E6B gets pulled out every few months and the wife asks the questions.

IPad apps etc make you lazy and dangerous :)
 
EdFred said:
And can only add 2+2 by pushing buttons. Take away the calculator and it's deer in headlights.
Click to expand...
Sure, but taking away the steam gauges for many of those trained on steam and its deer in the head lights too!
 
Think it is safe to say that any pilot will be a little "off" went using the panel they are not accustomed too.
 
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...

Where are you doing your training?
 
RalphInCA said:
Sure, but taking away the steam gauges for many of those trained on steam and its deer in the head lights too!
Click to expand...
Not if you limit the discussion only to the PFD. That's a two minute transition, especially from a "steam gauge" HSI. The bulk of the problems come from trying to be too precise.

I did my first glass transition into a 172 that had an Aspen Evolution and nothing else. It really was a two minute transition. That easy.

Dealing with GPSs and coupled autopilots is substantially more complex, but people don't seem to like to count that as "glass" even though nearly all of them have both, and very many steam gauge aircraft have neither.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not if you limit the discussion only to the PFD. That's a two minute transition, especially from a "steam gauge" HSI. The bulk of the problems come from trying to be too precise.

I did my first glass transition into a 172 that had an Aspen Evolution and nothing else. It really was a two minute transition. That easy.

Dealing with GPSs and coupled autopilots is substantially more complex, but people don't seem to like to count that as "glass" even though nearly all of them have both, and very many steam gauge aircraft have neither.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top