Glass or steam?

[poadeleted20]

If you know 2 systems you can get in basically any glass GA plane and go with about 20 minutes of futzing around.

Humbug. And I've got time with a lot of different systems. Each glass panel system (like G1000 or Avidyne Entegra or Cirrus Perspective) takes a lot more than "20 minutes of futzing around" to be safe launching IFR into actual instrument conditions no matter how well you know another.

 

[steingar]

I think I'd prefer a hybrid system. Steam for primary flight instruments, glass for nav and comm. My thought is if everything is glass and something breaks, you could be in for one heck of a ride. It happened for real to one of my students who had been a jet pilot. Steam gauges break one by one, not so catastrophic.

 

[fgcason]

Humbug. And I've got time with a lot of different systems. Each glass panel system (like G1000 or Avidyne Entegra or Cirrus Perspective) takes a lot more than "20 minutes of futzing around" to be safe launching IFR into actual instrument conditions no matter how well you know another.

I was thinking along the lines of it being a sensible idea if all the different systems from different manufacturers had a common initial capability - then they can go into menu hell if they want.

The point being for rentals and such, every time you get into a different plane, you wouldn't have to take half a day to learn the basic layout before starting the engine...then forgetting which one you're working with when in busy Class-C or B airspace.

Just a stupid thought...

My thought is if everything is glass and something breaks, you could be in for one heck of a ride.

Yea. Like christmas tree lights: One goes out, they all go out. All the redundancy and reliability in the world means squat if the only tv screen you have suddenly goes black.

 

[denverpilot]

Humbug. And I've got time with a lot of different systems. Each glass panel system (like G1000 or Avidyne Entegra or Cirrus Perspective) takes a lot more than "20 minutes of futzing around" to be safe launching IFR into actual instrument conditions no matter how well you know another.

I think I understand both of your points...

If you can get the glass system into "show me a traditional panel" mode, and figure out how to add one waypoint at a time with "Direct To", I'm pretty sure you could safely get through any flight.

That shouldn't ever take more than 20 minutes. If it does, that's one seriously stupid glass panel.

A glass panel in regular instrument mode and a pile of charts in your lap is still just "steam gauges" at that point. Make sure the autopilot is off.

It's not like we're talking learning how to program an airliner-style FMS here. Anyone who's spending significant time futzing with other electronic gadgets shouldn't take more than 20 minutes figuring out how to do the BASICS on any glass panel. If they are, they're really slow learners in today's world.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was thinking along the lines of it being a sensible idea if all the different systems from different manufacturers had a common initial capability - then they can go into menu hell if they want.

The point being for rentals and such, every time you get into a different plane, you wouldn't have to take half a day to learn the basic layout before starting the engine...then forgetting which one you're working with when in busy Class-C or B airspace.

Just a stupid thought...

Nothing stupid about it. Only problem is the glass cockpit/GPS world exploded on the FAA faster than they could get their arms around it, and by the time they realized what was happening, it was too late to fix the problem without decertifying everything and making everyone go back and start over. And I'm glad they didn't do that. Yes, the end result isn't great from that standpoint, but like democracy and getting old, it's better than the alternative.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you can get the glass system into "show me a traditional panel" mode, and figure out how to add one waypoint at a time with "Direct To", I'm pretty sure you could safely get through any flight.

I'm not, especiallly for IFR operations in complex airspace and procedures (you did say "any flight"). After several days in the books and about 10 hours behind the Perspective system (on the sim and in the plane), I'm just getting to the point where I think I'd be OK going in and out of Teterboro or the like on a busy, bad weather day.

It's not like we're talking learning how to program an airliner-style FMS here.

No, we're not -- some of the systems in modern light planes are more complex than the FMS in something like a 757 (at least, that's what my former 757 captain hangar neighbor says).

Anyone who's spending significant time futzing with other electronic gadgets shouldn't take more than 20 minutes figuring out how to do the BASICS on any glass panel. If they are, they're really slow learners in today's world.

Guess I'm just a slow learner, along with most all pilots I know or have trained. YMMV.

I'm curious -- how much time do you have on systems like the G1000, Avidyne Entegra (legacy or R9), or Perspective, especially in complex, high-density airspace like New York or Los Angeles or Charlotte?

 

[TMetzinger]

Well hang on.. are you saying you wouldn't go into those places with only a 6 pack and a couple of VORs, Ron?

Because I think Nate is saying that if you're good enough to go into Teterboro with a 6 pack, two CDIs, and a stack of paper, you SHOULD be able to go in with just the PFD on a G1000 and the stack of paper. I agree with that, having done it with steam and with glass using it that way.

Now, I ALSO agree that after some time behind glass, you come up with "your way" of operating and using the advanced stuff, and when you switch from one glass panel to another (or even a different rev), things may no longer work the way you expect. That can definitely throw you off, but you should still be able to revert to the "I've got two navs, an HSI/RMI, and two coms, and I can figure this out" mindset at any point.

 

[denverpilot]

Nothing stupid about it. Only problem is the glass cockpit/GPS world exploded on the FAA faster than they could get their arms around it, and by the time they realized what was happening, it was too late to fix the problem without decertifying everything and making everyone go back and start over. And I'm glad they didn't do that. Yes, the end result isn't great from that standpoint, but like democracy and getting old, it's better than the alternative.

Please name one technology they were ever out in front of.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well hang on.. are you saying you wouldn't go into those places with only a 6 pack and a couple of VORs, Ron?

Not at all. Those are easy to use, and you won't be getting an RNAV SID or LPV approach if that's all you have.

Because I think Nate is saying that if you're good enough to go into Teterboro with a 6 pack, two CDIs, and a stack of paper, you SHOULD be able to go in with just the PFD on a G1000 and the stack of paper.

Maybe on some systems, but not all. Just getting the VOR data to show where you want it is less than simple on the Perspective system. It's just not that simple to make "any" flight with a system you don't know, and 20 minutes isn't even enough to scratch the surface of such systems any more than 20 minutes of self-study would be enough for a C-150 pilot to safely fly a C-210 in day VFR.

 

[poadeleted20]

Please name one technology they were ever out in front of.

Ummm.....


...well, I never did say they were out in front of any of them, just that they were way behind this one. To a certain extent, this is kind of like autopilots, which even 30+ years ago were often very different from an operator perspective in everything from presentation to terminology to switchology. The big difference is that by its nature, VOR was pretty straightforward, with limited options (although even today the BC and autocenter functions on Cessna/ARC radios and the "RAD" function of the KX-165 are often mysterious to pilots new to them) while GPS and glass panels have so many options that the possibilities are endless, and no two manufacturers are singing off the same page in the hymnal.

 

[denverpilot]

I'm not, especiallly for IFR operations in complex airspace and procedures (you did say "any flight").

Yeah, you have a good point there. You people that live in places where you're crammed in like sardines have different problems.

Still though... if you can get the thing into "show me a standard instrument panel" mode, and you have a bag full of plates... people certainly have flown in that airspace with exactly that in the past...

Not saying it'd be EASY, just saying you can set the glass and completely ignore it if you want. Is it smart? No. But if someone pointed you to the airplane and said, "Get that thing from X to Y" and you had 20 minutes...

Henning's right. A competent steam gauge IFR pilot COULD do it, IMHO.

Of course, I'm not one... so this is just the Internet and take everything I say with a grain of salt. I also find tech ridiculously easy. In most User Interfaces, I can not only figure out what the interface is doing but what the Engineer INTENDED it to do, and where they got lazy...

 

[poadeleted20]

Still though... if you can get the thing into "show me a standard instrument panel" mode, and you have a bag full of plates... people certainly have flown in that airspace with exactly that in the past...

Except in many cases you just can't do that.

Henning's right. A competent steam gauge IFR pilot COULD do it, IMHO. Of course, I'm not one...

Well, when you get there and try it, you'll see whether it's Henning or me who's right. Keep in mind that Henning's flying experience is primarily his own, while I've been instructing for 38 years, and am active in that today, primarily on instrument training, and thus may have a different perspective on what the "average" pilot can do with a glass panel system that's new to him/her. Maybe he can do it, but my experience suggests most folks can't.

 

[olasek]

Steam gauges break one by one, not so catastrophic.

Well, I don't think it is 'catastrophic" if one of your displays shuts down and you forced into a reversionary mode. I would still prefer to be in the reversionary mode on G1000 than having a single steam gauge failed on me but I guess this is my own preference :wink2:

 

[Everskyward]

Still though... if you can get the thing into "show me a standard instrument panel" mode, and you have a bag full of plates... people certainly have flown in that airspace with exactly that in the past...

Curious what systems have a "show me a standard instrument panel" mode. Ours doesn't. It took me a certain amount of time to get used to the airspeed and altimeter tapes as well as where to look for the VSI and other things. I'll say it was more than 20 minutes. That's just the visual stuff and doesn't include programming.

I also find tech ridiculously easy.

There you go. Some people don't. That's probably not much of an issue for people who post here on an internet forum which requires voluntary use of a computer but there are others.

 

[TMetzinger]

Whoops, I think I spot the disconnect.

I agree that 20 mins is too little time for a pilot with NO glass experience at all to go flying IFR. It could more time than that to figure out what the PFD is telling you.

That said, if you've got glass experience, I still think 20 min is enough to figure out how to get the G1000/Avidyne/Perspective into the mode that gives you the ASI/AI/Alt/VS and an HSI/RMI combo, and how to tune the radios. So far I've been able to do that in less time in every glass cockpit I've ever been behind. That's sort of my standard test when I'm at a trade show or something seeing something new. Can I figure out how to make this thing give me the basics in less than half an hour?

But that's ME, and I am definitely a geek. My experience introducing G1000 to new folks, and then teaching people the IFR usage of the G1000 when they've only done with VFR, is more in line with Ron's. Some folks are a lot slower than others to adapt, and I think there's a real fear of technology at the heart of it.

So, I think we're all right according to the context of our views.

 

[Ghery]

I'm current in glass, but I worry all the time about when Garmin stops supporting the G1000.

You chuckle but it's going to happen.

No experience with the G1000, but I'm happy to worry about the 430W. Going to be expensive enough for the club when we can't get that serviced.

My IFR checkride started with DPE asking me, "So are we doing a real instrument checkride here or are you going after one of those 'I love Lucy' ratings in an airplane with a couple TV screens in front of you?" My CFI was of the same mind.

My DPE was of the other opinion. A former F-4 driver, he felt that you should use every toy at your disposal. Had no trouble with me using the 430W in the panel. Although I did revert to the needles for Loc and GS when I saw I had it configured wrong on the ILS and we were already established. They worked fine, too. But the GPS sure makes handling a crosswind easier.

 

[denverpilot]

Except in many cases you just can't do that.

Recall here that I'm saying an airspeed indicator, something that shows horizon, turning on the HSI/DG somewhere on the screen, and a VSI. The usual stuff in a six-pack.

As someone else pointed out... it's not displayed like a six-pack. That isn't a problem. Tim figured out what I meant, kinda...

Whoops, I think I spot the disconnect.

I agree that 20 mins is too little time for a pilot with NO glass experience at all to go flying IFR. It could more time than that to figure out what the PFD is telling you.

That said, if you've got glass experience, I still think 20 min is enough to figure out how to get the G1000/Avidyne/Perspective into the mode that gives you the ASI/AI/Alt/VS and an HSI/RMI combo, and how to tune the radios.

That's all I was saying too.

I've been through the G1000 FITS course, have read Max Trescott's G1000 book cover to cover (nicely done! Too bad Garmin went and changed the software again, and keeps doing so...). Did about two hours with ground power in the airplane one day, and everything except the stuff NOT covered in the FITS course (like checking the stupid backup battery) felt comfortable... not truly "intuitive" but usable. Garmin likes their rotary knobs too much... but that's just a UI preference thing. I can see where the Cirrus folks wanted to add a keyboard... that'd be nice. As someone else pointed out, the G1000 and 430 share some behavior in their UI's, but not completely.

Airspeed tapes, and different ways to display the same data haven't ever been an issue for me. Some folks, I do realize, get tripped up on it. I guess long, long, ago I was expecting to see a lot of different ways to display that data back when I was on a charted course to head off to some sort of pro aviation -- spent a lot of time hanging out in simulator labs, etc...

The guy saying a 737 FMS is easier than a Garmin... that cracked me up. The first look at a typical FMS *keyboard* stops most pilots in their tracks. That's one of the weirdest "standards" in Aviation, right there.

I didn't get used to the FMS in either of the 757/767 or 747 sim rides... needed coaching to program the beasts. Didn't get a chance to even touch it in the ATR-42 at FL240, but that's a whole different story... I was hand-flying it, anyway. All I needed to know was where the AP disconnect was on the yoke and how to turn it back on later.

My understanding is that those FMS's (especially the two Boeings) are operated in a similar fashion, but I know nothing about them other than "gee, after about six button pushes there's finally something I recognize on this screen... a runway name and approach type! I bet I can guess which button he's going to say to push NEXT!"



From watching videos of the Aspen, I like their methodology. I wanna try one. CAP just retrofitted our State's GA-8 with an Aspen, so maybe someday. Aspen seems to have attempted to mimic the Bendix/King mechanical HSI's closer than Garmin did.

Speaking of CAP, if you want to watch an experienced G1000 pilot get confused... just plop him or her in a CAP 182 with their STC for the dual audio panel. They'll get their "side" all set up and then wonder why no one in the right or rear seats can hear them on the Intercom.

I definitely hear what Ron's saying -- I've seen folks sit down behind advanced avionics and just go into that thousand-yard stare mode. I've never been too intimidated by it.

Too many years of playing with computers, I just start methodically working my way through the buttons, deciphering the icons and their meaning, and it doesn't take me too long to figure out *most* of the features. Nothing beats the manual though, for getting to where you're fluid and fast at going to the exact thing you want to see in the menus or pages or whatever name the manufacturer wants to give the different display modes.

First power up of a G1000 the first time is a bit distracting though... all the alarms that go off, etc. With a checklist and 30 minutes, I really do think SOME folks could fire up a G1000 airplane and get it from Point A to Point B without any serious problems. Maybe.

Given a few hours of quiet time with the manual the night before, a notepad for notes, and that same 30 minutes, a pretty large percentage of the "computer generations" could figure out how.

I agree with Ron in that they'd not have a clue how to get a flight plan into the unit or get it coupled to the AP properly, plus they wouldn't know the failure modes that would kill them, or things like the difference between the AP mode to hold airspeed, or hold altitude and how those can creep up and bite you in an airplane where you're running the power level, and the AP is trying to fly.

 

[poadeleted20]

Curious what systems have a "show me a standard instrument panel" mode.

Southwest Airlines did when they had a mix of steam-gauge 737-200's and glass panel advanced 737's. It was a deal they made with the FAA to allow all their crews to fly all the their planes. Turn on the glass, and you got a picture of a -200 six-pack. But that's the only example of which I am aware.

 

[poadeleted20]

agree with Ron in that they'd not have a clue how to get a flight plan into the unit or get it coupled to the AP properly, plus they wouldn't know the failure modes that would kill them, or things like the difference between the AP mode to hold airspeed, or hold altitude and how those can creep up and bite you in an airplane where you're running the power level, and the AP is trying to fly.

If you don't know all that stuff, you're not ready to fly that plane into hard IFR, and that was indeed my point. It ain't gonna work like that helo pilot in "Clear and Present Danger":

Harrison Ford (as Jack Ryan): How much time do you have in this type?
Pilot (looking at watch): Nine fifteen.
​

 

[denverpilot]

That doesn't make sense Ron. Plenty of people flying hard IFR behind a six-pack without an autopilot, or a flight plan in a GPS.

If they can get the glass in a mode that gives them the flight data they need to match the data from a six-pack and they know how to read and interpret that data, and have their paper charts with them...

They're no worse off than the guy or gal right behind them in the soup flying a six-pack.

I totally agree with the concept of "Know how to use every dang thing you have on board to lower your workload" and get what you're saying that knowing how to use the tool properly is WAY WAY WAY better than not, but this hypothetical "You've got 30 minutes now and had the manual the night before in the hotel room" can be done if the aircraft is treated as the same steam-gauge aircraft sitting right next to it on the ramp.

I'm also maybe leaving out the assumption that they're identical types and the pilot has tons of time in type behind steam gauges.

They don't *have* to utilize anything but the basic six-pack's worth of instruments from the glass. Would it be stupid not to utilize the additional features? Sure. But the glass depiction and lack of a scan for the new layout is really the problem for the hypothetical. They're getting the exact same "data" they would in the other aircraft with no glass.

In fact, in my opinion, tapes show relative changes better than round-dials.

Now if you're saying there isn't a darn VOR receiver on board and they have to know how to program the GPS because of *that*, I'm 100% with you. We said "glass" though, not "G1000", right? Plenty of "glass" aircraft still have "traditional" NAV on board alongside the glass.

So maybe that's where the disconnect is. You're saying they don't have traditional NAV.

 

[Henning]

I think I'd prefer a hybrid system. Steam for primary flight instruments, glass for nav and comm. My thought is if everything is glass and something breaks, you could be in for one heck of a ride. It happened for real to one of my students who had been a jet pilot. Steam gauges break one by one, not so catastrophic.

Most of us have three primary Steam to back up on. Why you would give up 99% of what glass buys you (SVT) because of what happens on less that .1% of flights? It's bad risk management. You are more likely to get screwed by imprecise situational awareness and/or confusion than you are from a dead panel.

 

[John Baker]

Redundancy. Much more better.

John

 

[denverpilot]

Redundancy. Much more better.

Heh. Want a job as a sysadmin? You good at explaining that to bosses who don't want to pay for it?

 

[acluffpoa]

I remember when the mouse first appeared in the consumer computer market. Many said it was easier to use the keys and they would never make the switch. I wonder what they are using now. Technology keeps moving ahead and always will. It's up to the individual user if they want to take advantage of new or stay with old. I am personally a fan of new glass systems but keep old as a backup. It's nice to have an electric based system backed up by a vacuum system.

 

[Henning]

I remember when the mouse first appeared in the consumer computer market. Many said it was easier to use the keys and they would never make the switch. I wonder what they are using now. Technology keeps moving ahead and always will. It's up to the individual user if they want to take advantage of new or stay with old. I am personally a fan of new glass systems but keep old as a backup. It's nice to have an electric based system backed up by a vacuum system.

Really you're better off getting rid of the vacuum system altogether and getting redundant electric. They make an alternator that mounts to the vacuum pump PTO on the accessory case.

 

[weilke]

I am suprised that nobody has come up with slide-in self-contained digital replacements for gyro instruments.
All the installations, Aspen, Sandel Garmin are to some extent integrated and incur considerable installation cost. A self contained AI that only requires a hookup to the TCs electrical and capping off the vacuum line would't cost much more to install than swapping in an overhauled gyro unit. With built in standard commercial Lithium battery this could have a better MTBF than a vacuum system.

 

[Henning]

I am suprised that nobody has come up with slide-in self-contained digital replacements for gyro instruments.
All the installations, Aspen, Sandel Garmin are to some extent integrated and incur considerable installation cost. A self contained AI that only requires a hookup to the TCs electrical and capping off the vacuum line would't cost much more to install than swapping in an overhauled gyro unit. With built in standard commercial Lithium battery this could have a better MTBF than a vacuum system.

20 years ago in the early days of GA glass, BF Goodrich made exactly that. They had a self contained EFIS/AI. IIRC Patty Wagstaff had one in her Extra and they used that as the basis of their advertising campaign.

Thing is, it's the interconnectivity of it all that buys you the real situational awareness benefit. You need a reasonable amount of integrated equipment to drive an SVT w/HITS system.

 

[weilke]

Thing is, it's the interconnectivity of it all that buys you the real situational awareness benefit. You need a reasonable amount of integrated equipment to drive an SVT w/HITS system.

No doubt, to drive all those additional capabilities, you need an integrated system. To eliminate the need to replace vacuum pumps and avoid the occasional tumbling instruments, that integration is not necessary. You could even mount one of those BD backup alternators and route the wiring to the panel instruments right through the vacuum tubing (after you chop out the filter if present).

 

[Henning]

No doubt, to drive all those additional capabilities, you need an integrated system. To eliminate the need to replace vacuum pumps and avoid the occasional tumbling instruments, that integration is not necessary. You could even mount one of those BD backup alternators and route the wiring to the panel instruments right through the vacuum tubing (after you chop out the filter if present).

I believe L3 makes a stand alone EFIS unit right now that can be used as the backup for your regular EFIS panel as well, but none of that is necessary to eliminate the vacuum. You can buy all electric analogue AI and HSI already and have been able to for decades, you don't need digital or glass for that. First electric AI I installed was 20 years ago. If I'm gonna spend the money on glass though, I want the full feature capabilities available.

 

[weilke]

I believe L3 makes a stand alone EFIS unit right now that can be used as the backup for your regular EFIS panel as well,

The Trilogy is what, 15k installed and requires pitot, static and compass input.
The planes I am thinking about are barely worth twice that.

You can buy all electric analogue AI and HSI already and have been able to for decades,

Expensive compared with vacuum units, still mechanical gyros and plagued with less than rated MTBF in actual use.

If I'm gonna spend the money on glass though, I want the full feature capabilities available.

It wouldn't be a 'glass cockpit', it would be sliding in a $1200 digital replacement instead of another $700 overhaul once the AI craps out next time.

 

[Henning]

It wouldn't be a 'glass cockpit', it would be sliding in a $1200 digital replacement instead of another $700 overhaul once the AI craps out next time.

Nope, you don't get that, that's not really feasible in anything but an experimental.

 

[Everskyward]

If they can get the glass in a mode that gives them the flight data they need to match the data from a six-pack and they know how to read and interpret that data, and have their paper charts with them...

They're no worse off than the guy or gal right behind them in the soup flying a six-pack.

I think that what you are not considering is that even though someone can very quickly understand intellectually how airspeed and altitude tapes work it is far from instinctive if they are used to looking at round dials. I think that a lot of interpreting the instruments happens on a somewhat subconscious level if someone has been doing it for a long time.

I'll confess that even though I have been flying a fully glass airplane for over three years, when I get into someone's small airplane which has glass and conventional instruments my eyes are drawn to the conventional instruments not the tapes.

In fact, in my opinion, tapes show relative changes better than round-dials.

For me, the thing about the tapes is that you need to read the number while with dials you can see the relative position of the pointer(s). Also I think that people tend to chase the airspeed more because it is displayed so accurately.

 

[TMetzinger]

I believe L3 makes a stand alone EFIS unit right now that can be used as the backup for your regular EFIS panel as well, but none of that is necessary to eliminate the vacuum. You can buy all electric analogue AI and HSI already and have been able to for decades, you don't need digital or glass for that. First electric AI I installed was 20 years ago. If I'm gonna spend the money on glass though, I want the full feature capabilities available.

17 AMUs for the L3 Trilogy unit... with static and pitot inputs. Before installation or the optional magnetometer to give you DG functionality too.

Aspen showed a similar unit at AOPA, under 10 AMUs I believe, TSO'ed as a backup reference.

I'm still trying to figure out how it's legal to have the Aspen Evolution as a primary and their new unit as a backup, but not legal to have two of the "primary" units.

 

[dmspilot]

I think that what you are not considering is that even though someone can very quickly understand intellectually how airspeed and altitude tapes work it is far from instinctive if they are used to looking at round dials. I think that a lot of interpreting the instruments happens on a somewhat subconscious level if someone has been doing it for a long time.

The problem is the fixed needle + moving scale rather than fixed scale + moving needle. The former is always going to be more difficult to interpret.

 

[Everskyward]

The problem is the fixed needle + moving scale rather than fixed scale + moving needle. The former is always going to be more difficult to interpret.

I never thought about it that way but it makes sense. I just figured that what made it slightly less instinctive is that you had to read a number rather than glancing at a position on the dial.

 

[Henning]

I never thought about it that way but it makes sense. I just figured that what made it slightly less instinctive is that you had to read a number rather than glancing at a position on the dial.

Huh, that never really effected me in the slightest. The first thing I noticed was the pink change in speed indicators and how useful they were in maintaining smooth altitude in choppy air.

 

[Everskyward]

Huh, that never really effected me in the slightest. The first thing I noticed was the pink change in speed indicators and how useful they were in maintaining smooth altitude in choppy air.

The first time someone showed me the magenta (you get your hand slapped if you call them "pink") trend indicators they sure were proud of them. They're useful with the tape display but unnecessary with the round dials.

 

[Henning]

The first time someone showed me the magenta (you get your hand slapped if you call them "pink") trend indicators they sure were proud of them. They're useful with the tape display but unnecessary with the round dials.

When I was corrected about "pink" I told them "If you want me to call them magenta add some blue and don't make em pink."

 

[woodstock]

In the past six months I've been pax twice in a spiffy plane with glass (cirrus and diamond). First time in five years+.

Each time I've felt I spent way more time watching the glass (and trying to figure it out), so much so that the basics I should have remembered went bye bye. Ie overloaded. It didn't help that the cirrus ride was my previous CFI and he didn't believe me when i told him it had been five yrs and when he insisted I take over/land etc. it was pretty anxiety inducing. Big turnoff, actually.

When I finally go back I plan to re-intro in steam until it all comes back, then decide if I want glass or not.

Ps. I will likely either start with new instructor or at least someone who doesn't assume we can just pick up where we left off. No doubt in a few hours much will return but it's hugely annoying to have someone gloss over everything bc they feel it isn't necessary.

Ps 2 how many people start primary in cirrus or diamond? Isn't it a good idea to start small (172) and move up?

Ps3. I thought the glass was pretty darn cool, just too much right now. My friend yesterday was totally taken aback when I declined taking the controls ( straight and level at 6000 and he was ifr: yawn). I know what straight n level flight feels like. I was however spending all my time trying to figure out where it all was and how to read it. Finally, I don't think I can think of anything more boring than a sim. Seriously. No, not a gamer. I guess that puts met a severe disadvantage.

 

[Ted]

I think it's all what you're used to. While I believe there are benefits to learning on steam, I don't think it's a problem per se for people to start on glass.

For what it's worth, the first time I flew in a plane with glass was when I had about 400 hours or so. I had a similar reaction to you. It wasn't until the second or third flight that it became more natural. By the time I hopped in the 310 after the Aspen install (which is, of course, not as much glass as you find in a Cirrus or Diamond) it was no problem. I like having glass better than steam gauges, but I'm glad that I learned on steam to start out. I think it helped me more on the fundamentals, and I think it would have been harder to transition from glass to steam had I learned on glass.

As far as Cirrus or Diamond as a trainer, I don't think they're the world's best trainers, but people are using them these days.