Private Pilot training in Glass Cockpits?

[grattonja]

A thread by Ben on renters getting run out of town by new glass panel cockpits in the rental fleet got me thinking about training new pilots in glass.

Let me take my first stab at a poll.

I'm biased here. Having trained both PP and IR in round gauges, I favor training in these more "simple" systems. I'm also checked out in the G1000 system. It is a really neat panel. It does many things automatically for you. Things like turning on the transponder or identifying VORs. Punch in an approach and the radio frequencies for navigation are pre-loaded for you. But, big BUT here, if the stuff is done for you automatically, are you learning how to do it? With a good CFI, I suppose the answer is yes. But are you really learning how to do it, and what the foundations of it all are, or are you learning "gee, here is how to do it old school, but don't worry about that because the computer will do it for you"?

I particularly worry about navigation and basic control of the aircraft. Load the GPS and everything in the panel sequences automatically, basically, for that flight plan. Is this a good thing? Should we be teaching basic stick and rudder skills to someone who has a 6 inch wide AI right in front of their face?

So, what do you all think?

Jim G

 

[ScottM]

Let me take my first stab at a poll.

I don't see the poll question? Or are you just looking for discussion?

 

[grattonja]

One of my poll choices was too long, so it didn't post at first. I TOLD YOU it was my first stab at a poll! LOL! I had to mess something up.

Jim G

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I see no harm in teaching both. The FAA certainly covers all the old school stuff in their written tests and anything on top of that is just more knowledge plus, more widespread use of glass cockpits might hold those specific costs down -a big "might". I'd still vote to leave the glass optional, because it's not a neccessity.

Let me take my first stab at a poll.

I'm biased here. Having trained both PP and IR in round gauges, I favor training in these more "simple" systems. I'm also checked out in the G1000 system. It is a really neat panel. It does many things automatically for you. Things like turning on the transponder or identifying VORs. Punch in an approach and the radio frequencies for navigation are pre-loaded for you. But, big BUT here, if the stuff is done for you automatically, are you learning how to do it? With a good CFI, I suppose the answer is yes. But are you really learning how to do it, and what the foundations of it all are, or are you learning "gee, here is how to do it old school, but don't worry about that because the computer will do it for you"?

I particularly worry about navigation and basic control of the aircraft. Load the GPS and everything in the panel sequences automatically, basically, for that flight plan. Is this a good thing? Should we be teaching basic stick and rudder skills to someone who has a 6 inch wide AI right in front of their face?

So, what do you all think?

Jim G

 

[grattonja]

I see no harm in teaching both. The FAA certainly covers all the old school stuff in their written tests and anything on top of that is just more knowledge plus, more widespread use of glass cockpits might hold those specific costs down -a big "might".

I don't disagree that having both on the line is probably a good thing. But, from the post of Ben's elsewhere about "old timers" getting squeezed off the line by new technology, and from my personal experience with the Cessna Pilot Center, it is my belief that the intent, of Cessna anyway, is to push the new technology forward and to stop pushing the sale of new "round gauged" aircraft.

Cessna (along with Cirrus and others) is actively pursuing primary training in the G1000, as the new standard for training aircraft.

Several students at the local FBO that I have talked to have expressed concern that the G1000 panel adds a whole lot of cockpit complexity and distraction while they are simply trying to learn to land the aircraft.

Jim G

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

You beat me to the post while I was editing and adding to keep the glass optional but, I don't think the aircraft manufacturers were listening to me!
Probably could end up it will analogously be like the old days when so many said, heck, why learn a big ol' computer when I've got a perfectly good calculator right here?

I don't disagree that having both on the line is probably a good thing. But, from the post of Ben's elsewhere about "old timers" getting squeezed off the line by new technology, and from my personal experience with the Cessna Pilot Center, it is my belief that the intent, of Cessna anyway, is to push the new technology forward and to stop pushing the sale of new "round gauged" aircraft.

Cessna (along with Cirrus and others) is actively pursuing primary training in the G1000, as the new standard for training aircraft.

Several students at the local FBO that I have talked to have expressed concern that the G1000 panel adds a whole lot of cockpit complexity and distraction while they are simply trying to learn to land the aircraft.

Jim G

 

[ScottM]

I think both should be taught. Then after that we get into the order of which one should be taught first.

When teaching we teach from easiest or fundemental to hardest our advanced. So which way is easier? Well I think the glass is easier but it surely is not fundemental. If it was were shouldn't we just start all students in the 747-400 and be done with it? "This is Boeing 1234A Heavy 5 miles out on a 45 for runway 27, ANY TRAFFIC IN THE AREA GET OUT OF MY WAY!!"

So maybe part of the training should start in steam and then transistion to glass by the end of the course. Then a student would understand that basic theory behind each part of the more automated glass instruments and have the basic stick and rudder skills they should know.

 

[Everskyward]

Cessna (along with Cirrus and others) is actively pursuing primary training in the G1000, as the new standard for training aircraft.

Yeah, they want people to buy their new glass aiplanes!

Several students at the local FBO that I have talked to have expressed concern that the G1000 panel adds a whole lot of cockpit complexity and distraction while they are simply trying to learn to land the aircraft.

I can see how this would be a drawback because the additional complexity means there is more to learn which would take additional time and money. However, as far as landing or basic stick and rudder skills go, students should be looking mostly outside in either kind of airplane. I don't see how the way information like, say, the airspeed, is displayed would matter that much as long as they were used to that display. The hard part would be switching back and forth between round dials and glass while still in the early process of learning.

 

[AdamZ]

Jim I am a steam gauge guy got my PP and IR on them. Now should I be called an old timer? LOL I don't think so. I only started my pp training in 2002. While I have to admit that the glass does intimidate me a bit lets remember that we are living in the Video game generation. Kids today (sadly) play video games like I used to build forts and damn up creeks. Ya can't stop it technology just marches forward.

But back to the question why is learning in a glass cockpit and leaning stick and rudder skills mutually exclusive? I don't think it is. It may be tougher for older farts like me and you but the younger kids who we need to get into aviation will take to it like a duck to water.

 

[infotango]

Glass Cockpits=One more gimick to price the little guy out of flying.


Load of BS if you ask me. No good reason a plane puttering along under VFR at 120kts needs a glass cockpit.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I think we do the student a disservice by not teaching the new technology. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught and practice pilotage, but if I were a student, I's want to train on the new stuff and then transition to an IR with the glass panel.

 

[Henning]

A thread by Ben on renters getting run out of town by new glass panel cockpits in the rental fleet got me thinking about training new pilots in glass.

Let me take my first stab at a poll.

I'm biased here. Having trained both PP and IR in round gauges, I favor training in these more "simple" systems. I'm also checked out in the G1000 system. It is a really neat panel. It does many things automatically for you. Things like turning on the transponder or identifying VORs. Punch in an approach and the radio frequencies for navigation are pre-loaded for you. But, big BUT here, if the stuff is done for you automatically, are you learning how to do it? With a good CFI, I suppose the answer is yes. But are you really learning how to do it, and what the foundations of it all are, or are you learning "gee, here is how to do it old school, but don't worry about that because the computer will do it for you"?

I particularly worry about navigation and basic control of the aircraft. Load the GPS and everything in the panel sequences automatically, basically, for that flight plan. Is this a good thing? Should we be teaching basic stick and rudder skills to someone who has a 6 inch wide AI right in front of their face?

So, what do you all think?

Jim G

Well, if your theory holds true, we should be doing primary training in NORDO Day VFR instrumented taildraggers. Nahhh, I don't think that teaching them in aircraft with glass necessitates poor training. There is nothing that says you have to teach them only navigation by GPS. Nope, I'm for teaching them in modern equipment if that's what they're going to be flying. Besides the glass doesn't have that much to do with primary training if done correctly. Students eyes shouldn't be inside enough. I think the only problem with it is the extra time it will take for the students to learn to interface with more complex equipment.

 

[Henning]

Glass Cockpits=One more gimick to price the little guy out of flying.


Load of BS if you ask me. No good reason a plane puttering along under VFR at 120kts needs a glass cockpit.

Needs? Heck no, the SR-71 didn't have glass and went fine. That's not to say that the glass isn't an improvement in relaying critical information in an easier to interpret format. There is a reason it was developed. If it makes you safer at 350, it makes you safer at 120. It's about information management and easing pilot workload to reduce stress and errors, and that's a good thing. Situational awareness is prime, the easier achieved and maintained, the better.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

First, let me say that I have about 9 hours of G1000 time and i LOVE it.

However, IMHO, the only primary/instrument training that should be done with it is with a student who owns their own glass-cockpit airplane. There are still an awful lot of steam-gauge airplanes out there, and I'm sure the transition backwards from the G1000 to the gauges is MUCH harder than the other way around.

Also, it simply adds another layer of complexity (and yes, cost) to the ever more difficult and expensive task of earning the private pilot certificate.

If one wants to fly glass, IMHO the most effective way to teach it is to do the PP-ASEL first, followed by GPS training on the G430. Let the student use the 430 for a while, and then go to the G1000. That will be somewhat less overwhelming as the navigation functions of the 430 are basically identical to the G1000, and once the student is in the G1000 airplane they'll only have to learn to interpret the different instrument depictions. Airspeed is actually the toughest one to get used to, as it seems backwards at first. Well, it always seems backwards, but ya get used to it.

For IR training, again, gauges all the way to the checkride, then transition. I don't think a glass-trained IR pilot has any business being in a round-gauge airplane IFR, and in fact I think the FAA should put a glass-only restriction on people who take their checkrides in a glass panel airplane.

I can see why Cessna et al are doing this, as theoretically you can still get a round-gauge airplane, but nobody is buying them and nobody is building them. But, there are too many gauge airplanes out there to keep people stuck to glass cockpits for now. Five or ten years from now, things will be completely different.

I'm reminded of Ryan Ferguson's comment on the old AOPA board: "My Cirrus students think it's an emergency when one of their FOUR moving maps goes out..." Look out the window and fly the airplane, folks. The video-game generation needs to do the same thing and experience the joy, or it will be another very expensive and worthless video game to them.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Needs? Heck no, the SR-71 didn't have glass and went fine. That's not to say that the glass isn't an improvement in relaying critical information in an easier to interpret format. There is a reason it was developed. If it makes you safer at 350, it makes you safer at 120. It's about information management and easing pilot workload to reduce stress and errors, and that's a good thing. Situational awareness is prime, the easier achieved and maintained, the better.

I could agree with that in purely academic applications but in practical terms for GA planes going a little over 100, the real world trade-off of a typical amateur pilot's currency/proficiency being strongly proportional to dollars per hour in flying costs generally lends a poor return on the glass cockpit investment.

 

[gprellwitz]

I have to throw in that one of the IR students at my airport was all set for his checkride in the G1000 C172. The DE couldn't do it, though, because apparently the DuPage FSDO is in the process of figuring out how they want to test the stuff like partial panel in the glass. Apparently they've concluded (rightfully so, IMHO), that just failing a screen isn't realistic, and doesn't prepare you for actually flying Partial Panel in round gauges. I expect in the next year or two to see that the FAA will be requiring a notation on the certificate. I can see it two ways:

1) require an endorsement to fly TAA like the G1000 or Avidyne
2) have a restriction on IR only allowing you to fly TAA if that's how you got your ticket, similar to the centerline thrust for multi-engine.

 

[infotango]

Needs? Heck no, the SR-71 didn't have glass and went fine. That's not to say that the glass isn't an improvement in relaying critical information in an easier to interpret format. There is a reason it was developed. If it makes you safer at 350, it makes you safer at 120. It's about information management and easing pilot workload to reduce stress and errors, and that's a good thing. Situational awareness is prime, the easier achieved and maintained, the better.

I'm fine with options, and reserve the right to think that people who spend more on the G1000 are insane, but when such technology comes with such a high additional cost for rental, and FBO's no longer offer the cheaper alternative I think that's a massive disservice to the aviation community as a whole.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm fine with options, and reserve the right to think that people who spend more on the G1000 are insane, but when such technology comes with such a high additional cost for rental, and FBO's no longer offer the cheaper alternative I think that's a massive disservice to the aviation community as a whole.

What's the cost per hour difference between a 2006 glass 172 and a 2006 steam 172?

Fly safe!

David

 

[infotango]

What's the cost per hour difference between a 2006 glass 172 and a 2006 steam 172?

Fly safe!

David

One of the FBO's at my airport has quoted 20/hr. Not sure if they are the same year however.

 

[grattonja]

What's the cost per hour difference between a 2006 glass 172 and a 2006 steam 172?

Fly safe!

David

Where I am right now, I can get a 2003 172SP, Nav II, for 105 per hour. The Nav III (read G1000) is going for 130. The primary price difference being the much higher cost of the G1000 panel. A nicely equipped (G430) 172RG with new paint and interior is running 115. The G1000 'hawk is expensive, comparatively speaking.

Jim G

 

[grattonja]

Well, if your theory holds true, we should be doing primary training in NORDO Day VFR instrumented taildraggers.


Interesting that you raise a point I have been asserting since last year. Namely, I think every PP should have to do at least one or two lessons in exactly such an aircraft. Before my FBO got the Champ on the line, and I flew it and got a tailwheel cert, I would have poo-pooed such a suggestion. Then I got in that plane and it kicked my a--! I learned more in 10 hours about how an aircraft actually flies than in all my PP training. You want to learn about landing an aircraft on the centerline, aligned with the runway, brother that is the airplane to teach it.

I think we are doing a disservice making the PP about so much more than basic stick and rudder skills. That needs to be job #1. Yes, a PP student should be looking out the window, but that big glass panel in front of them presents a HUGE distraction. And distraction is the last thing a low time student needs.

And that, along with the significant increase in price to fly the thing, are my issues with the glass for primary training.

Jim G

 

[poadeleted20]

Preliminary data from a comparative study by MTSU suggests that there's no real long-term difference between pilots trained on steam gauges and those trained on glass panels -- the difference seems to be the quality of the training program, not the training tool used. I expect an update at the UAA Flight Education Committee meeting later this month.

 

[bkreager]

The guy I did my CFI with at my FSDO mentioned that there is a possibility that the instrument ticket may be seperated some day into glass or steam, or there may be a glass endorsement. I forget exactly how he worded it, but they are thinking about it.

 

[kevin47881]

I can't speak to a glass cockpit as I've never flown with one but my first experience in a plane with a moving map GPS (after receiving my pp) was that I found myself more intriged by the new toy than my primary responsibility which is to keep the greazy side up and avoid other traffic.
I can only imagine my that a glass cockpit for a primary student would be a very large distraction from primary responsibilities.
YMMV

 

[wesleyj]

Personally i think students should be taught in the simplest aircraft available. they need to learn basics, attitude and airspeed control, before they see the rest of that crap.

my students dont see anything but tachometer, T&B and altimeter untill just before solo. They also fly from the first lesson and do the first To&Ldg.

 

[infotango]

Personally i think students should be taught in the simplest aircraft available. they need to learn basics, attitude and airspeed control, before they see the rest of that crap.

my students dont see anything but tachometer, T&B and altimeter untill just before solo. They also fly from the first lesson and do the first To&Ldg.

My kind of instructor.

 

[flyersfan31]

I agree with those who argue that it is the quality of the training that matters, rather than the instruments. My only exp to date with glass panels is in flight simulators, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Still, an airfoil is an airfoil regardless of how you communicate its performance to the nut holding the yoke. One can adequately communicate the fundamentals of flight with needle, ball, and airspeed. That's how they did it in the old days, and those folks are the ones who later developed and figured out how to fly jets. One can do the same with a 6pack of steam gauges. I can't believe the same can't be done, just as well, with a G1000.

IMHO, the problem is the quality of instruction, not the tools employed. Heck, I'd have loved to have logged an hour or two of old-fashioned tail-dragging basics in my PPL. But then again, I'd have loved to have received an adequate description of pitch+power=performance in my PPL training. Thank goodness for the PIC IR program......

 

[poadeleted20]

The guy I did my CFI with at my FSDO mentioned that there is a possibility that the instrument ticket may be seperated some day into glass or steam, or there may be a glass endorsement. I forget exactly how he worded it, but they are thinking about it.

Last time AFS-800 spoke on the subject, that was not their plan, but I expect an update at the UAA Flt Ed mtg in three weeks.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I have to throw in that one of the IR students at my airport was all set for his checkride in the G1000 C172. The DE couldn't do it, though, because apparently the DuPage FSDO is in the process of figuring out how they want to test the stuff like partial panel in the glass.

Apparently the DPE didn't bother going to Garmin's web site and following this: http://www.garmin.com/manuals/G1000System_GuideforDPEsandCFIs.pdf

Apparently they've concluded (rightfully so, IMHO), that just failing a screen isn't realistic, and doesn't prepare you for actually flying Partial Panel in round gauges.

Garmin has concluded that as well, and the above linked document tells CFI's and DME's exactly how to simulate all the various failure modes of the G1000. You may want to pass the link along so the poor guy can take his ride!

 

[CowboyPilot]

My kind of instructor.

Same here.

It still amazes some "pilots" that an airplane can actually get in the air, stay in the air, and safely land without an ASI, a radio, an altimeter, etc. . . and especially a GPS. It amazes them even further that you can fly from point A to point B with little more than a compass and sectional.

Of course, I still remember using a telephone with a rotary dial, 33 1/3/45/78rpm records, having a black & white tv that only got three VHF stations and one UHF station if your rabbit ears were good enough, most cars didn't have air conditioning except for the windows and to take an airliner, you had to walk out on the flight line and walk up the stairway to get in the airplane--it gave you a chance to make sure all four engines had propellers on them.

Technology is great, but not foolproof. Aerodynamics, on the other hand, have proven that they only work one way and that all the cockpit technology in the world stil doesn't change the way wind moves over the flight surfaces.

Regards.

-JD

 

[Henning]

I'm fine with options, and reserve the right to think that people who spend more on the G1000 are insane, but when such technology comes with such a high additional cost for rental, and FBO's no longer offer the cheaper alternative I think that's a massive disservice to the aviation community as a whole.

Well, it's a free market economy, you gotta take the bad with the good. You are free to buy several old planes and compete with them. They are betting that more people want the glass than the steam (probably due to doing market research amoung their client base) so all the new planes they buy have glass. From a business standpoint, I see their issue, and I have trouble faulting it. They are trying to get out in front of the Glass Revolution. It especially makes sense for FBO who are training Airline type candidates, or are marketing for that business. If I was an FBO buying new planes, I'd get glass ones as well since in another 5 years, you won't be able to compete without them. I used to rent one of the first glass equipped (aftermarket) Mooneys out of Santa Monica, it was sweet but expensive...$115hr wet...whew, hated paying that price. While they may be doing you a disservice, I'm not sure I could make that claim to all GA as a whole.

 

[gprellwitz]

Apparently the DPE didn't bother going to Garmin's web site and following this: http://www.garmin.com/manuals/G1000System_GuideforDPEsandCFIs.pdf


Garmin has concluded that as well, and the above linked document tells CFI's and DME's exactly how to simulate all the various failure modes of the G1000. You may want to pass the link along so the poor guy can take his ride!

I will pass it along to the chief pilot, who's been working with the FSDO, just in case. Since he went through Cessna's training I suspect he's already aware of it, so there's probably more going on than I'm aware of.

 

[ScottM]

Same here.

It still amazes some "pilots" that an airplane can actually get in the air, stay in the air, and safely land without an ASI, a radio, an altimeter, etc. . . and especially a GPS. It amazes them even further that you can fly from point A to point B with little more than a compass and sectional.

I thought the GPS was on the MEL and that no VFR flight could occur if it went inop

 

[CowboyPilot]

I thought the GPS was on the MEL and that no VFR flight could occur if it went inop

I also hear it is impossible to fly IFR west of the Rockies without a GPS as well.

-JD

 

[Areeda]

I didn't vote. I've got to loosely quote Ron "train in what you're going to fly".

I believe you have to specify you're goal to decide how to best get there.

If the goal is to fly glass airplanes, learning in glass is more efficient. If your goal is to fly a lot of different airplanes, start with the simplest get your license much quicker and add new nick-nacks and doodads one at a time.

I'm not so sure it's a bad idea to start in a VFR taildragger with no electrical system if you have a place to fly it.

Joe

 

[MauleSkinner]

Personally i think students should be taught in the simplest aircraft available. they need to learn basics, attitude and airspeed control, before they see the rest of that crap.

Personally, I agree...I think the FAA calls it the "building block" method, or something like that.

As has been stated, it largely comes down to quality of instruction. You can cover up and/or turn off a LOT of stuff in a G1000 172 and get the same effect (except for the tailwheel part, which naturally SHOULD be a requirement for everyone).

I guess the bottom line for me is, if the FBO isn't renting what you want to fly and you can't convince them to put something more to your liking on the line, you've got 3 choices...go someplace else, buy something else, or live with what's available. As my Mom used to say at dinnertime, "You'll eat what they put in front of you, and you'll enjoy it."

Fly safe!

David

 

[wsuffa]

I say the answer is a combination of the two.

Students need to get basic stick and rudder skills and an understanding of navigation first. Then as you add nav tasks and such to the equation, add the glass.

However, the likelihood is that a new pilot today will be flying glass at some point, especially if they go on to be a professional pilot... or they continue to rent planes. They will need the training at some point.

jmho.

 

[Henning]

Well, if your theory holds true, we should be doing primary training in NORDO Day VFR instrumented taildraggers.


Interesting that you raise a point I have been asserting since last year. Namely, I think every PP should have to do at least one or two lessons in exactly such an aircraft. Before my FBO got the Champ on the line, and I flew it and got a tailwheel cert, I would have poo-pooed such a suggestion. Then I got in that plane and it kicked my a--! I learned more in 10 hours about how an aircraft actually flies than in all my PP training. You want to learn about landing an aircraft on the centerline, aligned with the runway, brother that is the airplane to teach it.

I think we are doing a disservice making the PP about so much more than basic stick and rudder skills. That needs to be job #1. Yes, a PP student should be looking out the window, but that big glass panel in front of them presents a HUGE distraction. And distraction is the last thing a low time student needs.

And that, along with the significant increase in price to fly the thing, are my issues with the glass for primary training.

Jim G

That's just it, everything is a huge distraction, even basic steam guages, that's why I covered em up for primary students, "You don't need those yet." I don't mind teaching em in a Champ or 140 or a T-craft. But that means that the FBO has to maintain and insure a plane that the insurance companies don't like & that a large portion of the current crop of instructors aren't qualified to fly much less instruct in. I agree with you in heart that more primary airmanship needs to be taught, I just don't think that a glass panel is a hinderance to that, it just means the instructor has to rearrange their methods a bit. I also think the ciriculum should be around 55 hrs rather than 40.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That's just it, everything is a huge distraction, even basic steam guages, that's why I covered em up for primary students, "You don't need those yet." I don't mind teaching em in a Champ or 140 or a T-craft. But that means that the FBO has to maintain and insure a plane that the insurance companies don't like & that a large portion of the current crop of instructors aren't qualified to fly much less instruct in. I agree with you in heart that more primary airmanship needs to be taught, I just don't think that a glass panel is a hinderance to that, it just means the instructor has to rearrange their methods a bit. I also think the ciriculum should be around 55 hrs rather than 40.

True. Remember that the 40 hours is pretty much based on the simplest airplane you can fly to obtain a Private certificate. Probably more than "complexity", glass adds "functions" that need to be taught. More to teach, more time to teach it. It's a simple equation that slips by most of us.

Fly safe!

David

 

[Henning]

True. Remember that the 40 hours is pretty much based on the simplest airplane you can fly to obtain a Private certificate. Probably more than "complexity", glass adds "functions" that need to be taught. More to teach, more time to teach it. It's a simple equation that slips by most of us.

Fly safe!

David

And has been slipping by for a few decades. We've pulled spin training and replaced it with instrument training, this is a much more pressing issue to me than Steam vs. Glass for primary because it is a stick and rudder issue. Steam vs glass shoudn't be an issue at ppl level, because by the function of either, they are an IR issue. VFR/PP doesn't need to eally understand anything but the rudimentary usage of the panel. They do need to know what happens when the plane goes whoop de doo. Granted, it's not much of an issue, and in most planes, if you are flying the plane in trim and break, just let go.... Thing is, the first time it happens is a shocker. Best to get it out of the way while safe to do so in a controlled environment. It also gives the PP the confidence to fly his aircraft more acurately to the lower margins of the envelope. This is basic airmanship. What instrument type shouldn't matter.