The Great Debate Part Deux: Glass vs. Steam for Primary Training

Glass vs. Steam for Primary Training?

  • Total voters
    70
HighFlyingA380

HighFlyingA380

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
1,035
Location
St. Louis
Display Name
Display name:
Jim F.
My flight school has recently been looking more closely at pushing the G1000 aircraft for primary training, but several of us have differing views/opinions on what would be best for the student. We do understand that every student is different and has different aviation goals in mind, but the consensus seems to be that we at least need a baseline regarding where to start the discussion (that baseline being pushing glass or steam first), and then tailor the training to the individual.

For the pro-G1000 argument, we have:
1- We're training professional pilots, and the higher-tech stuff is what they will be flying later on, so why not start them off in it?
2- More flight data available, so they'll be safer pilots and have a better understanding/command of their aircraft.
3- A bit more revenue, thus allowing us to further invest more resources into improving training outside of the aircraft.
4- Stick-and-rudder skills are the same regardless of what's bolted in the panel.

For the pro-round gauge argument, we have:
1- More cost effective for the student, allowing for more training time/materials.
2- No data-overload, which could easily confuse or overwhelm a new student to the point of not absorbing any information.
3- Just as safe as G1000, as the information is all basically the same.
4- Our more advanced aircraft needed for advanced ratings (Cutlass for commercial and Duchess for multi) are round gauge, so if the student wants to go past IFR, they'll need to fly a round gauge anyway. Why not make that process easier by starting in the round, and converting if necessary?
5- Easier to simulate partial- or full system failures by completely blocking specific instruments/displays while not affecting the viability of others. (I know, for example, it can be almost impossible to completely block off the artificial horizon on the G1000 while not accidentally covering other instruments. If you leave those instruments uncovered, you can still see part of the horizon.)
6- Easier to transfer into a G1000 than it is to transfer into a round gauge from a glass aircraft. (My real-world example: In college, two of my good buddies finished their PVT at about the same time. One did theirs in a round and wanted the G1000 for IFR. The other did theirs in the glass and wanted to go to steam for IFR due to the lower cost. To save money on an instructor just to get used to the new display, they asked me to just sit right-seat, which I'd obviously do for free. The one going from round to glass only took a couple of hours before he was very comfortable using the G1000 system. The one going from glass to steam took quite a bit longer. He seemed to always have trouble cross-referencing instruments, especially with system failures. It took him well into his IFR training (besides all the fling we did) for his instructor to even sign him off for solo in the G1000.)

What are your views on this? Any input, insight, suggestions, experience, comments, ect to help us out would be great. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
(This from a 1300 hour pilot who has never flown a glass panel, unless you count the 496 on my yoke or the 530 in the panel).

Primary training is about controlling the airplane, learning how the control surfaces work, learning how do land. Why not do that in something cheaper by the hour? You are looking outside, anyway. If you want to transition to glass later, and can afford something newer, then do it later. A primary student does not need anymore "geewhiz" gadgets.

Wells
 
This is the down fall of some schools. They want to push folks instead of letting the student do what is comfortable to them.

My way of thinking would be to have the plane available with a glass cockpit so after student "X" learns and would be walking away from the school until an indorsement was needed, now this school could say, Why not furhter your education and move up to glass panel.

Handle it this way and your student stays on campus longer and is comfortable believing they are running things the way they want. When in reality its helping the flight school and what the school was planning all along.

Fly Smart
 
W. Stewart said:
Primary training is about controlling the airplane, learning how the control surfaces work, learning how do land. Why not do that in something cheaper by the hour? You are looking outside, anyway. If you want to transition to glass later, and can afford something newer, then do it later. A primary student does not need anymore "geewhiz" gadgets.
Click to expand...
I'd say this. Additionally, round gauge/steam panels are going to be around in the GA fleet for a long time. Unless the person is planning on buying a plane with a glass panel right away, there is a very likely chance that they will end up flying behind round gauges at some point.

It is easier to transition from steam to glass than vice versa and generally speaking switching things up during initial PPL training results in taking longer to finish the rating.

Might as well get the exposure to round gauges and complete the PPL as cost effectively as possible and then move up to the glass as they have the desire and money.
 
The analog gages offer some good "hooks and handles" for beginners as they learn about correlation of instruments and where the various needles point.

For example, seeing the altimeter needle moving up slowly will normally result in a slight down indication on the VSI and slightly slower IAS. The same information is available on both technologies, but IMO it's easier to grasp with the big needles on the round gages.

I understand we're not teaching instrument flying from the get-go, but understanding how the gages reflect what's happening in the windshield is a basic fundamental of attitude flying.
 
It's primary training. Cover the panel up and teach 'em some stick and rudder skills! And then, you won't have to argue. ;)

If someone really wants glass, let 'em do it that way. Otherwise, steam.
 
Trained mostly with steam, I now fly with a G1000. For 100% of my flying there is nothing the G1000 offers me that I could not get with a moderately well equipped steam gauge plane, with a engine monitor, moving map, and autopilot. Well I do get XM radio, but then again do not use it. The G1000 is a neat instrument but it does not replace good stick and rudder skills and what is between my ears and in front of my face. For the beginning student it just adds another thing to learn.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
For the pro-G1000 argument, we have:
1- We're training professional pilots, and the higher-tech stuff is what they will be flying later on, so why not start them off in it?
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that there are still many older airplanes with steam gauges so there's a good chance that whatever someone is hired to fly will not have glass.
 
I think you get a better appreciation of what is going on with the steam gauges.
Once you revert to IFR, you get a better picture of "the forest" and are better able to keep track of everything going on with glass (although you tend to loose obvious trend information)
 
Fearless Tower said:
I'd say this. Additionally, round gauge/steam panels are going to be around in the GA fleet for a long time. Unless the person is planning on buying a plane with a glass panel right away, there is a very likely chance that they will end up flying behind round gauges at some point.
Click to expand...


They essentially said the same thing about cars and manual transmissions.
Amazing how many people get psyched out with a stick in the car and then grind away (and maybe never engage) the tranny if they are in a position where they need to drive one
 
oldShar said:
They essentially said the same thing about cars and manual transmissions.
Amazing how many people get psyched out with a stick in the car and then grind away (and maybe never engage) the tranny if they are in a position where they need to drive one
Click to expand...

Not analogous. You need to be more aware of what your car is doing to use a manual transmission than an automatic. Steam gauge use requires no additional awareness (well, almost none -- there are no trend lines with steam gauges), but requires a lot of additional training.

TAA requires messing with much more complex interfaces, many of which (Garmin) are absolutely terrible. I think there should be an endorsement for that, as the incremental effort is far above what a high performance endorsement requires, and a huge number of people underestimate this.

The firehose argument is a really big one. At least pre-solo, you really don't want the students focused on managing the really bad Garmin interface. You want them focusing on stick and rudder skills.
 
The first 15 hours of my primary training were in a J-3. No electrical system at all. Airspeed, altimeter, slip indicator, tachometer, and coat hanger/float fuel gauge.

This was the best aviation related thing that has ever happened to me!

THAT'S THE WAY TO TEACH A NEW PILOT!!!!!

Putting a brand new student pilot behind a G-1000, or even a nicely equipped steam gauge airplane is doing him or her a great disservice.

The new pilot ought to learn to use the stick and rudder before he or she starts pushing buttons.

After 10 to 15 hours in the most basic airplane you can find, then start transitioning the new pilot to a more sophisticated airplane.

That will make a pilot who won't fall into the ocean if the computers go tango-uniform.

Strong message follows.
 
Still trying to convince everyone to train a student, in old technology, because there's still old technology out there, is not a good way to train the future. You train them in the CURRENT technology, and then they can go learn on old analog, "steam" gauges, not the other way around.

That's like telling someone that is training to fix people's car stereos that instead of training them to repair CD players, they should learn to repair cassette decks first, because some cars still have those... I can guarantee if someone learns to fix the CD player first, they can backtrack to the cassette deck - i.e. old technology... Come on

As far as which one - everyone who said - that they better be looking outside and not at gauges, whether they're round or square, is absolutely right. They should have a turn coordinator and the rest covered up. So that's a moot point.

When it comes to instrumentation training, proficiency in both is recommended for all the reasons already mentioned. However, train them in the CURRENT technology, and then back train! This isn't art class, they don't need to learn to draw with pencil before a stylus. Besides we all know a glass cockpit is much more efficient for task management, I don't care what round dial tricks you use.

Yes there are "some" aircraft, that still have round dials, but glass is the CURRENT technology, and needs to be trained on, so they're not behind the damn curve when they go for commercial jobs, where the majority of those aircraft will have GLASS panels or some derivation of that.

$.02 (where's the damn cents button on this keyboard?? Oh that's right, that's old tech, and can be accomplished with the "$" instead. :) )
 
Last edited:
Archammer said:
That's like telling someone that is training to fix people's car stereos that instead of training them to repair CD players, they should learn to repair cassette decks first, because some cars still have those... I can guarantee if someone learns to fix the CD player first, they can backtrack to the cassette deck - i.e. old technology... Come on
Click to expand...

No, it's more like telling them to learn to repair basic electronics before going after the fancy LCD DVD/BluRay players.

The G1000 is absolutely not required to fly an airplane, but it is such a massive amount of largely irrelevant information, that it will overwhelm a new pilot. Once they know what's relevant and what isn't, THEN you can go after that, but not before.

You don't need ANY attitude indicator to fly VFR, let alone one that takes up a whole screen.

You fly the airplane, not the panel. Spending attention of an overwhelmed student in front of the firehose on a fancy panel is stupid. You'll end up with a more overwhelmed student.
 
Archammer said:
Still trying to convince everyone to train a student, in old technology, because there's still old technology out there, is not a good way to train the future. You train them in the CURRENT technology, and then they can go learn on old analog, "steam" gauges, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I think the mix of steam to glass for the GA fleet at my airport is about 85% steam and 15% Glass (G1000 or similar). That's not formal data but I think i'm in the ballpark.

Having the old technology constitute the vast majority of GA equipment is a lot different than your words "because there's still old technology out there"
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
No, it's more like telling them to learn to repair basic electronics before going after the fancy LCD DVD/BluRay players.

The G1000 is absolutely not required to fly an airplane, but it is such a massive amount of largely irrelevant information, that it will overwhelm a new pilot. Once they know what's relevant and what isn't, THEN you can go after that, but not before.

You don't need ANY attitude indicator to fly VFR, let alone one that takes up a whole screen.

You fly the airplane, not the panel. Spending attention of an overwhelmed student in front of the firehose on a fancy panel is stupid. You'll end up with a more overwhelmed student.
Click to expand...

Having learned on steam, I have to agree with this 100%. After a ten year hiatus, I returned to the cockpit two years ago. Went right into a G1000 cockpit with a CFI and felt very overwhelmed!

Fortunately, it didn't take long for me to get back up to speed because I already knew how to fly.

Now I fly glass almost all the time (except when flying the Super Decathlon), and love it, but it took a few flights to force my eyes back outside most of the time, as opposed to the fancy screens. I'm glad I learned on steam.
 
I don't care for the touch screen movement because they don't work as well with this:

466900_10150764125378218_817931303_o_zps03277050.jpg
 
MAKG1 said:
Sure they do. Stick that hook through the screen, and you can move it anywhere you like.

[Point well taken, BTW]
Click to expand...


As much as I can enjoy relieving stress by crushing and breaking things or using it as a hammer, it really sucks if this happens. :sigh:

209556_10151020483723218_605580144_o_zps6245d04c.jpg
 
bnt83 said:
I don't care for the touch screen movement because they don't work as well with this:
Click to expand...

Luckily for you, touch screens in airplanes are rare. G1000 doesn't have it...

Most touch screens in GA are the new Garmin GTN650/GTN750 GPS/Nav/Com units, which are in airplanes that came from the factory with steam (though some are choosing to retrofit a G500/G600 glass panel at the same time).

Also, I'd bet that you could use a capacitive stylus or mount some sort of capacitive device that would allow you to use a touch screen. I'm not sure, but I don't think any of the aviation touch screens are multi-touch yet.
 
Archammer said:
Still trying to convince everyone to train a student, in old technology, because there's still old technology out there, is not a good way to train the future. You train them in the CURRENT technology, and then they can go learn on old analog, "steam" gauges, not the other way around.

That's like telling someone that is training to fix people's car stereos that instead of training them to repair CD players, they should learn to repair cassette decks first, because some cars still have those... I can guarantee if someone learns to fix the CD player first, they can backtrack to the cassette deck - i.e. old technology... Come on
Click to expand...

The problem with your theory is that there are TONS of glass-panel airplanes still in use, and there will be for the foreseeable future. I don't think it's realistic at all to expect to be able to go for a whole career on glass panel aircraft.

The reason people say to learn steam and then glass is that it's a lot harder to train situational awareness when someone is used to having it fed to them. It's a piece of cake to learn it and then have it fed to you, not so much the other way around.

Yes there are "some" aircraft, that still have round dials, but glass is the CURRENT technology, and needs to be trained on, so they're not behind the damn curve when they go for commercial jobs, where the majority of those aircraft will have GLASS panels or some derivation of that.
Click to expand...

No way. Most airliners are glass, now, sure... But there's a long road to get there, and that road goes through steam-gauge airplanes. Flying freight, towing banners, teaching students, etc. in beat-up old birds.

Besides, most steam-gauge airplanes have the standard "six pack" and that learning transfers over to other steam-gauge airplanes. I can work wonders with a G1000, but that is completely, utterly meaningless if I get a commercial job where I'm flying behind a Collins ProLine or Honeywell Apex panel. At that point, there is very little transfer regardless of whether I've been flying steam or glass before - Everything's in a different place.
 
Train what you plan on flying. Most people are going to start their careers flying old planes with steam gauges. We haven't gotten to the point yet where, even if you go straight from flight school to airlines, you'll be starting with glass.

If you plan on flying your own planes, then it just depends on what you want to fly. If you're going to be flying glass airplanes, then train in glass airplanes.
 
W. Stewart said:
(This from a 1300 hour pilot who has never flown a glass panel, unless you count the 496 on my yoke or the 530 in the panel).

Primary training is about controlling the airplane, learning how the control surfaces work, learning how do land. Why not do that in something cheaper by the hour? You are looking outside, anyway. If you want to transition to glass later, and can afford something newer, then do it later. A primary student does not need anymore "geewhiz" gadgets.

Wells
Click to expand...

Because it takes 20 hours to learn the 'gee whiz' gadgets. If you start off with full glass, you get to learn it bit by bit as you get your primary training done (you can still use a 430W as a simple Nav Com), that way when you finally have PPL in hand, you don't have another 5 hr+ 'check out' before you can rent a plane your spouse will get in and another 30+ hrs before you are competent with the equipment.


If you're a dirt poor rental pilot that will always be renting the lowest cost POS available, then for the next few years you'll be better off learning in the lowest cost POS available (in a few more years, everything will be glass or restricted to Class G airspace). If you intend to rent modern glass gear in the near future, spend at least half your time in those planes especially if you intend to move into an IR soon after PP. If you intend to buy a plane, buy it first, equip it the way you want and learn in it.
 
North of 1000 hours here, 100+ with G1000. Commercial/Instrument

IMHO the biggest difference with glass is that situational awareness is so easy. I often fly with guys who haven't the slightest idea where they are unless they can look at the moving map.

I have made the decision not to get a CFII, but if I were instructing in a G1000 cockpit, whether primary or instrument, I would make a blockoff panel that covered the MFD map area, leaving the engine panel visible and we would be flying with that configuration 99% of the time. It would come off only when I was sure that the student always knew where he/she was. Then the steam/glass question would be much less important, again IMHO.
 
JimNtexas said:
The first 15 hours of my primary training were in a J-3. No electrical system at all. Airspeed, altimeter, slip indicator, tachometer, and coat hanger/float fuel gauge.

This was the best aviation related thing that has ever happened to me!

THAT'S THE WAY TO TEACH A NEW PILOT!!!!!

Putting a brand new student pilot behind a G-1000, or even a nicely equipped steam gauge airplane is doing him or her a great disservice.

The new pilot ought to learn to use the stick and rudder before he or she starts pushing buttons.

After 10 to 15 hours in the most basic airplane you can find, then start transitioning the new pilot to a more sophisticated airplane.

That will make a pilot who won't fall into the ocean if the computers go tango-uniform.

Strong message follows.
Click to expand...

I partially agree, but some guys probably do need to be trained in what they will be flying. I am personally training one student right now in his brand new (practically) Cessna T182 with the G1000, and also teaching two guys in the Cub, and another in a Cessna 170 (among other students). Any of them may turn out to be good pilots. I think a lot falls on both the instructor - to teach them well, and also on the student who does need to apply himself to learn.

Ryan

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the one of the main goals of the PPL training was to teach the student how to fly the plane using stick and rudder techniques, Now before I get creamed I know there is a lot more to PPL training than that, but if you do not have that, how can you possibly be a compentant pilot. The G1000 is no better to teach you stick and rudder than the six pack. In fact, most of my PPL training had me looking out the windshield and not in the cockpit, and if I remember correctly that is what VFR flying is all about. I think where the G1000(disclosure here I learned on mostly a six pack, except for about two or three flights when the six pack was not available and then used the G1000 version of the sixpack and now own a G1000 equipped plane) is utilized in the PPL training is after the learning of the stick and rudder, and really at that point it present the same information just in a different format.

So in theory there should be no different in the skill level of the individual student based on if he trained in a TAA, or non TAA, Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, many of us tend to be fascinated by new technology, and I think this is where we may be failing students training on TAA. It is too easy to allow the bells and whistles in the TAA to enamore the student and the basics are lost. I think however, we a little ingenuity the TAA can be made to simulate a nonTAA and then stick and rudder technique can be taught.

It's late and I am not sure I am making my point clear, hopefully I am.
 
douglas393 said:
So in theory there should be no different in the skill level of the individual student based on if he trained in a TAA, or non TAA, Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, many of us tend to be fascinated by new technology, and I think this is where we may be failing students training on TAA. It is too easy to allow the bells and whistles in the TAA to enamore the student and the basics are lost. I think however, we a little ingenuity the TAA can be made to simulate a nonTAA and then stick and rudder technique can be taught.
Click to expand...
This.

Ryan


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
 
What's the point of simulating a six-pack on a TAA?

Rental costs go up by up to $50/hour, and the experience is very similar to just using an aircraft equipped with a six-pack in the first place.
 
MAKG1 said:
What's the point of simulating a six-pack on a TAA?

Rental costs go up by up to $50/hour, and the experience is very similar to just using an aircraft equipped with a six-pack in the first place.
Click to expand...
Because a lot of people learning on TAA are more interested in learning the TAA than the basics of stick and rudder. In fact when I read you question at first I misinterpreted what's the point of learning to fly on a TAA, and I think there really is not, but a lot of people are learning on TAA, and some planes are not available except on TAA. So if you are learning on a TAA it does not mean you can forget about the basics, which is evidently happening to some.
 
douglas393 said:
Because a lot of people learning on TAA are more interested in learning the TAA than the basics of stick and rudder.
Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly true.

All the more reason for a TAA endorsement. That's a huge distraction in primary training.

That wasn't my statement -- only that simulating instruments at significant expense compared to just using the real instruments seems pointless to me.

But even if one wants to train in a TAA, why not use a six pack until solo? Before that, the TAA is irrelevant.
 
What are you going to fly after you leave the training environment? Train in that....
 
MAKG1 said:
Well, that's certainly true.

All the more reason for a TAA endorsement. That's a huge distraction in primary training.

That wasn't my statement -- only that simulating instruments at significant expense compared to just using the real instruments seems pointless to me.

But even if one wants to train in a TAA, why not use a six pack until solo? Before that, the TAA is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Agree.
 
I hear that statement a lot but have never been able to come up with the correct answer. How does a pilot know what's coming next?

jbarrass said:
What are you going to fly after you leave the training environment? Train in that....
Click to expand...
 
As a 250 hour sport pilot who got my ticket in the last couple years I can say glass was most comfortable option for me. I had the opportunity to fly the exact same aircraft in two different configurations during training. One with a six pack and 495 and the other with a Garmin G3X. To me the scan on the Garmin was just so much more natural for me to learn and use. When I bought the same model aircraft I learned in I again went for glass and recently upgraded to a Garmin 796, it already had a Dynon D-180 and 496 I had removed (too small screen for me). The 796 and D-180 is a great combination and I have used it for local flights all over CO/NM as well as long cross countries across the U.S. Not that I couldn't have done this with a six pack but I sure prefer glass. I know the initial question was about initial training, but to me it goes to what you do after you learn too.

Carl
 
SportPilotCO said:
As a 250 hour sport pilot who got my ticket in the last couple years I can say glass was most comfortable option for me. I had the opportunity to fly the exact same aircraft in two different configurations during training. One with a six pack and 495 and the other with a Garmin G3X. To me the scan on the Garmin was just so much more natural for me to learn and use. When I bought the same model aircraft I learned in I again went for glass and recently upgraded to a Garmin 796, it already had a Dynon D-180 and 496 I had removed (too small screen for me). The 796 and D-180 is a great combination and I have used it for local flights all over CO/NM as well as long cross countries across the U.S. Not that I couldn't have done this with a six pack but I sure prefer glass. I know the initial question was about initial training, but to me it goes to what you do after you learn too.

Carl
Click to expand...

I agree with you that you need to learn about glass cockpits if that is what you are going to fly after you get your ticket, but whereas there are loads of different glass screens out there and every one is worked differently, for the most part a six pack is a six pack despite who manufactures it. So I think learning how to use the glass panel is something that occurs after you buy your plane and glass screen.

I learned in a six pack and now fly a G1000. The transition was a non event, and think this was because I learned stick and rudder and flew stick and rudder long before I flew Glass screen. My issue with the glass screen is that it is an attention getter, and it seems to me when first learning to fly simple is best and nothing can be simplier than a standard six pack. You can learn how to use what you need to know with a six pack in a relatively short period of time, where as well look at the manuals and the courses out there for the average glass screen.
 
wabower said:
I hear that statement a lot but have never been able to come up with the correct answer. How does a pilot know what's coming next?
Click to expand...

Most pilots probably don't, but from about my 2nd lesson on I knew I was going to head into the twin world, and knew from what was around me (and my budgetary constraints) that glass would be a ways off. So it works out well.
 
PPL training should be focused on stick and rudder skills, even if you'll be flying glass in the future.

My vote is steam gauges until cross country. If you really need glass, introduce it then. Not required at all. I'd say save your money.
 
Learn in steam. Save money, focus on learning how to fly, how to navigate with wristwatch, compass, and sectional (and later, a VOR, perhaps), learn how to talk on the radio, etc.

I even think steam is best for IFR.

Once you have your ticket, if you can, fly planes with the best panel you can find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top