Aircraft for Instrument Training

17 Answers

1. 
   

   
   

   Nathan Parker on May 04, 2011

   During most discussions of this subject, most people seem to feel that learning on steam gauges is better; once you have mastered that, transitioning to a glass cockpit is pretty easy.  The reverse isn’t as true.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

2. 
   

   
   

   Wes Beard on May 04, 2011

   I agree with Nathan for a couple additional reasons:
    
   (1)  Usually the G1000 aircraft have a three round guages from which to fly with and thus the learning on steam gauges still have a lot of merit
    
   (2)  The systems powering the G1000 are grouped logically into pitot/static instruments (ADC), gyroscopic instruments (AHRS) and compass (magnetometer).  Learning the limitations on the steam gauges directly transfer to the technically advanced aircraft (TAA).
    
   (3)  There is something about being able to tune in a VOR / ADF and quickly figure out where you are in relation to the Navaid and what direction you need to turn to intercept a certain course TO the navaid.  With the ability of the G1000 to draw the line on the MFD, the pilot in training may not completely grasp this concept.  I also like teaching ADF navigation as later aircraft use RMI needles that operate in the exact same fashion as the old ADF needle, except this time with GPS the “navaid” can be anywhere

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

3. 
   

   
   

   Jim Foley on May 05, 2011

   I have to respectfully disagree.  I had about 8 hours of instrument training in the round guages, then transitioned to G1000.  After a couple VFR flights to get used to the new display, I was able to better understand the IFR procedures by visualizing it on the display.  As I am taking my instrument checkride in a few days, looking back, it is good to have experience in the round guage, incase that style is all that is available to me, but I prefer the G1000.  The situational awareness is increased so much, which directly relates to a safter flight, imho.
   As for teaching ADF, we would punch in direct to the ADF on the GPS, and use it just like an ADF.  Obviously, you can’t shoot an ADF approach legally like that, but it teaches it just the same.
   Perhaps it was easier for me since I am very technologically inclined, and I completely read the Max Trescott G1000 book before flying, so I knew the system and user interface inside and out.  If you think you may want to go to the G1000, take a lesson in it, and see how you like it.  You can always go back to round, and it won’t hurt being introduced to the new system.

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

4. 
   

   
   

   James MacGregor CFI on May 05, 2011

     I learned IFR on a old frasca, big fiberglass tube with steam gauges.
    
    IMHO, your studet should be able to look at a vor, dg and altimiter and airspeed and see in a gods eye view where they are going and how they are tracking. Going from a six pack to glass is no issue, there is a reason that the inverse is not true and for good reason.

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

5. 
   

   
   

   Kent Shook on May 05, 2011

   Jim,
    
   I most certainly prefer the G1000 for my actual flying, and there are numerous advantages to flying with such a capable system that both gives you more information and presents it in an easier-to-read fashion. 
    
   HOWEVER – I am *really* glad that I trained on round gauges. If you’re ever going to fly on round gauges, you should probably train on them IMO. It forces you to build the map of your situation in your head – That’s a skill you just won’t build when you have it fed to you, and will take a significant amount of time to build when transitioning to a round-gauge airplane for instrument flying. However, I was able to transition to the G1000 in only about 45 minutes (I could *fly* it just fine right away, but it took about 45 minutes before I didn’t have to think about the airspeed, altimeter, and VSI being on tapes instead of round gauges).
    
   So, throw my vote in with the “train on round gauges” crowd.

   +2 Votes 2 Votes  0 Votes

6. 
   

   
   

   Micah on May 05, 2011

   My “glass” experience is limited, so please correct my assessment where appropriate, but I think the two types of IFR flying use largely different skills (even if within the same skillset). I think “steam” flying requires much more from the pilot both in arranging the information and creating the flying picture than glass flying. Glass flying provides the information in a much more useful manner, but I’m not sure I would trust a glass-trained pilot in a steam airplane (unless they later trained in a steam setting) because it requires skills that have never been trained. Likewise, a good steam pilot can easily get over his/her head in a glass setting because the information is being presented in an unfamiliar manner. 
    
   Nevertheless, the basic skills are the same; I think an experienced (or at least well-trained) IFR pilot should be able to pick up the other practice with good training. So, my suggestion is to train on both (and not just train, but show competence). If not, then don’t fly it.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

7. 
   

   
   

   Micah on May 05, 2011

   One further comment/question: how do you train partial panel on glass?

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

8. 
   

   
   

   Lance on May 05, 2011

   I’ll throw another vote at steam gauges first, then transition over.  Kent put it very well, without being required to make that map in your head, you will not develop the skill set.  And I agree with Jim that the G1000 may be the better solution for flying IFR if you have it available and are proficient at it, but what about the day that your glass fails, or when you are not able to obtain a glass panel aircraft but need to fly IFR?  They are both very valuable and should be learned, but the transition is typically much easier to go from the old steam gauges to the more technically advanced aircraft.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

9. 
   

   
   

   MaggotCFII on May 05, 2011

   Analog before the Glass.  Interesting that the Instrument Flying Handbook refers to the “Airspeed Indicator, Attitude Indicator and Altimeter Indicator” as “Emergency Back-up”.
   So why not learn with the “Emergency Back-up” instruments before the transition to glass.  Then you have two skills.  And post-transition strive to maintain survival proficiency with the Basic Instrument Maneuvers, Instrument PTS – using the “Emergency Back-up” instruments.
   Especially since our cockpits are in transition.  There is more analog than glass in the Pt61 rental world here in the N.E.
   Do both, and yes glass is the future in GA, near or far is arguable.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

10. 
    

    
    

    Kent Shook on May 06, 2011

    Micah,
     
    Partial panel on glass: Pull circuit breakers. Also, Sporty’s sells a set of G1000 overlays that cover up various parts of the display. But, pulling breakers gives a much more realistic failure.
     
    After we got the G1000 DA40, I got a good 3.5-hour BFR/IPC in it, and it was a great workout. We failed the AHRS and we failed one of the GIA63’s. It was a great exercise – When you fail the AHRS, you get “ATTITUDE FAIL” and a black background, but the bank index remains on-screen, which gives you the false sense that you’re level when you’re not. It’s REALLY difficult to ignore that info and pay attention to the relatively tiny backup attitude indicator… But you can’t turn off the display or ignore it entirely, because your navigation info is still on the G1000. That’s another point of difficulty – The HSI shows “HDG FAIL” and the numbers go away, but there are still a bunch of tick marks arranged in a circle that don’t move, adding to the illusion that you’re not turning if you don’t pay enough attention to the backup AI and magnetic compass.
     
    At least on the DA40, the individual pieces that can be failed via circuit breakers to simulate partial panel are the AHRS (attitude heading reference system – AI, HSI), ADC (air data computer – airspeed, altitude, vsi, etc), GPS/NAV1, GPS/NAV2, PFD, and MFD. (There are other pieces you can fail, but they won’t change much on the panel.)
     
    BTW, Cessna recommends that you turn the brightness down on the displays rather than pulling breakers so that the breakers last longer. However, the Klixon breakers they use have the exact same rated service life as the actual switches that Cessna uses – It’s somewhere on the order of 6,000 pulls. So, I wouldn’t worry about pulling the breakers too much.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

11. 
    

    
    

    James MacGregor on May 06, 2011

    Perfering steam gauges and Tailwheel aircraft, looks like I’m going to be the oddball at the airfield.

    Personaly if I were to pick a IMC panel it would be a six pack with a HSI, Flight director, G430 WAAS and a MX20 with traffic and wx, add a stec autopilot if you want to be lazy and call it a wrap.

    Glass, to me, is like putting all my eggs in one basket.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

12. 
    

    
    

    Micah on May 07, 2011

    Thanks, Kent. I wouldn’t do what Cessna recommends. I don’t want my accident report to contain the statement “He saved a lot in training costs, but he never actually practiced a partial panel situation because he only turned the screens dark…”
     
    That’s the one complaint about steam partial panel–it takes away the information and doesn’t replicate the false information you receive from a dysfunctional instrument. 

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

13. 
    

    
    

    Kent Shook on May 07, 2011

    Yep – Realistic partial panel really should be part of any training – Glass or steam. For glass, it’s as easy as pulling breakers. For steam, you have to find someone with a Frasca or other such simulator where you can actually “fail” the gyros rather than covering them up. In a real-life failure scenario, recognition of the failure is half the battle. 

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

14. 
    

    
    

    Kent Shook on May 07, 2011

    James,
     
    Glass isn’t necessarily “putting all your eggs in one basket.” The G1000 has a reversionary mode for single display/computer failure and can be air-rebooted. (The same is unfortunately NOT true of the Avidyne.) On the DA40, in the event of an alternator failure you can turn off the alternator switch and turn on an “essential bus” switch for easy load-shedding, which gives you a single display, radio, GPS, and turns unnecessary things off – The aircraft battery is guaranteed to power the remaining items for at least 1/2 hour. If you’re still aloft long enough for the aircraft battery to drain down far enough that it can’t power even these items, or if you have an electrical fire, you flip the “Emergency” switch which cuts the backup AI from the rest of the system and powers it and the panel floodlight (if on) for 30 more minutes (or a full hour if the panel floodlight is off). Even if you make it to that point, you still have an attitude indicator, which is more than can be said of a single gyro failure or vacuum failure in a steam-gauge airplane.
     
    When you consider that you have to make it multiple steps down the failure chain before “your eggs are in one basket” and that the glass panel provides easy situational awareness, IMO glass panels are safer. I’m aware of the recent NTSB study revealing that the statistics for GA glass panels are about the same as for steam gauges, but I think those results were probably skewed by the large number of Cirrus airplanes that have glass and the relatively bad safety record they have – I think overall, the glass panel airplanes provide an increased level of safety and lower risk.
     
    But I still think people should train on steam…

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

15. 
    

    
    

    James MacGregor on May 07, 2011

    I look at it like this, I have a electronic unit providing most of my info, on steam I have a everything from electric gyros, all on diffret independent instruments, etc.

    N I have worked with computers far too long to actually trust them that much. I know they G1k is a safe great proven etc etc system, I still perfer entering IMC with a more “old school”‘setup.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

16. 
    

    
    

    Jon Pickering on Oct 29, 2011

    Here is my input on this. As a CFI/I, I can tell you undoubtedly that a private pilot regdardless of hour 100 or 1000, is going to be a far superior pilot learning on analogue instrumentation. Mastering everything that analouge has to offer, then transitioning to an EFIS system, which in itself will take a few hours or so. Learning on analouge teaches core mental skills which are missing when learning on a EFIS system, these mental skills I speak of can work on either system, the nature of glass cockpit flying at the private pilot level omits this and produces an inferior pilot. this is akin to learning math on paper prior to having a calcuklator do it for you, yes you can arrive at correct answer either way, but the person who learnt on paper first will always have those skills in their arsenal as opposed to the pilot who thinks that they have this wonderful visiual calculator in front of them, who can never fall back on the old way, because he/she never bothered to learn them, G1000-itus and the like, it can be a fatal disease. I have whitnessed it time and time again with pilots who think they know better and will argue with me as a CFI/I until I show them just how lacking they really are without those core skills. Take my word for it, learn the analouge way then transition. It ‘s like those claritin commercials, My vision is blurred, now I can really see why.

    +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

17. 
    

    
    

    Sthan on Jul 20, 2013

    I’v been flying steam gauge and now taking my instrument on G1000, I think flying EFIS reduce your workload, but you need to develop more skills than flying on steam gauge, because EFIS, is an evolution of steam gauge. US going to shut down old navaids, already shutdown LORAN in 2010, and NDBs are going down, VORs probably going to work until 2020 or around, then the NEXTGEN will take lead from 2016, so my question is want you fellow the evolution of the technologies or just keep on the old? of course both have their advantage and inconvenient.
    My opinion you can’t stop evolution.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes