Private in GLASS or Private in CONVENTIONAL

[Aerocadet]

Good day!

Anyone here did his/her Private Pilot training in GLASS?

Is it good to do your private in conventional then instrument in glass or private and instrument in glass?

I am in the process of deciding if I should start my training in a glass cockpit or conventional cockpit.

Thanks a lot! :O

[Jay & Silent Bob]

Why can't you do your training in both? My school has half there training aircraft with glass and the other half has coventional instruments. You just got whatever aircraft was avaliable on the day. There isn't much difference between them, it so happened the first part of my initial training was done with coventional instruments, took a little getting used to the glass but after an hour of flying it was fine. Now I can jump into an aircraft with either and not even give it a second thought.

[Donalk]

Do it in both if you have the opportunity as it will give you more flexibility when hour building having had experience on both. Instrument flying is easier in glass due to enhanced situational awareness.

[Bigglesthefrog]

In my opinion you should stick to one type of instrument while you are carrying out your PPL and also one type of aircraft too. The basic idea of being a student pilot is to learn how to fly. This is hands on stick and rudder gradually teaching your mind and body how to deal with a totally unnatural environment from a human point of view. Any unnecessary distractions should be avoided. After this and with a shiny new PPL in your hand you can start moving on to other things like different aircraft, twin ratings and indeed different instrument systems. Many PPLs lapse after getting their licenses and this is because the challenge has evaporated. If you keep this alive by doing different things, the joy of flying will stay with you.

[IO540]

There is a lot to be said for doing a PPL in the same plane which one will be renting afterwards.

Saves a whole load of time and money :)

[Ian.Ellis]

After about 60 hours in glass-cockpit DA40s after about 350 on steam dials I would hate to revert, but this might have something to do with having worked in radar & computers since 1957!

The two types of display are different, and I support the view that when learning you'd be better off sticking to the one you prefer and expect to use when you qualify.

[Aerocadet]

Thanks a lot for your inputs guys! :ok:

[Ian the Aviator]

I'd suggest doing the PPL on one type then doing a brief 'conversion' (perhaps an hour or two) with an instructor to get used to the other type.

If you then decide to add IMC or IR ratings glass is much easier to interpret allowing you to concentrate on the flying...... I wish there had been glass cockpits when i did my initial IR - steam-driven instuments in a seneca II just make life harder than it needs to be !

Good luck !

[A and C]

If the "glass" fails you are left with a very poorly equiped "steam" aircraft, this is not the time to learn to fly with just the "steam" instruments.

Start training with the basic fit and when you have got the licence using the basic fit go on to the "glass" then it is not a drama if it fails.

[Jay_solo]

learn conventional first, glass later. there are more conventional cockpits in GA than glass. Until glass becomes the norm (many years from that), learn the conventional type. Plus with glass, if the electrics fail, screen cracks, or a computer gitch develops at night, in day vfr over unfamiliar terrain or in IMC, your're screwed unless you know how to read the conventional gauges.

[LH2]

Doesn't matter. An aeroplane flies the same whether it's glass or steam inside, and for your PPL you're supposed to be looking outside most of the time anyway.

[Jay_solo]

LH2

Yes, they both fly the same and you have a point interms of looking outside while flying VFR. But its not 100% correct.

The airspeed indicator and altimeter are probably your two most critical instruments in a cockpit in an emergency, day or night or in IFR. You can't judge airspeed and altitude with accuracy while looking outside the window.

A glass cockpit feature like the Avidyne or Garmin G1000 use digital numeric characters to display your altitude and speed like a digital stop watch. Interpreting the speed and altitude is as easy as watching the numbers.

But in a conventional cockpit, the data is displayed like a conventional clock face, with small numeric chatacters, colour coding on your ASI and 3 hands on your ALT. You have to know how to, at a glance, read that info and develop a basic scan. A lot harder than just watching a digital numeric screen.

And when things go wrong, its far easier to diagnose a problem and (if possible) fix an analogue instrument than a digital screen. Thats why even jets like the B747 and the Airbus A380 have conventional instruments alongside the shiny glass screens. Its a better back up than using more electronic screens.

[ExSp33db1rd]

I don't like 'Glass' presentation.

I don't read an analogue watch and say 14.42, I look at the picture and see that the minute hand is nearly half-way up the dial.

Same with the altimeter or the ASI, I know what 'pictures' I'm looking for to maintain 3,500 ft. and 120 kts, and if I start to descend, or slow down, I can see a trend, means a hell of a lot more than watching spinning numbers.

New isn't always best, what do you do with half the additional information that 'glass' cockpits give you ? probably ignore most of it 'cos you don't need it.

Like buying a camera with an f.2 lens when all you ever want to do is take photographs on the beach in good light.

Horses for Courses, train on what you're going to be doing with your licence

[Julian]

Learn in a conventional and then convert once you have passed your test, it doesnt take long.

I agree with Speedbird, when I first started flying glass I just couldnt get my head around the 'tape', I was that used to have a quick glance at say the ASI and seeing its position on the dial, you cant do that with tape.

J.

[ILOC]

I did the first half of my training on conventional instruments, and then after an unfortunate gap decided to go out to the US to complete my training in one lump which I did on a G1000 equipped DA40.

I agree with Julian, initially, being used to analogue gauges, I found it was quite an adjustment to get used to reading the key information at a glance from the G1000. But you quickly get used to it.

If your instructor is any good he'll have you looking at the analogue gauges as well (on the DA40 they are conveniently just below the coaming unlike the Cirrus). There is no way any responsible instructor would let you complete your PPL without being able to read the analogue gauges as well!

A glass cockpit feature like the Avidyne or Garmin G1000 use digital numeric characters to display your altitude and speed like a digital stop watch. Interpreting the speed and altitude is as easy as watching the numbers.

But in a conventional cockpit, the data is displayed like a conventional clock face, with small numeric chatacters, colour coding on your ASI and 3 hands on your ALT. You have to know how to, at a glance, read that info and develop a basic scan. A lot harder than just watching a digital numeric screen.

I don't agree at all. I found it the exact opposite.

And when things go wrong, its far easier to diagnose a problem and (if possible) fix an analogue instrument than a digital screen. Thats why even jets like the B747 and the Airbus A380 have conventional instruments alongside the shiny glass screens. Its a better back up than using more electronic screens.

Not really, it's more to do with allowing for the possibility of an electrical failure or a screen failure. You're very unlikely diagnose and fix the problem with the instrument in the air anyway and once you're down it's irrelevant what type of instrument you have to fix, you'll generally have to fix it regardless.

I agree with others on here that it's probably worth either getting a mixture or learning on what you plan to fly. If you intend to fly glass cockpit planes when you qualify then you might as well do some or all of your training on glass - it will save you money in the end as converting to glass, particularly the G1000, once you qualify will take quite a few hours.

[Justiciar]

My Pioneer 300 had a lovely little Dynon 10A centre panel, with analogue Altimeter and ASI next to it. It was some time before I realised that on take off and even more so on landing I was using the analogue instruments and only switching to the Dynon in straight and level.

The truth is that analogue makes it much easier to derive information from a quick glance; likewise to derive a trend from the instrument. Focussing on the digital readout of the Dynon for air speed and altitude just seem to take that bit too long in critical phases of flight.

It does seem to me that for day VFR glass is overkill. In fact, it make for a more complex set up because of the need to have back up analogue instruments. Remove that requirement and there will seem more point to the glass cockpit.

[BackPacker]

The truth is that analogue makes it much easier to derive information from a quick glance; likewise to derive a trend from the instrument. Focussing on the digital readout of the Dynon for air speed and altitude just seem to take that bit too long in critical phases of flight.
I agree with Speedbird, when I first started flying glass I just couldnt get my head around the 'tape', I was that used to have a quick glance at say the ASI and seeing its position on the dial, you cant do that with tape.
Same with the altimeter or the ASI, I know what 'pictures' I'm looking for to maintain 3,500 ft. and 120 kts, and if I start to descend, or slow down, I can see a trend, means a hell of a lot more than watching spinning numbers.

I have read some advise somewhere, when dealing with glass cockpits, NOT to interpret the numbers. Instead, you set the altitude/speed/heading bug to whatever you want to achieve, and then fly the bug to midpoint on the scale.

And once it's there, it's just as easy to see a trend developing as with analogue gauges.

I think the Dynon even allows you to configure several speed bugs. Vx, Vy, Vcruise, Vref and maybe one or two other common speeds.

[Justiciar]

The heading bug is usuable once you are on approximately the desired heading. The others are (in my view) more problamatical. None are as easy to see as an old fashioned dial, though I accept that this may be due to the small size of the 10A. You have to set the bug once you are on the heading or speed you want, which is distracting coming down short final.

[Jay_solo]

ILOC

I respect that you may not agree with my point, and that you may find glass cockpits harder to interpret. Every one is different. So fair point.

But I think you missinterpreted the context in which I was making my point - I was responding to one poster who suggested that in any case you fly looking outside the aircraft. That is true, but when instruments fail, judging speed and altitude with the naked eye is near impossible when it comes to being accurate. But I was merely comparing the differences between the two systems. Not suggesting that one is better than the other, as its a personal choice. But its a better redundancy to have conventional instruments than glass avionics, due to the simplicity of their design.

Good point about the electrical failure scenario. But regarding my use of the word fix; I put the word possibly (in brackets) in connection to the word, as it may not always be easy to do so in flight. And I am not alluding to necessarily taking the instrument apart in flight. But when I say fix, it means as in, find a solution!

For example, If the static port is blocked but the pitot tube remains clear, the airspeed indicator becomes an altimeter in reverse.

Solution or Fix:

If the aircraft is not equipped with an alternate static source, the pilot may choose to induce static pressure into the block static system by breaking the glass face of the Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI).

You are taught that at private level. So you know what to look for and what to do if it does happen. Simple system, simpler solutions available.

But if your shiny G1000 screen goes blank, but the radios work, lights work, what has happened? Clearly the main electrics are in tact, but try and diagnose and fix that problem. If its computer glitch or a faulty connection inside the unit, unless your're an avionics technician or a computer whizz with diagnostic equipment, it would be difficult to find out what has happened or rectify it.

In the end, my overall point is; learn conventional first as most GA aircraft you'd rent are over 15 or 20 years old and use conventional instruments. And Glass cockpits haven't flooded the GA rental market as yet (could be several years off). But if you want to fly Glass, Fly glass! Different strokes for different folks.