Sure the aircraft will have lower operating costs, but they aren't cheap and they need to be financed. Flight training isn't the most lucrative business so I guess these things will need to be worked hard to make them pay! Every business aims to at least break even and pay back it's cost of capital, so if these things do run at a lower cost then that's good for everyone, students included.
Yes at some stage people need to learn about the trusty magneto, mixture controls, RPM levers etc if they are going to teach on or fly those aircraft of course. Plenty more still need to understand the difference between a carburettor and fuel injection as found on most new cessnas etc. these days.
However, there will come a time when maybe people don't need to, as they don't ever fly with the old technology/systems. I'm not sure what the current CAA view is, but I suppose flying the legacy stuff will require some sort of differences training as for VP props/retractable gear/tailwheel/pressurisation etc. I agree any GA/private/air taxi pilots needs to be taught all this and retain currency but many (in Europe) who go directly from flight training to airlines don't bother to maintain their more advanced single pilot GA ratings and so it will never really be an issue!
Likewise I guess that whilst 1950s vintage trainers were good for starting out on clockwork commercial aircraft, I guess in a similar manner the Garmin gear may be more suited to anything after, say, the 737-200 ?
I don't really think it is a big issue any of this, your mate just needs good quality commercial instruction. I posted because my visit to Coventry got me thinking ... after having heard a lot of negatives from various camps about these modern diesels being too easy with their single power lever (like a jet ??) .. sure that may be a consideration, but my post was specifically about the Glass instrumentation, by Garmin 1000 and Avidyne, and my own personal view is that these systems are a big step forward for GA. Used correctly they contribute to greater situational awareness and flight safety, but they are more complex and require the student to invest time and resources to master them. This, together with increased reliance on GPS, is the future, or at least the way forward and so I've concluded that today's students might as well master all this from the outset.
It is personal choice .. other factors such as availability of aircraft (any aircraft!) and continuity of training with good commercial instructors at the right price and in the right place (ie the airport's charges and suitability for efficient training) is more of a consideration I'm sure.
So far as the airlines are concerned, I doubt many of them have any coherent views on the matter, really. As you say the current system has produced generations of competent pilots and I'm sure they aren't going to show any bias over whether you trained on a digital or a gyro-horizon (however tricky some of the latter could be), so long as you can demonstrate that you know how they work! The same goes for instructors I'm sure.
However this new multi-crew licence *is* a significant change, but that is another topic entirely...
Going to sign off on all this now .. best wishes to all in training or making the tricky decision as to where to do it !
Last edited by George Foreman; 5th Feb 2007 at 23:03.