IFR Rating: G1000 or round dials?
 

Hi All

I’m looking for some pros/cons between doing an MECIR on G1000 vs round dials (analog/steam gauges).

For those of you looking at doing an MECIR, do you consider either when making a decision? Which school to choose?

Has anyone done a MECIR in something fitted with G1000 then gone to a charter job with round dials? If you had your time again do you wish you trained on round dials?

Any thoughts from instructors on this?

If your looking at doing an IFR charter job I would avoid the G1000. Most GA twins have very basic avionics and in my experience those that have never flown IFR with such basic instrumentation struggle with maintaining spatial awareness with such little information. Some Glass cockpit time is good for when you step into something with more advanced avionics however what I have observed is the step up is a lot easier than down.

As nobody seems to do NDB's anymore I would do it in a G1000. Its much better in all respects.

I did mine in 3 different Seminoles, each with a different cockpit layout. Awful!.

Perfect for GA, where you will probably fly 3 different types in one day!

I’d go whatever is cheapest. Either takes getting used to. Any transition difficulties will be ironed out with study, practise and some ICUS

When I was “shopping” for a Instrument Rating, a few schools really pushed that the G1000 is the way to go (and charged accordingly) as “it’s glass, like what the airlines have”. I asked if I could fly a mixture of G1000 and conventional instruments on the C172, before transitioning onto the Barron which had the same avionics the Dinosaurs used millions of years ago. Worked well in my mind, as I soon after flew a mixed fleet with Glass and conventional Instruments.

Learning to fly instruments on round dials will make you a better, safer pilot. With round dials you will have to develop a strong instrument cross check - a skill you that will help you in all phases of flight and you will keep for your career.

The transition from round dials to glass is easy and a non event. Not so the other way around.

What Dorf said - sound orientation, tracking and intercept skills using dials are a great basis for being able to deal with different types and equipment fits, and for handling emergencies when the screens fail and you have to revert to standby instruments. That doesn't mean you should ignore glass cockpit type equipment, but rather than learn on that and be baffled by 'steam driven' instruments, my view is that if you learn to be competent old-school, you can fairly easily migrate to the new world (lots of great educational resources on the internet from Garmin etc to allow you to play with the newer gear, learn the menus etc without having to pay for it).

It is a really interesting question, but I would say knobs and dial is the best way to develop the scan and dealing with and understanding partial instrument failure, after all if one day you are flying an Airbus and if the PFD and ND fail your will be back to flying the basic standby instruments (AI/ASI/ALT). To add, I suspect that many of those who will be selecting you would prefer someone will knobs and dials training. It is likely you may as part of you airline selection to be put on to a simulator with an analogue display, for example BA 111 or 737-200. Sadly, there is a move in the industry and the military to train from day one on 'glass' displays, and probably there are many airline pilots out there who would not understand the difference between a turn coordinator and a turn and slip, or the implications of implications of failure of air driven/electrically driven gyros.

So the answer you probably do not want to hear is, go down the knobs and dials route, feel privileged that you get the opportunity. It may be slight harder, perhaps route, slightly more costly, but in the long term it will make you a better pilot, the easiest route is not always the best. One you have mastered knobs and dial as previously stated, you will have a developed 'T' scan and the transition to PFD (primary flight dislay) will be straight forward, with the benefit of understanding the limitations of ribbon (tape) displays and hopefully a better mental model of your position, without the need for a map display. These are only my opinions, others might disagree.

Personally I prefer round dials for real IFR. When you scan, you don't need to read the number but remember where the needle is pointing. So, with the conventional radial scan, look at ASI, see the needle then as you look back to AI think "is it where it was?". If the answer is yes go on with your scan, otherwise fix it. Similarly for the rest. I often fly a C172 with G1000 - a complete WOFTAM and a huge waste of payload IMHO.

After 27,000flight hours I'm accustomed to glass - 20 years - and analogue and I prefer analogue.

Transition to glass is dead simple - it was for me anyway - but I am reliably informed that going the other way - back to dials - is much harder. What are you likely to fly "out there"? Analogue I'll bet.

Go dials. As said above, the adjustment to glass is easy.

I guess the way of the future (if there is indeed one in GA) glass will be the Std BUT today is still here so steam dials makes for a good grounded IFR driver with skills. I started with basic dials, fixed card ADF, DME homing ect, rarely an AP and in ergonomic nightmare clunkers, when I finally got to glass it was borderline too easy and boring, I'd even go as far to say glass = 'skill-less flying' -)

I don't have IFR but was always interested in the concept of "limited panel" which I think is just airspeed, turn and compass indicators, I believe that's how they used to do it in ye olden days. If you can handle that then you're showing some really good skills. So what's "limited panel" under glass, and what would do you do when you discover your plane's comfortably warm interior isn't as waterproof as you thought when it suddenly goes dark?

Lim panel was based on the failure of vaccum driven instruments, IE: AH & DG. That was hard work! Lim panel obviously isn't the issue on glass just a total display failure in which case there would be a seperate back up glass panel, albeit smaller and more basic. At the Airline level it's more about switching from one source to another in order to get enuf displays to get you home, so to speak -)

It’s a similar choice to deciding between learning to drive on a car with manual or automatic transmission. Automatic is definitely easier but limits you later on and you won’t develop the same skills.

What about the aircraft type then?
 

Given we now have a ‘multi class rating’ instead of the old individual endorsements;

How much of an advantage do you think it would be training in a Baron 58 vs Duchess/Seminole/etc?

Is it worth the extra $$$ to get some useful experience on a type used in real life?

There was a bit of commentary about just this kind of thing here on Prune a couple years ago that has some relevance - the gist of it being "Everyone should train on steam gauges even if you'll never fly it, because you're CIR allows it and you won't know what you're doing if you don't train on steam gauges".

FWIW, if you're planning on using your CIR to get a job, then yes, I would agree that you should fly on round gauges - because that's what you'll likely end up flying in the early stage of your career. However, if I were going to do it, I would fly the G1000 (or my own if I could find an instructor willing to do so), because my RV is glass-equipped with a Dynon panel. Yes, I'm allowed to fly a clapped-out 172 with steam gauges, but will I? Not a chance...

My first job was in a 210 with an aspen display and a giant Garmin GPS. The next aircraft was G1000 so I never flew round dials outside of flight school.

a shame.......as others have said above.

To throw in my two cents. As an Airbus training captain, I see too many folks who have trained on glass cockpits or the MPL people who have mostly learned to fly in the 320 sim, who's idea of an instrument scan is focusing really hard on the middle of the FD. The principle you learn on steam guages will work on glass cockpits and I think its best to train your brain into scanning now rather than later. Also, the relationship between instruments must me learned. referencing v/s down an ILS, pinning the lubber line to the LOC needle on a HSI to get a smooth intercept. I've actually had F/Os ask me where the V/s is on the PFD and when explaining how to reference GS/VS down an ILS they look at me like its a new holy commandment. There is more to IFR than keeping the cross on the dot.
Selling G1000 because "airliners have glass cockpits" is nonsense. No airliner uses G1000 and every glass is different. They're just selling you the expensive kit they've put in the aircraft. Most cars on the planet are left hand drive........why do you learn on a RHD?