Yo folks. I recently had the opportunity to climb into a nice shiny new C-206 and compare notes with the ship's pilot. (OK, ok, I know - it's a jeep. I like it anyway. So there. )

I was more than a little surprised - and not a bit disappointed - to see the beast's large instrument panel almost empty - with a Garmin 1000 system in place of the old analog.

Ick.

OK, I know many of the arguments for glass cockpits - ease of use, instrument weight, etc. I just don't like them. At all. I find the G-1000 bewildering, not intuitive at all, unneccesarily complex. Admittedly, I've never taken the opportunity to learn the system - I just prefer analog systems.

Perhaps the thing that really drives me nuts about the G-1000 though is how the whole aviation world seems to be jumping on the Garmin bandwagon. You can't open a single magazine or flyer without seeing G-1000 ads all over the place. Flight schools proudly blare 'G-1000 equipped!'. Every airgraft reviewed in Flying, Plane & Pilot, Canadian Aviation etc. are G-1000 equipped. You can't get away from the bloody thing.

I dunno - I know it's a superb system with many good qualities, but I can't help having an itchy feeling about the G-1000. It's nothing I can really put my finger on; perhaps it's just my own preference for the 6-pack. But well... You know the current discussion going on in the Flight School forum about high-wing vs. low-wing trainers? (I'm high-wing taildragger partial myself )  OK then - what is going to be the concequences of a new generation of pilots who take their initial training in glass cockpits? I am certain of one thing - tranferring from an analog aircraft to a glass one would be far easier than going the other way. I also have an unshaking feeling that adding yet another labour-saving device - the G-1000 - into a new pilot's initial training will make it easier for them to learn to fly. A good thing, right? No way - learning should be hard, IMO. A student should have to work to learn the skills and material - effort determines value, in my opinion.

Sorry this is rambling - too much coffee again. I'd like to hear your thoughts. To sum up mine; I think the G-1000's fine for experienced commercial/privare flying; for pilots who have good analog skills. I think it should NOT be used by inexperienced pilots and especially by students and for me personally, I just don't like looking at the G-1000 display. Your thoughts?

Cheers!

Personally, I'm a huge Garmin fan. The 496 I have is the best hand held GPS I've ever seen. I am also a analog, high-wing, tail dragger kind of guy, but that is what I learned on. If I learned the 1000, I would probably love it.

My take is...  If you fly VFR, it's over-kill.. and if you fly IFR, it's too many eggs in one basket, for small GA aircraft.

I don't like the G1000.

...I worry when the Fuse blows, and all the lights go out, on the Garmin 1000, (Glass Cockpits).... ...!

I love little, round, Altimeters, Air Speed Indicators, etc...etc...

...especially when all the Fuses Blow!... ...!

Paul...I like the "6-Pack" idea!... ... ...!

I've just learned to fly on Cessna 172S aircraft with the G1000 cockpit, I've flown a series of analogue aircraft before and I agree that students should learn to use analogue but using glass cockpits as well isn't bad.

We do some work with analogue sims but unlike most of my classmates, I fly as part of school, only myself and another student have any real experience on gauges. The thing is basic flying is done outside of the cockpit so glass cockpits aren't that much of a problem really... If you do get too dependent on the instruments the instructors turn the screens off and you can reference off the back up gauges...

More and more aircraft are becoming glass cockpit models and seeing as the school I use trains QANTAS pilots and other airline pilots it makes sense that they use glass cockpits so they can lead straight on to whatever they are flying.

The flight school is Oxford Aviation Academy, I fly at the Australian school, so they have some idea of what they are doing. Before the school was bought by OAA it was quite a successful school, hence Oxford deciding to buy it, and used the G 1000 aircraft before the buy out. The original school has been around since the 1960s so they really know what they are doing and have decided that it isn't detrimental to have glass cockpits, you don't win QANTAS and other airline contracts for nothing...

Some things that should be done, for at least brief periods, on every training flight:

VFR flight, no GPS: the instruments-all of them- should be covered.And all the distracting blinky things, switches and dials on the panel. In VMC, all the info you need about your position in space, speed and attitude is outside the airplane.
Best thing any of my CFIs ever did for me was to just unfold a sectional and completely cover the panel. Did wonders for my flying.   

VFR flight, with GPS (especially "mini- FMDs" like the 1000): in addition to covering the panel, the GPS- and all navaids- should be turned off, and the student forced to navigate to a surprise alternate with compass, clock, and chart. Might never be necessary for real in an aircraft with all the latest toys, but it sure would be embarrassing to need to do this and not remember how! 

IFR flight: partial panel maneuvers and approaches. The odds are very slim that a GPS will go belly-up, but the same can be said for engine failures. If you don't practice making do in such a situation, you'll be lost when it happens for real.
Vac system failures and pitot heat failures are even more likely than engine or GPS failures...so again, carrying on in IMC (or under the hood) with needle, ball and airspeed- or better yet, needle and ball only- should be practiced.
I've done it under the hood, and it is not easy... but in the soup, especially, you can't afford to take anything for granted- even something as useful and reliable as a G1000.  Heck, you can't even take needle, ball and airspeed for granted, but unfortunately, in IMC if that's all you are left with you have to put your trust in them and pray they are not lying to you. Partial-panel for real in IMC is very serious stuff, and it's crazy to expect it to be easy, or to expect any guarantees. That's the sort of thing that separates real aviators from "system monitors".

If those basics are stressed sufficiently, I see no reason why a pilot shouldn't have an electronic bag of tricks to make everything simpler and easier. I haven't flown with a "virtual 6-pack" and I think I'd have trouble adjusting to it... and I've always done well enough navigating, even in complex airspaces, without following the magenta line,  but having weather, airport info, charts, etc. in one box mounted on the panel is a wonderful thing. Used properly, the nav, groundspeed, and fuel info available thanks to these onboard computers can free up the pilot's mind and eyes for more of what is really important: looking outside, or in the case of IFR flights, keeping up the panel scan.

But my impression so far is that even experienced pilots are leaning too much on GPS these days, particularly for navigation. It almost seems to override good basic training- the magenta line is seductively simple.

If and when I get my CFI, I will probably not let any student of mine use anything like that- even VORs- until they can find their way back to the home field, enter the pattern, and land without reference to any instruments except the wet compass. Then they can solo, and then they'd learn to navigate with whatever toys are onboard... with, of course, frequent simulated failures. 

DaveSims wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 8:43pm:

Well, there's another problem: something like a G1000 requires separate training. But there are programs available (not flight sims) that allow you to mess around with the functions all you want, safely on the ground. It would make sense to have students demonstrate adequate knowledge of how it works before they fly with it.

I have a perfect story to go along with this thread:


So i just started flying this September, (I'm 17) and I'm flying Cessna 172SP's / G1000 equipped and I'm currently working on my private. (I've accumulated only 8hrs.) For my first for lessons, I flew with a certain instructor and I told them that my main goal was to become a commercial airline pilot. After the first few lessons, I seemed comfortable with the G1000, and my instructor had me put on "Foggles"; which made everything blury except the panel infront of me. I must of flew for about 30 minutes with these on (With my instructor navigating and watching out for traffic ofcourse) and I felt that I would have to get used to having these 2 huge panels with all my indicators and bells and whistles. Turns out that I had to change instructors for what ever reason, and I've flown with them twice. The thing is, both times my instructor made it very clear that I wasn't focusing enough on my outside surroundings because I was too focused on the G1000. As I tried to become more aware of my surroundings, I found it rather difficult to NOT look at the G1000 as its prescense is hard to not notice. My instructor specifically told me from now on, we are dimming the brightness of the G1000 so It is dark enough to the point where I cant see it untill I become accostomed to flying using my surroundings. I wonder if I would have this same problem if I were flying in a regular gauge panel rather than glass. 

Jersey Flyer wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 7:11pm:

Yes, to some extent "head-down-itis" is a problem for primary students flying with "steam gauges", too. It's not so much the brightness, it's that you unconsciously seek flight information there, once you learn how to interpret what they're showing you. Navigation-wise, even the humble CDI can become distracting... newbies tend to stare at the damn needle instead of looking outside. The "magenta line of death", as some call the course line on a GPS, is just a modern update.

Switching back and forth takes effort, but the trick to overcoming this is to give equal time to both methods of navigating and flying maneuvers with precision. Once you get some hood time, it can seem very hard to, say, make a nice coordinated turn to a specific heading without gaining/losing altitude, by only looking outside and at the compass...and really hard to do one then the other (as one normally does when breaking out of  clouds- or taking off the Foggles- on an IFR approach), but that's only because you haven't practiced it enough recently.

On the other side of the coin, most of my flying, power and gliders, in the last 3 years has been in aircraft with no gyros, let alone GPS or glass PFDs. I do OK with gauges, PFDs, and GPS in simulation these days, even IFR, but in a real plane, I'm sure I'd be all out of whack, initially, flying "heads-down", especially under the hood. I'd want to look outside so bad! Last few times I've flown anything with a full panel, I pretty much ignored that stuff. But of course, if you're going to fly any plane on a regular basis, you should be able to competently use every tool it comes with.
But you can't rely on any one tool too much... I've been talking about how I've become an "eyes outside" pilot recently, but not surprisingly, when I recently flew a glider with the instruments (both of them, LOL) covered up, I did not do very well guessing my altitude and airspeed. I was shocked. Seems I am not looking at those gauges too much, really, but I am still not thinking enough about what I can see outside.

  Just remember that both ways of flying are important, and give them equal attention, and you'll do OK .
   

justalilrandom wrote on Nov 15^th, 2009 at 4:23am:


Sounds like your school has figured it out, as I'm sure many will eventually.  I am not saying glass cockpits are the only reason for poor airmanship, but I have seen them become too much of a distraction.

I have to say that this thread has gotten me thinking all afternoon about some empirical questions.

I seem to come from a unique perspective here, being someone who initially hated the system, but learned to appreciate it more once I got a chance to use it and let it be useful.  Yes it is useless when you are putting around in VFR, but in IFR it can be a big help in reducing workload.  However like in big airplanes, automation can be a bitch if you get in a squeeze.  The mistake made is when an unexpected and plan-changing event happens, pilots who rely too much on automation will try to "fly the computer" before they fly the airplane.  A good case is the AA 757 that plowed into a mountain awhile back:  the pilots lost SA because they had their attention focused on re-programming the FMS and not actually controlling the plane, gaining altitude and trying to back track to find out where they are.  Long story short:  some computers - good, too many - bad.  If the pilot does not rely solely on the G-1000 and other cockpit play-things they will be fine.  Any flight school using these systems should devote a considerable amount of time teaching on this subject.

It would be interesting to do an eye tracking experiment on the effect of cockpit type (glass/analog) on the number and duration of optical saccades in and outside the cockpit.  As a matter of fact I'm gonna go do a literature search on just that right now.  I'll report back later

DaveSims wrote on Nov 29^th, 2009 at 9:29am:


We're taught to set it up without the engine running, use the battery, means you aren't paying for fuel or the engine hours as you sit setting it up....

Holy smokes - I think my suspicions (roundly backed up by opinions here) have just been borne out.

I took a walk over to the local airport (not gonna say which one for obvious reasons) and borrowed an instructor for an hour around the city. (For those that don't know, I suffered a serious heart attack a couple years ago and lost my license as a result. Now I get my flying fix by borrowing an instructor for an 'introductory flight'. heh heh...)

Anyhoo; the local FC is pretty typical for a major city - all grey carpet, shiny glass counters and a whole bunch of instructors - the oldest around 25 or so.

They use Cirruses and C-172's as training aircraft.

With G-1000's.

The instructor I went up with was half my age - a pretty little brunette with - I hate to say - a pretty bitchy attitude and rather high opinion of her own abilities.

Which sucked rocks.

Sorry - this isn't intended to be sexist at all; but this chick was a flat-out lousy pilot. Her flight handling skills were miserable - barely what I'd call adequate for a PPL checkride; let alone someone with an instructor's certificate.

Careful questioning reavealed that yes - she'd only ever flown out of this one flying club and only flown G-1000 aircraft - which makes her a far better pilot, don'tchaknow, since she has access to all available information.

No kidding - I felt sick. I hate to admit it; but an argument ensued which resulted in me aborting the flight and heading back SPD.

Lol - I was p!$$ed off; and unfortunately my circuit suffered a bit; turned on final way too high - which she was only too happy to loudly point out. Her squawk was even louder though when I threw in one mother of a sideslip and dropped her onto the glideslope sweet as you please. (For those that don't know, you can REALLY get the 172 sideways - nothing like a C-tab, but she'll still slip amazingly well.) She knew how to sideslip of course - sort of - but as what she calls 'air work' - things for students to practice. She had no idea just how hard you can throw that ugly square box around.
Anyway, public opinion amongst the instructors was pretty solid against me when we taxied back - apparently she's 'one of our best instructors' and I'm 'not a real pilot or anything'. So I handed over my log book and told them to read it this time - no-one had bothered when I walked in. It shut them up quick. Which is astonishing - since it's nothing great at all.
My point had been to look at the first hundred hours; but they were more surprised by the totals - to these guys 962 hours is apparently a lot.    It's barely a beginning.
Those first hundred hours? Well, my grandfather was a bush pilot; and a Hurricane pilot in the BoB. My Dad flew CF-100's in the RCAF - they both gave me some good pointers for those first hundred hours. Those first hundred were landings - lots and lots of landings. Constant circuit practice; landing and landing and landing. High wind, low wind. Crosswind. Downwind. High entry, low entry, covered instruments, power off; every kind of landing practised over again until I could put her down in my sleep. Hundreds of landings and with the exception of my Mom on her birthday, not one passenger who was not an instructor. The glider's license I started with helped a lot too - nothing sharpens landing skill like a deadstick landing onto one wheel. 
I may not have progressed much past the tow-pilot stage; mainly 'cause I never wanted to - I was a soldier, not  a bush pilot. I sure as heck can't talk theory like a 'real' instructor (I'm not a 'real' instructor - I taught gliding to Cadets. I don't have a civilian instructor's certificate; I just have dozens of successful graduates.) But I can bloody fly - anything.
See, when I got my license, instructors were long-timers; old heads who knew flying inside out and backwards. Nowadays it's different - instructorship is the first stepping-stone up the commercial flight ladder, so instructors tend to be young and ambitious up-and-comers. (Or so it seems to me.) Certainly none of these kids fly taildraggers or gliders; have never picked up free hours flying tow or jump and had never landed on grass.

These are pilots? Not in my book.

These folks are being taught to operate the machine - not to fly. They fly using the instruments - by the numbers. The G-1000 gives them all the cues to fly 'perfectly' and this makes them good pilots.

Heh - let's stick 'em into my Grandfather's Scout - an airplane with no instruments most of the time (back when you could get way with that) and see if they could fly it. I doubt it.

Anyhoo; I'm ranting - I'll shut up now. I've been looking and have found a small club about an hour out of town with a Citabria available for instruction - I'm heading out there the day the temperature gets above -30c. Hopefully things are a bit better there.

Cheers!

Yeah - of course, thinking back 20 years; I don't think I was that much different. Air Cadet instructors are notorious little Tom Cruise wannabes who give themselves 'cool' pilot call-signs, etc. ("I'm Eagle! I'm Boomer!" etc. To my eternal shame, I was...er...'Hawk'. Thankfully I grew out of it by the start of next year's program...  ) And I'll be the first to state that a 'lack of humility' is definitely a huge failing of my own but even still; this girl's skills really were below standard. You know; like 'sideslip...appplyyyyyy leeeeeeft rudderrrrrrr......ooooooooposiiiiiite aaaaaaailerooooonnnnnn.......'
It should be applied with no more thought than that applied to walking; you don't have time to think about your airmanship.
And I agree completely that it's the attitude, not the equipment but I can't help but wonder how much of that attitude is being reinforced by the G-1000. I do know her lookout skills were deficient - no real scan pattern; she stared out front, looked at the Garmin. The occasional glance around, look at the Garmin, stare out front. That disturbed me quite a bit, considering how busy that airspace is.
Oh well - I dunno, maybe I'm just being a crotchety old bugger; I certainly feel it in this cold.