This brings up something I've been pondering.

Synthetic vision systems are now becoming available for ASEL.

All well and good but my concern is that if a glass/SV system displayed erroneous attitude info to a PPL I think it is all but guaranteed that he would auger in. It's hard enough to analyze a steam gauge instrument failure, and even harder if a wide-screen PFD is giving bad info....but add in the SV reinforcing what the glass AI is telling you and even chuck yeager would have a hard time. People tend to revert to visual cues...the bigger the better.

At least in big airplanes we have two separate systems which automatically cross-check each other. I wonder what kind of redundancy/error-detection those low-end glass systems have?

Steam gauges.

My understand is that it's precisely issues like this that have led to the FAA's interests in alternative instructional methods for TAAs one of the underlying ideas being that when you are looking at an airplane with complex computer systems in the guts, there are all sorts of issues – like balancing greater in-cockpit chores with looking out the window and learning reliance on other systems in case the computer craps out – that simply aren't covered in traditional stick and rudder teaching methods.

Given the reality that, if there is non-commercial GA 20 years from now, it will probably involve far more screeds than 3.5" instruments (even LSAs have screens), I wish them luck. Like others here, I have my doubts.

The military has a little bit of this system in place - at least in the past, I don;t know what is in place now. It wasn't in the Primary training, but in what used to be intermediate strike phase, the students flew Basic Instruments (BIs) and Radio Instruments (RIs) before they started the Familiarization Stage (VFR flying).

I am a huge proponent of looking outside. I probably emphasized it more so than many other *younger* instructors. It was hard to watch a guy fly right past a target or a turn in point or something because he had his head buried inside, glued to the symbology (or radar or FLIR). Painful to watch.

USMCFLYR

I was employed by a university that performed this "experiment." When it was presented to the instructor group, skepticism was only the beginning of our opinion. Long story short, the trial groups did not live up to expectations. You may see papers and stats saying it worked, but that wasn't my experience. As mentioned, there was too much information for a student to digest and their growth was slowed because of it. Even in a TAA, the students had all the problems normal students had, plus flying a more-advanced/complicated system. They could fly the basics and knew what the system displayed, as long as nothing failed. It was extremely difficult to teach the systems of a G1000 because the students had nothing to tether to. Transition training is easy. Teaching it from the ground up took too much time.

In the end, we found that the "best" students--those who were self-motivated and very sharp--did well and completed the program with few problems, but most students simply became overwhelmed at the task.

I would stretch it even a little further. It is like learning to play a sport before you can walk/run properly. Walking/running needs to happen subconsciously so your attention can be placed on learning the game. Then the basics of the game need to be subconscious so you can worry about where players are on the field. Well, basic aircraft control needs to be subconscious before you can balance the million and one other tasks you are required to perform.

In short, I agree and add: they are skipping the most important step, BASICS.

I would agree completely, this is like teaching a kid how to run before you can even start to walk upright. I have flown the G1000 and found that my transition was easy and after a few flights I knew what button to push and what it did. I can imagine how difficult if might be for a new student to learn anything. It would be hard to know what to look at, what information I can use and what I should not use, along with what a button does. Some things in TAA are great if you know what is going on, but trying to learn everything is hard. This is not made easier due to the fact that you have to start Instrument approaches.


On a side note, some of the students are most likely in college, which of course comes with college life. I hope flying is not on their minds all the time for the sake of their social life.

May I ask if the University that you worked at is still using that program? I’m some what curious what University that was if you don’t mind. I’m new at these forums, don’t know if that is a proper question to ask on this site.

They have stopped using that syllabus and returned to doing separate private and instrument courses. If I were in your shoes, I'd be curious as well, but I'd rather not announce the name. I think that it was a valuable experiment, if for no other reason because it confirmed a long-held view.