Mr Immlemann

I need some opinion on whether to go with a 172N with a 430 or 172S with the G1000 for my instrument rating. Price is $10 higher with the 1000 so thats not a big deal when its all said and done. Some instructors who I have talked to feel that glass makes instrument training easier, while others feel that during training, analog should be used due to it's simplistic nature. Also, with regards to the checkride, the feelings are mixed again, where some feel the checkride would be easier with the glass, some think that there is just too much to learn on the glass and there is a greater possibility of the failing the ride due to lack of knowledge on systems.

What do you think?

Thanks for the help guys and gals.

btw: I am a PP with 60 hrs.

EMB120IP

I'm sure you'll be given numerous opinions on this one, but here's my take. I'm oldschool so I'm a little biased and heres why. It's my opinion that you should learn on a standard "6 pack". Not every airplane out there is equipped with a G1000 or equivelant. It'll be a lot easier to learn the 6 pack scan and then transition to a G1000 scan AFTER the rating has been completed. I have trained First Officers in the EMB-120 who have had only G1000 time and couldn't pass training due to the lack of scan.

Also, I'm not sure of the price but I'm sure the N model is a little cheaper. This is purely my opinion and I have no solid evidence to back it other than years of instructing and seeing first hand the scan's that come out of the G1000. You'll probably be bombarded with plenty of opposite opinions but remember...it's your scan. Make the decision based off of how you're going to use the rating. If you only plan on flying G1000 equipped aircraft for recreational purposes only, then do the G1000. If you plan on entering into an aviation career, you may want to "spread your wings" per say and learn analog initially just in case you fly different types of equipped aircraft.

Good luck! The instrument rating is the most learning intensive rating, and fun also.

snippercr

The problem is, out side of GA, more and more aircraft are going glass in some way or another. It may be a glass AI/DG or a full out G1000 or Avidyne system. 141 schools are starting to go all glass too as they replace their fleet. The school I work at (a respectable 4 year university non-pilot mill place) has always been very insistent on starting from the basics and going up. VOR, LOC, NDB approaches before GPS approaches. All conventional instruments. However, our fleet is getting ready to be replaced and they are going with all glass because that is all the manufacturers are doing. It actually costs MORE to put in non-glass stuff.

It would be nice if we could go all or nothing but since there are still planes with 6 packs, it's safe to say that for a good while there will be them. However, I am not sure if any 121 operators use 6 packs in their airplanes anymore. Even many of AAs "Super 80s" (from the "Super 80s" or earlier ) have had their AI replaced with a digital one that is similar to many glass systems.

[opinion]As they say, glass was designed to be safer than conventional by providing more and better information. It breaks down when pilots dont know how to use it. I think if we focus our training (as CFIs) on using glass and then how to use it PROPERLY we can actually utilize the safety margin that was designed in. When we only just teach how it is different than conventional and people are still using their conventional training is where there is a learning gap. For instance, our school is all conventional (for now) but we do have 1 avidyne glass aircraft for our commercial level course. We usually use it as a demonstration on long cross countries to show it off a bit and expose students to it a bit. But again, I wouldn't send a student out in one of those solo unless they had extensive or sole training on it.
[/opinion]

There will always be those who claim "Well if all you do is train in SR-22s, that person is going to kill themselves when they have to build time in a 1970 172." I guess the reality is that it's getting more and more likely that some people will never even get a chance to fly conventional. Learn at an all glass school, CFI there, then airlines. Never have a spinning gyro in their life. Is that bad? I am sure opinion will correlate with age, although I for one am skeptical about it.

As for preparing for the checkride, you'll have to learn the PFM on how laser ring gyros and stuff work. I am not sure if even the latest FAA books have it.

Edit: Forgot the IFH (2007) even has many chapters on just all-glass instrument flying. I guess I just skip all those sections.

bmart

Immelmann-

I was in the same boat as you until just recently. I Did all my private work in stone-age C152s and am now just starting my instrument rating. I perused all the threads on the internet (as you are doing now) and asked everyone with a pulse what they thought. I would say that the responses were roughly 80-20 in favor of steam gauges.

The reasons behind the opinions above are all totally valid, such as keeping in mind your end goal (if you want to fly glass forever and/or go to the regionals and fly glass, why not start on glass now?) However, that theory fails to take into account one critical element of the process: situational awareness.

The G1000 is going to give you every bit of information you could ever hope to know about your position and condition in flight, all in a pretty package and ideal format that someone our age will find very easy to interpret. The problem, of course, is that an instrument rating is all about staying safe under less-than-ideal conditions. It is about taking several sources of only partially related information and putting it together to create a mental picture of your situation and to make critical decisions based upon that understanding. That shiny glass you're looking at will present that very picture for you as you progress toward your IR, but it will also rob you of the development of your internal understanding of your aircraft and the environment around it.

Bottom line: even if you never again fly anything but glass and your glass never ever fails, you will be a more situationally aware pilot if you learn your instrument skills on steam.

Those were the opinions I considered when choosing what cockpit setup to go with for my rating. I'm sure you have heard and will continue to hear many others, but these resonated with me. Good luck with your decision and with your rating!

NoyGonnaDoIt

It really depends on what you are going to fly.

Whether starting with round gauges or glass, the systems are different enough - even the way you scan - that a transition to the other will take additional instruction and practice.

If most of what you expect to fly after getting the ticket will be glass, train that way and deal with the transition later. And vice versa.

Beyond that, I don't think one system is fundamentally any easier to learn than the other.

(I can't resist - to the oldshoolers: have you been around long enough that you said the same thing when those perfectly LF systems began being replaced by those newfangled NDBs? )

lstorm2003

It depends on your goals. Personally I think if your going to the airlines, you should do the 6 pack. Fact is there are still quite a few steam gauge airplanes in the airline fleet that will still be flying for years to come. You need to learn how to use the standard 6 pack. Also I agree, the check ride will probably be easier on a 6 pack airplane. And if you are flying the G-1000 in IMC in the future, you will find attitude control VERY EASY. Having already learned on steam, should the G-1000 ever fail, you will be able to revert to the standby attitude indicator much more easily.

Now having said that, after you pass your check ride using steam, I think your next task should be to learn IFR procedures in the G-1000. Learn as much as you can on your own without a CFI, its a lot cheaper that way.

I take lots of cross country flights in a G1000 182 and I will have another pilot friend watch for traffic, then set the autopilot, and just play with every single screen and menu in the G1000 for 30 minutes at a time. Much better to learn that way than to learn by listening to someone else talk.

Once you learn as much as you can, then take a few IFR flights with a CFII to really get to know the procedures in the G1000. Now your ready for both..

My $0.02.

Where are you btw? Want to share some time in a G1000 182?

Walkeraviator

Im old school as well. I just think learning the 6 pack is going to be better for you than learning a G1000. Early in a pilots career, when he has low time, he is a LOT more likely to get a job flying steam than glass. Think of all the airlines, night cargo haulers, and part 91 planes that wont pay for glass cockpits. I have refused jobs at flight schools because they wanted everyone to learn on a G1000... and think that makes for an undertrained pilot.

usmc-sgt

The 6 pack no question. Not only is it cheaper which is the primary goal of all flight training but for the same reasons others have mentioned.

It is difficult to get a solid 6 pack scan burned into your muscle memory and it is something you will VERY likely need in the future. The transition to a glass scan is very similar to the transition from a yoke to a stick. By the end of the takeoff roll you have a general feel for how it all works and by the time you lift off youve got it. You will be 100% glass ready by the end of sim session number 1.

The only exception is a story of a student at my flight school. He was an older gentleman who only wanted to fly for his personal reasons. He did his private in a 172 SP G1000 since he planned to buy one. After his private he did buy a glass 172. It will likely be the only plane he will ever fly so 6 pack knowledge will not do him a whole lot of good.

wrxpilot

If your goal is professional flying, than I would absolutely recommend staying out of the G1000 for pretty much all of your pre-CFI ratings. So far only one plane I've flown as a professional pilot was all glass (CJ3), and that was a pretty easy transition when I came over from flying King airs and Navajos. After flying the Citation for several years, I'm back in an analog plane again (Brasilia), and am very fortunate I had a previous background in the analog gauges.

When I was instructing, I had a couple of students that had done their primary and/or instrument training in the G1000s. They wanted to transition over to the analog gauge planes, and it was a freaking mess. Their situation awareness was absolutely awful, and they just never really were comfortable with basic stuff like flying a raw data VOR approach.

Conversely, I did a couple of transitions for guys that had learned in the analogs and wanted to fly the G1000s. They were easy, and most were signed off after the minimum flight times were met.

lstorm2003

One last comment, more about checkrides than anything else... BEFORE YOU TAKE YOUR CHECKRIDE, find someone who had the same DE (or chief instructor/pilot if your 141), and talk to that person about their checkride. Find out what procedures were flown exactly, and what type of questions were asked... It will help!

In fact I take notes after every check ride I take, I think everyone should do this (although I can't find my notes from my IFR check ride lol) -- here are my notes from my last checkride a few years ago which was my Multi-Commercial-Instrument:

So what can I tell you about my check-ride (and this rating in general) that would help other students in a similar situation.... Well, here is what I did in order:

PREPARATION FOR ORAL:
- I checked weather several times on the day of the check ride and received a full briefing from Flight Service just before the flight
- I calculated a Weight and Balance on paper and brought it with me
- I calculated the Accelerate Stop Distance for the A/C
- I studied everything on the factors that affect VMC and what makes it go up & down, for example how a rearward CG will increase VMC.
- I studied everything about the airplane systems from the POH

ACTUAL QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE ORAL:
1) Explaining how an engine failure effects a multi-engine airplane in terms of pitch, yaw, and bank. This question was about P-Factor, Torque, Accelerated Slipstream, and Spiraling Slipstream. I didn't study this enough, I managed my way through it because I understood P-Factor, Torque, and Accelerated Slipstream pretty well. But I really didn't understand Spiraling Slipstream so well, but he sort of helped me through it. He wasn't thrilled at my lack of understanding on this point, but he helped me through it anyway.

2) What is VMC? To answer this one I started going into the definition for how VMC is determined (full power initially, weight and CG most unfavorable, airplane airborne, ground effect negligible and all that). But this was not the question he was asking. All he wanted me to say was "Lowest speed at which its possible to directionally control the aircraft given the sudden failure of the critical engine." Basically the answer must have these elements: lowest speed, directionally control A/C, critical engine failure, full power on other engine.

3) What effect does altitude have on VMC? CG? Prop windmilling? Landing Gear down? Temperature? I answered all these very well, the +/- chart Chuck (my MEI) and I created for each of these factors was VERY helpful for answering all these questions.

4) Tell me about the landing gear system on this airplane?
5) Tell me about the electrical system on this airplane?
6) Tell me about the engines on this airplane?
7) Tell me about the Props on this airplane?
8) What is the fuel capacity of this airplane?

I gave pretty short answers to most of these and he was happy with that. For example for landing gear I just said it was electric hydraulic up, and could be extended in an emergency by turning the valve 90 degrees left using the emergency extension tool. For electrical I just said 28 volt, 1 battery, 2 alternators (1 per engine). For engines I said Lycoming IO-360 horizontally opposed, air cooled, 180HP, wet sump 6-8qt capacity. For props I said Counter Rotating, Constant Speed, full feathering, with unfeathering accumulators.

9) What type of multi-engine airplane doesn't have VMC?
I said center line thrust.

To this he responded with "Lets go fly"

PREPARATIONS FOR PRACTICAL TEST
- I went through the procedures in my head at least 10 times during the day of and day before my check ride for the following: -VMC Demo, Power On Stall, Power Off Stall, Steep Turns, Slow Flight, Emergency Decent, Engine Failure in Flight, Secure procedures, Restart Procedures, Engine failure during instrument approach (when to put gear and flaps down for which type of approach and such), Single engine approach and landing, engine failure on ground before rotation. Make sure you know exactly what to do and when to do it, because even if your a great pilot, if you don't know what you are supposed to do, then how can you do it? This was my biggest problem during the first few training flights. I didn't memorize exactly what I was supposed to do for all the procedures ahead of time, so in the A/C I was just trying to make it up as I went along. This made things much harder than it had to be. I recommend that before your first flight you learn the procedure for slow flight, stalls (pwr on and off), and steep turns. Then before the next flight you should also know the exact procedure for VMC demo, engine failure, and emergency descent. If you don't know these things when you are going to practice them, then you are wasting money. I certainly wasted some money on this because I didn't have them all memorized before I started flying.

WHAT I ACTUALLY DID ON MY PRACTICAL TEST
- Asked for VFR South 3000
- Took off from runway 7R (gave take off briefing before take off, Bob(DE) commented if I lose an engine on the roll, not to jam on the brakes)
- Bob failed an engine on take off roll using mixture, I followed procedure. He was happy but commanded that I do it again and "MAINTAIN CENTERLINE!!!!" We did it again and I used quite a bit of rudder pressure to stay on the centerline and he was happy. I will comment that until then I had not been that aggressive on the ground with the rudders when losing an engine before VR. But Bob wants you on that centerline, so use whatever rudder you need.
- We took off and headed to the South following the shoreline. On the way out the tower called to complain to us for doing "that stuff" without telling them. I apologized to the tower, Bob told me I did not need to apologize to her and I should have just asked her what stuff she was talking about. We leveled off at 3000 feet.

- Immediately he asked me to do slow flight, and make a turn in each direction after we were setup at about 60 KIAS and 3000ft.

- Next he wanted a power off stall, but added that I should not lose any altitude during recovery. I was careful not to pitch the nose down below the horizon on recovery to accommodate this request.

- Next he wanted a power on stall. I set everything up and waited until I had 71 KIAS before adding 20 inches of MP. I also started my pitch up just before adding the 20 inches.

- Next we did steep turns which I might add were much easier for me in 19U than they were in 601V. I think that buffeting on 01V was causing me to subconsciously lower the nose and not hold enough back pressure because I had a much easier time on them in 19U. We did 360 degrees left followed by 360 right, and I added 2 inches of MP as I rolled past 30 degrees bank, and took it out as I rolled back out at the end of each 360.

- Next he asked for a VMC demo. I reduced power for recovery only so there was a pitch change in sound, and lowered the nose to the horizon. As soon as I got back speed I went to full power again, recovered my heading and didn't let the speed above 85. He was happy.

- Next he failed an engine using throttle, I went through the procedure and trouble shooting. After trouble shooting, he said ok it won't start, what now? I said feather, and he said "ok, do it." Did that, then secured (used the paper checklist for this). Then he asked me to make some turns (into the live engine). No problem here. Now restart (used paper checklist for this too). Did that and he was happy. Just make sure you divide attention when doing the secure and restart between the checklist and flying the airplane. I would do about 2 items at a time that get my head up to check outside and check all the instruments.

- Now emergency decent. We were only at 3000 so we didn't go too low, he had me pointed right at Massey, and he tuned the CTAF for Massey and told me to call them while I was emergency descending. There was a helicopter in the area, we were approaching from the west at high speed and decent and he told me to start talking to him to find out where he is as we got closer. I took that as my cue to be aggressive on the radios. I found out where the copter was (hover taxi now) and announced we would be overflying the field and joining the midfield left down wind for 18. I asked Bob what we would be doing and he said touch and go. He failed an engine on me as we leveled off in the downwind and told me to land on the second runway stripe. And make very certain I hit the second stripe. I was making the appropriate calls on the CTAF as we made the approach, I was a little high as I turned final so I chopped the power. As we headed for the runway I glanced at my speed over the numbers it was a little slow but we made a firm touch down on the 2nd stripe. He asked me what was wrong with my approach, and I told him I cut the power to early and we were a little slow. He said ok lets do it again, we went around, I lost the engine again, and we made another touch and go. This one was better. We went around again, and he gave me both engines and asked for a normal 2 engine pattern. After this we departed to the west. Also note that I made CTAF calls each time around the pattern while in upwind, downwind, base, and final.

- He informed me that he had the airplane and told me to setup for the GPS 7L approach at Daytona. This was a surprise, I wasn't ready to do this and didn't really clearly know how to setup the GPS for an approach. I could probably have done it, but I commented that I don't think the GPS was current and he responded by telling me to ask for the ILS instead. So we were vectored for the ILS, during vectoring told to slow down (I could see we were close to the localizer already), and at the same time given a 160 degree right turn, a descent to 1600, along with instructions to intercept the loc and that we were cleared for the approach. I really wish I would have gotten a better vector, but whatever. We made the turn passed through the loc while turning and turned about to 080 to intercept it again. Just as I was intercepting the glide-slope he failed the engine (this was a surprise I was expecting the failure as intercepting the localizer). The gear was already down and the flaps were already partially extended so I just left those things alone. Went through the engine failure procedure in the process of which I got the call from approach to contact the tower to which I ignored on purpose. After that was squared away I switched to tower told them we were full stop and reduced power on the good engine from full down to about 25 inches. This was still too much ended up bringing it back to around 20 to hold 100 KIAS. Flew the approach, made the landing with very few comments from Bob on the way.

- After landing I was pretty sure I passed. We parked the airplane and went inside to Lynch and he asked for my log book. He still never told me I passed, but he handed me the temp airman certificate and told me to sign it.

- Overall he made the check-ride pretty easy going and relaxed. I had heard that he likes to yell at people, but he didn't really yell at me at all. He barked orders at me quickly sometimes, but I would hardly call that yelling. So that's pretty much the whole check ride. If anyone has anymore specific questions feel free to email or call me! Just be real sure to always be on the center line. He was real big on that. And make sure you have practiced in your head the exact procedures for every maneauver over and over before the check ride!

And thanks again to Chuck and Sean for helping me prepare for this check-ride!