$43/hour for the instructor.

 

Of which the Instructor can't be seeing directly more than 25%, correct?

 

Check your PM. G'night.

 

I just wanted to chip in my $.02 on this one. In my opinion, glass cockpit training/TAA training and experience is extremely valuable when it comes time to begin training on an RJ. Almost all of my dual given was in G1000-equipped airplanes (I did the whole FITS certification for G1000), and have since gone through training at 2 airlines. I found that my foundation of experience with glass, FMS, autopilot/flight flight director, AHRS, ADC, etc. made the transition to the jet very smooth. The number one problem that my classmates had when it came to getting through training was learning to properly use and understand the automation, whereas for me (and my few classmates with TAA experience), automation was second nature. Can you get through training without TAA experience? Absolutely you can... But having some experience with advanced equipment is, in my opinion, invaluable. In summary, I'll say this: If you have an opportunity to fly glass, or better still to instruct in glass, its well worth a few extra bucks. At the very least, even if you don't do all your training in a TAA, you may find it worthwhile to at least log a few hours in one. One thing is certain: the era of the steam gauge is in its twilight.

 

Andy, I've gotta agree with your post. Very good points. However, I feel that you should start in a conventional panel to get the basics, then transition into glass. How often did you find your primary students relying too much on the glass?

We're in a transition period, so to speak, in that a lot of new students are starting in glass, but all of the instructors teaching in the glass planes learned on steam gauges. I think it's up to us to make sure that we teach the basics, so that when the guys who started in glass become CFI's, they don't teach their own glass dependence.

However I agree that having some glass time can be very beneficial for transitioning to a regional airliner.

 

The next few years will be very telling indeed, as the first "generation" of pilots who've never seen a steam gauge come up through the ranks. I feel that although advanced avionics offer a great deal more in terms of simplicity, and safety (when properly used and understood), one still has to learn how to read, use and interpret instruments. To use an analogy that I was fond of telling my students when asked this question, Glass is akin to a digital clock, wheras steam gauges are like a convential clock. Both are equally good at telling you the time, its just displayed in a different format. The digital clock is much more accurate, i.e. capable of displaying time to the nearest nanosecond, while the traditional clock provides less resolution and accuracy. Either way however, one still must learn what this information means. You still need to know that there are 60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute, and 24 hours in a day to properly understand and interpret what either clock is telling you. Similarly, one still must learn what a localizer and glideslope are, how many degrees wide the course it provides happens to be, and how to bracket, track and correct for wind in order to fly an ILS. Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure the presumption that a student will not learn "the basics" in a TAA is an entirely valid one. One must still learn the basics, they are simply taught and learned differently.

 

When I say the basics, I am referring more to the private student who constantly wants to hold altitude by looking at the pretty screen, instead of looking where the nose is on the horizon. Funny, we then see IOE captains complaining that new guys can shoot an ILS fine, but can't do a visual approach.

As far as instrument training, I don't feel the glass is a huge hindrance, although the lack of true partial panel practice, and the fact that you don't have to keep as much mental situational awareness with the moving map and hold entries drawn out for you can cause a problem if the student isn't well motivated.

Wow, that was a long sentence...

Fly safe.

 

I was thinking you meant Instrument basics. I'll admit that there were times when I would turn off the PFD to force a primary student to look outside. I'll also say that I've had the same thing happen with steam gauges. Its fairly common for a student to fixate on whatever instruments there happen to be. Its up to the CFI to ensure that they do not. I think the phenomemnon you're describing is more attributable to lack of experience and proper instruction than the equipment.

 

I can agree with that.

 

I'll agree with this too. A related personal story: I was filling in for a sick instructor and flew an IFR cross country with a student. In the middle of the flight I asked, "How do you know you're on course?" The reply, "Cuz I'm on the pink line."

He navigated the rest of the flight single nav with no GPS.