The following is an excerpt from my Max Trescott’s GPS and WAAS
Instrument Flying Handbook. You can read more about my IFR book and purchase it
online or call 800-247-6553. If you’d like to get instrument training from me or another GPS and glass cockpit expert in any of the aircraft models listed below, email me for details.
If you’re studying for the instrument rating, you may be
wondering whether to do your IFR training in a round gauge (sometimes called steam gauge) airplane or in a modern glass
cockpit aircraft such as the Garmin G1000 (Beechcraft, Cessna, Diamond, Mooney, etc), Avidyne
Entegra (Cirrus SR20, SR22, etc) or Garmin Perspective (Cirrus SR22, etc). Like many of life’s
questions...
the definitive answer is: “It depends.” Beware of people telling you
that you should definitely do it one way or the other. While well intentioned,
their opinions might not be based upon solid data.
First, it is harder to develop an effective instrument scan
and reach IFR checkride proficiency standards (e.g., ± 100 feet) with round gauges.
Physiologically, eyes have to work harder to scan round gauge instruments. Initially,
the eyes must focus on the center of one gauge and detect what it indicates.
Then they have to jump over two barriers—the edges of two adjacent instruments—before
refocusing on the center of the next gauge. This jumping of barriers and
refocusing becomes fatiguing over time. Contrast that with a PFD, such as in the Garmin G1000 or Perspective, that lets your
eyes move uninterrupted among instrument indications.
Interpretation and cross-checking of instruments are also
more complex. In round gauge aircraft, two separate triangles of information
provide pitch and bank information. In glass cockpit aircraft, information for
pitch and bank is presented along horizontal and vertical lines, making it easy
to cross-check. Also, the artificial horizon line in glass cockpits is at least
10 inches wide versus less than 2 inches in round gauge airplanes. It’s not
unusual for beginning instrument students to inadvertently end up in a 30°
banked turn in a round gauge aircraft; in glass cockpit aircraft, the
artificial horizon dominates the PFD, so it’s almost impossible for an
unintended turn to go unnoticed.
The results are consistent among the clients I teach.
Routinely, Private students learning in glass cockpits can maintain their
altitude within ± 100 feet after only 30 minutes of practice under the hood! Most
instrument students are ready for their IFR checkride in 30 hours, while round
gauge students routinely need 40 hours of training to meet checkride standards.
Experienced flight instructors I’ve talked to agree that it’s
easier to meet instrument proficiency standards in glass cockpit aircraft.
So should all pilots get their instrument rating in glass cockpit
aircraft because they’ll be more proficient when they take the IFR checkride? Definitely
not. Whether you should get your instrument rating in a glass cockpit depends
upon your objective. For example, if you’re aiming for an airline job, having
some glass experience could help you get hired.
If your goal is to get an instrument rating at the lowest possible
cost—and I hope it’s not—then, of course, round gauge airplanes are less
expensive to fly. While it’s fine to shop for the rock-bottom cost for many
things in life, (especially those that can’t kill you), consider that to some
extent you get what you pay for, and you want the best instrument training you
can get—not the cheapest. You can also save money by doing part of your
instrument training in a Flight Training Device (FTD). Frankly, getting the
best IFR training has more to do with the quality of instruction than the price of
the airplane, so if you need to save a few bucks, use a round gauge airplane,
but pay for a great instructor. Remember the life you save will be your own.
In general, it makes sense to learn in the type of plane in which you’ll
ultimately do your IFR flying. If your goal is to make IFR trips in the safest
airplane, than I highly recommend you train and fly in glass cockpit aircraft.
However, if you get your instrument rating in a glass cockpit aircraft, I would
strongly discourage you from flying round gauge airplanes in IMC, unless you
have a reliable autopilot. There is a good middle ground however. Since glass
cockpit trained instrument pilots will generally be ready for their checkride
in fewer hours, spend some of those training hours learning to fly instruments
in a round gauge airplane. This will help you build some skills in flying round
gauge instruments, which could be handy in the future.
You can read more in my Max Trescott’s GPS and WAAS Instrument Flying Handbook. Purchase it online or call 800-247-6553.
I did a UK IMC rating (sort of IR-lite) in PA28s back in 2001. That was HARD WORK but a very good grounding in basic instrument flight and dividing attention between different activities. When I started training for my FAA IR, I began with a round dial SR20 which was a nice bridge to the glass screens.
As a result, I think I fly more accurately on partial panel in the SR22 now than I do with the glass cockpit, which is a bit weird but probably arises from my training and also the fact that round dials have a better 'refresh rate' than the Avidyne screens making it easier to judge slight variations and trends as they happen.
I guess that my experience is that a graduation from round dials to glass cockpits is a more complete or more rounded training experience but probably adds a lot more hours to the process.
Your mileage may vary! :)
Posted by: Matthew Stibbe | November 19, 2009 at 05:43 AM