How did you accomplish IFR training: Gauges or Glass?

. The other day I made a post hoping to hear how various people accomplished IFR training, using traditional methods in the old production fleet or if they waited for a the RV and completed training on Glass. I also made mention that I owned a Piper I could potentially train in, I have been waiting due to time and money. ( the reason I was really asking)
so the main point was for those with round dial IFR training VS glass training was it worth the money to get the rating in the traditional instruments? OR wait until I have my RV-10 built (I am a RV builder so that is the RV tie in)
I don't want to burn the money and get my IFR rating in my piper only to find that 95% of what I learned needs to be re-taught on the glass that will be in the -10. I know the procedures change but how to interpret just about everything looks like it will be diffrent.
I did mention the piper was for sale and if anyone knew someone in the market, but it was hardly a FOR SALE plug for the sole purpose of posting an ad on the forum.
I am a bit disappointed that my question and discussion was removed after reading all the other "questionable" RV related post that are allowed.
Oh well....
better luck next time I suppose

Joe, I don't remember seeing that thread, and don't remember seeing any deleted threads like that. It could just be my short-term memory. If you would privately e-mail me the text I'd be happy to re-ad the thread. Sorry for any inconveniences. Doug

3:15pm update:
It seems you're getting some answers to your initial questions now, so I went ahead and moved this thread to the instrument flight rules section from the test section. I hope you find that agreeable. Doug

We'll to answer your OP that I didn't see, I've been working on my IR in a G1000 equipped 172. IMO the presentation of the info (steam vs glass) really shouldn't be a real factor in your decision. Attitude flying, IR procedures, and all that are the same whether your flying glass or steam. Having said that if you learn on steam, you need to take some time and become both knowledable and competent with your glass before launching into IMC. Glass can make things easier but only IF you know how to use it. In other words, it all transfers, you'll just need to learn how to use a somewhat different presentation of the same data to accomplish the same tasks.

The arugument for getting initial rating on steam, is that you'll be more comfortable if you ever end up flying a rental or another steam guage aircraft.

It will take a few hours to get up to speed on a glass panel. When I did my transition training, I ended switching to a six pack display becuase it was taking me too long to zoom in on the area I was looking for the right data.

I would go ahead and get your rating. First it will provide more experience with the steam gauges (just think of more tools in your tool box) and with the rating first it will help with the insurance for the RV-10.

The other gotcha that I'm experiencing at the moment, is that you have to get a CFII that you can add to your insurance policy. That usually means the CFII getting 10 hours of RV-10 time. Otherwise you'll be limited to training in VFR only. I have to find a CFII that I can barter some time inexchange for some RV-10 time. Also, unless you are in a major city, finding a CFII that is up to speed on experimental EFIS may be difficult.

I just finished my instrument rating last month and did all my training on steam gauges. That was one of the first questions I asked my instructor and he recommended steam gauges first then transition to the glass after getting the rating.

I think others have said it also, but it's probably easier going from steam to glass than the other way around if you needed to. Call me old school but I'm glad I did it this way. I'm much more confident I could fly either glass or steam gauges in instrument conditions than if I did it the other way around.

I wouldn't underestimate the learning curve when you go from round to glass though. Take the time to do it right - spend some quality ground time and time with an instructor learing the buttonology.

The rest of the instrument rating is learning the "rules of the road" - and that's the same for everyone - steam, glass, jets, props, etc...

In 1984 ...

There was no option. All of the "go for it now with gauges" arguments make sense to me but it requires some intense training. If you can't see your way clear to the end in a steady fashion you may find yourself doing a lot of repeating and perhaps having to do it all over anyway. You know the demands on your time and how much you can allocate. It is not exactly like learning to ride a bicycle, there is some use it or lose it risk.

Bob Axsom

The instrument flight training guide for instructors published by Gleim is based on gauges, that may be the way to go....like play their game, not yours. In fact, there is no mention of EFIS in the guide.

Could be flight schools are more spun up on EFIS for IFR training, I don't know. But I do know the practical test guide for flying on instruments is based on flying the gauges.

You can not go wrong learning to fly on gauges. It's been that way for years and the transition to EFIS is no big deal.

Just my 2 cents worth....

I believe learning with steam gauges is harder than glass and as a result it will make you a better IFR rate pilot. But I am not sure how well one can retain those once moving and getting use to the glass so it may all be for not much.

I learned it with glass and there are many tools in my system that makes IFR flying much easier, especially with situational awareness.

I trained on steam gauge simulators and then did my flight hours in a G1000.

If you don't use the automation (coupled approaches, etc), flying on glass is harder in the sense that you have a lot more to fiddle with to get it set up for an IFR flight (and keeping it up to date). But visually you have an easier time watching the needles and keeping tracking of airspeed, decent rate, etc.

Steam gauges require a good scan, which is simpler in a glass cockpit.

My advice would be to get the rating now. The Piper is easier to fly ifr than the -10; more stable, especially in pitch. And it's slower, so things happen more slowly. So it will cost you less. You may find some use for it now. Also, as others have said, it's worth some discount when you get insurance for the ten. In my experience people transition quickly from steam to glass; vice versa, not as fast.
Bob, as to your problem: the first 10 hours of instrument training are usually spent doing various maneuers designed to get you used to attitude instrument flying. These are best done vfr, under the hood, since atc doesn't really care for constant altitude and heading changes! The rules allow your cfii to log this as RV PiC time (even though you would be the PIC) so after that he can be added to your policy (if it requires 10 hours) so you can fly in IMC (where only he can be the PIC).

BobTurner said:

Bob, as to your problem: the first 10 hours of instrument training are usually spent doing various maneuers designed to get you used to attitude instrument flying. These are best done vfr, under the hood, since atc doesn't really care for constant altitude and heading changes! The rules allow your cfii to log this as RV PiC time (even though you would be the PIC) so after that he can be added to your policy (if it requires 10 hours) so you can fly in IMC (where only he can be the PIC).

Click to expand...

I'm already rated, just need an IPC. It's really just a chicken and egg type of problem. By the time the cfii has the hours, I would have hopefully completed the IPC well before then. Additionally, the several cfii's that I've spoken with, also wanted some additional time due to them been unfamiliar with experimental EFIS. For good reason, they want to master the panel before flying in IMC.

It's not a big deal, just extra expense and logistic requirements that we need to account for as experimental owners.

I'll throw my hat in the ring also. I'm going to get my IFR rating in my -10 with the G3X system and start working on it after I fly off phase one. Once you become familiarized with the glass panel you know what to look for and can get your scan down right. Having said that, I do own and fly a Cessna 152 and would have used that for my rating, but its not IFR equipped and I cant justify the additional expense of a rental.

Back when I got my rating, glass in small GA airplanes didn't exist! As I look back, I think it is easier to grasp the basic concepts of what is going on without the distractions and just using the most basic of input and detection. That being said, my new panel is totally glass, no round anything and I'm loving it! Haven't flown an actual approach with the new panel yet but can't wait. As soon as phase one is done, I'll retrain with glass.

So I believe my answer to your question is that it doesn't matter. The concepts that you need to know are the same regardless of what you will fly. What you learned on gauges isn't lost when you switch to glass, just reapplied. Your rating doesn't say what you learned on or what type of instruments you know how to fly with, just that you know how to apply your knowledge to arriving safely to your destination with whatever tools are presented to you, safely and legally.

What ever way you decide to go, be competent and safe.

I got my instrument rating in 2007 at GATTS in Manhattan, KS. They offer a 7 day high intensity course that culminates with your check ride on the 7th day. I had been flying my RV7A for a year at that time and was familiar and comfortable with it's glass panel consisting of dual GRT's and a GNS430W and a TruTrak Digiflight II VSGV. The school did not have any glass equipped airplanes and their instructors were not familiar with the GRT, nor was the examiner. Based on that we decided to use their Cherokee with steam gauges and a GNS530 with no auto pilot. All the training and the check ride was done with the artificial horizon covered. This was much more difficult than flying behind my EFIS but after the second day it became the new normal. I had no trouble completing the training in the 7 days and the check ride was a non event.

When I got back into my 7A, I was astonished how much easier it was with the EFIS. Situational awareness is much better and keeping the airplane level and on course is greatly aided by the PFD.

If you look at the traditional IFR training regimen it is evident that it is all based on partial panel flying because vacuum pumps and gyro instruments are so failure prone. Glass panels, although much more reliable, can fail too but in different ways so it comes down to the redundancies built into your panel.

In my case I know I will never fly IFR with a steam panel again since I have my own plane. If I had the option I would choose to train on the panel I would be flying behind in the future.

Martin Sutter
Building and flying RV's since 1988
EAA Technical Councelor

With my intense interest in CFIT (controlled flight into terrain), for nearly four decades, I can tell you one thing for sure................and that's with the exception of two civil air patrol pilots flying into a mountain wall out of Las Vegas, is that "glass" is making all the difference, in reducing CFITs during IMC operations. The **** with old school, as far as I'm concerned.

Thread drift

Bob L, re IPC. Personally I have a strong preference to giving IPCs in VMC. I always include unusual attitudes which are hard to negotiate with ATC if ifr. Vfr also lets me fail more things (moving maps and autopilots always fail!). And I wouldn't feel too uncomfortable if you had a panel that I wasn't familiar with.
IPCs are different from instrument training; with the latter I feel I must have the student experience actual IMC even if the regs say otherwise.

IFR on Glass

I had the same dilemma. So I flew the Microsoft fight sim on both and decided the G1000 glass was the way to go. I started out with steam, then tried the glass and now will never go back. I think in the future it will be easier to go from glass to steam than the other way. I figure why not learn with all the G1000 extras at the same time as the IFR course? The G1000 makes everything easier.

johnny stick said:

The G1000 makes everything easier.

Click to expand...

Which is why it is harder, not easier, to go from glass to steam than vice versa.

BobTurner said:

Which is why it is harder, not easier, to go from glass to steam than vice versa.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. The rules allow that a person who has an instrument rating can LEGALLY fly practically any type of equipment in instrument conditions. It is up to the pilot to have sufficient discipline not to tackle something with which they have no experience. It's not like a general aviation pilot is going to be forced to fly an airplane IFR if he isn't familiar with the equipment.

For instance, I wouldn't choose to fly a G1000 in instrument conditions until I had received training on it. As long as a pilot has the self-discipline to stick with what they know, they can train either way that works for them.

We don't force people to learn to fly Low Frequency Range approaches just because that was how it was done in the past. Nor do we force everyone to learn in a taildragger.....

I knew I was getting old when we had pilot astronauts who had taken their initial flight training with glass, and had never flown steam....

A different reason to do it NOW

I got my instrument ticket in 2008 via a very well steam gaged Arrow (HSI, RMI, DME, ADF, Dual VOR). (Don't laugh at the ADF, it was handy)

The initial purpose of my training was not to get the rating, but to learn enough IFR that I would be comfortable designing my panel for it.

I have seen many EAB panels that I would not fly IFR and I did not want my panel to be one of those.
My 7 has dual GRTs, 430W, SL40, 327, TruTrac, and 4 steam BU instruments.
There was a comment above by a poster that said glass is harder to set up (many button pushes) but easier to read (great situation display). I definitely agree.
I think there is a real hazzard in flying glass that one has not been trained to operate.

I wound up finishing the training because it was challenging and therefore entertaining. For me, it ranked up there with the more difficult engineering courses I took in school. The ride back from the checkride was one the best in my life.

I did some if my IFR training in a -10 with glass, but most if it was in a nicely equipped 74 Cherokee with a six pack and a backup attitude indicator. Things happened a lot slower in the Archer and got me used to doing a scan and more hand flying.

More data

So to continue my post above. I think if one was to learn IFR with steam gauges it will take probably 10 hours to transition to G1000. Whereas if one was to learn IFR with G1000, it would probably take only 3 hours to transition to steam gauges.
Now that my meaning should be clear, I am not going to argue over the internet; as someone else pointed out, that is pointless.

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for the input its good to see how everyone else made it to where they are

Like most, I did my initial IFR rating with steam. I transitioned to glass and found the transition to be a bit of a challenge. I use the "control and performance" method of instrument scan and interpretation vs "primary and supporting". I would recommend that you get a good understanding of the differences and use the control and performance method as you make your transition. Glass has some definite differences that will take you some time to get used to. Specifically, instantaneous interpretations of AS and VS trend. However, don't hesitate to get the instrument training now, as at least you will be advancing your flying skills while you build. That's never a bad thing!

Johnny,

I must respecfully disagree with you. You said "I think" so I presume this is your opinion. On the other hand I and a couple of other CFII friends have actually done this: transition pilots from steam to glass, and vice versa. Our experiences are the same: steam to glass takes some ground time (which doesn't absolutely require a cfii) and a few hours in the air. But glass to steam takes a lot more flying. The issue is position awareness. Without the moving map the pilots easily get lost and disoriented. They get a few vectors and then have no idea where they are. It takes quite a few hours to even begin to correct this deficiency.