How did you accomplish IFR training: Gauges or Glass?

[JoeB]

. 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

[Auburntsts]

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.

[rleffler]

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.

[NavyS3BNFO]

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...

[Bob Axsom]

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

[David-aviator]

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....

[Bavafa]

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.

[ccrawford]

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.

[BobTurner]

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).

[rleffler]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

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).

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.