N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
Sunday I had my BFR and had the chance to do some hood work. I'm a VFR only kind of pilot and all the BFR's I have had over the past 16 years have been in no-gyro airplanes (T-Craft, J-3, Decathlon, and Stearman).

During the BFR we did a handful of unusual attitude recoveries, recoveries to descending and climbing turns with rollouts to a given heading, etc. All went well, so well the instructor asked if I had any instrument training. (Yes, about 20 hours 15 years ago, before I bought the T-Craft.)

My question is this; have you IFR types found it easier to fly IFR with the glass panels?

I'm thinking it was easy for me because all the info was on one instrument rather than all over the panel.

What are your thoughts?

(Note, I'm not commenting on any brand of EFIS being better than another, just EFIS vs. steam gauges.)
 
The conventional wisdom maintains that glass is safer, but different. They emphasize training. I've seen this "position" published in many trade journals and also by many trustworthy pilots/writers.

I haven't really delved into the reasoning, since I made a decision to go glass a long time ago. My emphasis has been on "which glass", which is a challenge in itself. My reasons for the glass were more function, (arguably) more reliability, not much more in cost, everything considered (assuming a goal of all electric).
 
PS. I did have a chance to fly an all-glass Cessna 172 in Hawaii last year, with an instructor on board, for 2 days. I can attest to the training needed. The 1st day, I was completely baffled. The 2nd day was better, but I can see a few more sessions required to match my IFR proficiency.

One of the most difficult things for me to adjust to was the airspeed and altitude tapes. Even in level flight, the digital numbers keep rolling (show me a pilot or an A/P that can control to the exact foot!) and there is a real tendency to chase the numbers. I prefer a configuration like Dynon used to have, where they had the digital numbers on top of the tape, and only a slider on the tape itself. The slider is not as "visually dynamic" as the numbers and is easier to adjust to. One glance tells you if you are at your altitude. Even on the 2nd day, this was distracting. However, most pilots prefer the numbers and the pointer together. We all are differnt and maybe it is just me that finds this combination less than ideal.
 
In real life testing, where new pilots groups started with "glass" or "steam gauges", the glass students beat the steam gauge students by a good margin in IFR prociency. Was about a 15 hour difference overall, as I remember.

The steam gauge people learned how to control the airplane somewhat sooner, but the glass students began initial IFR training on day one. It's all on the web, somewhere....

L.Adamson
 
I learned on steam in my RV-6A before going EFIS and my experience was it is WAYYYY easier on glass. Also my experience with failure modes makes a glass failure easier to recognize in the soup than steam.

I also got to figure, that for the guys with unlimited budget and analytical minds and lost of studies, ie the military, they went glass. Course the why's of that im sure are not simplistic, but it it what they use in the end.

I find the limited scan view of the glass much easier to deal with. I react to changes more quickly cause I see em more quickly. And in my RV IFR, fast recognition of a necessary input is the whole ball game.

I found myself very fixated on one instrument with steam. I had to force myself to look around and get a scan going. No forcing of that necessary with glass.

My 2 cents off the top of my head.
 
Flying magazine

I just read an interesting article this morning in this month's Flying magazine about "Technically Advanced Aircraft". It brought up some good points about "Technically Advanced Pilots", one point being that the airplane is only as safe as the pilot. It's definitely a good read if you're considering glass.
 
IMHO: Easier and Better

Overall, I think it's significantly easier to fly by reference to an EFIS than to a 6-pack of steam dials.

Before saying why, I will admit that a sweeping needle on a round dial is much easier to understand dynamically than a tape or a digital indication. I don't think there's any contest on that. I will also admit that with any EFIS there is more need to fully understand the instrument; they are not standardized as are steam dials.

Now to the EFIS and why it's easier, at least for me.
  1. No need to scan or at least very, very little
  2. Since no scan, integration of basic flight information is way easier
  3. Additional features such as flight path marker make it easier (put marker on horizon, ignore pitch ladder, you are flying level.
  4. Integration of bank indicator with rate of turn is superior
  5. Indication of wind very helpful
  6. Compass tape aligned with attitude is intuitive, compass and DG are combined, no precession of DG, no issues reading compass, no turning or acceleration error in compass
  7. In mine (GRT), airport shows up in brown area of attitude indicator, flight path offset from center shows crab angle, obstacles show on horizon plus warnings
  8. Altitude and VSI are in the same place for instant understanding
  9. IAS and TAS easier to read and understand, automatic computation
  10. Overlay of VOR/LOC/ILS on attitude indicator works very well
  11. Optional HITS on approach along with flight path marker makes staying on the approach a no-guesswork thing
  12. Attitude indicator is bigger, I think. Or at least seems so.
There are probably more examples, but this should give a good idea of the advantages of the EFIS. There is no free lunch, but to the narrower question of which is easier, I believe the EFIS wins by a big margin.
 
Transitioning to glass from steam I found difficult. I now prefer glass but I personlly think steam guges easier in actual IFR.
 
Ya

right up until yer vacuum pump slowly rolls over and dies.

Hopefully you spot this before you roll over and die too!

Just my 2 cents, then again I learned on glass and aim to stay that way.

Frank
 
I've been flying with a Dynon in my 7A for about 8 months. I also have backup steam guages. When flying instruments, I find myself looking at the steam altimeter, vsi and turn coordinator, but at the Dynon for airspeed. Kind of whacky. I do prefer a regular sized steam or electric artificial horizon. The one in the Dynon 10A is a bit small for my elderly eyeballs.

Chuck Olsen
RV-7A
 
Transitions

N395V said:
Transitioning to glass from steam I found difficult. I now prefer glass but I personlly think steam guges easier in actual IFR.
Click to expand...

That is interesting. In the airline business we had problems with some pilots going from steam to glass, big problems like failing transition training. The common thread seemed to be the "tape" issue. I watched one 15K hour ATP auger the sim in while doing a simple steep turn. Way too many years watching the needle on a VSI, I guess. It all sorted out, but it took some time. The people that really love glass are the mechanics and the bean counters. Easy to swap out and a lot cheaper than overhauling mechanical flight directors.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine" (steam, I'm an old geezer)
KSBA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.