User Panel
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:31:13 AM EDT
What do you prefer? Vote and state your reasons. Also annotate what you fly: Rotary, Fixed, Mil or Civilian.
|
|
Military RW
Learn on steam fly on glass. So I couldn't answer the poll. It needs, in fine ARFCOM tradition. "get both". |
|
|
Glass, to a point. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around some of these newer cockpits without a CDU or any actual switches. The G500 and G600 look nice but I kind of like glancing up and seeing a switch in the position I/ we want it to be.
|
|
Former mil now civ rotor wing. I prefer glass by far, a good system like the F model Chinook is far more capable than any steam gauge system could ever be.
|
|
Civilian, fixed wing. Analog all the way. The glass stuff is too complex and difficult to read. With analog you can tell at a glance what you need to know. Better for night flight and better for distractions too, IMO. And I'm in my early twenties, so it's not an "old guy" thing. :) But it's all just my opinion. I'd rather be flying a Cub and not looking at the panel at all than flying a slick composite bird up in the flight levels.
Oh, and don't get me started on angle of attack indicators. On that topic, I agree with Chuck Yeager. http://youtu.be/MSWz55b_jtE?t=2m2s |
|
<-----------Civilian CMEI.
Steam gauges for me, all the way, even hard IFR. I think glass has some way to go before it becomes as intuitive as analog. That being said, it's mostly for engine instrumentation that I prefer analog. If I were flying a jet, I might be more interested in glass. /TCP |
|
I honestly have no preference. With over 600hrs behind glass panels they're just tools to me.
What I would like to see is a software option that allows you to port your PFD to a steam guage output for the purposes of initial IFR training. |
|
|
Quoted:
<-----------Civilian CMEI. Steam gauges for me, all the way, even hard IFR. I think glass has some way to go before it becomes as intuitive as analog. That being said, it's mostly for engine instrumentation that I prefer analog. If I were flying a jet, I might be more interested in glass. /TCP View Quote Glass has been around long enough to be intuitive. It's especially nice to have everything you need in front of you on one screen in IFR. |
|
Mil/Civ Fixed wing... I fly both analog and glass.
I think learning on analog is equivalent to learning to shoot with iron sights. Get that first then move on to glass. SA is increased tremendously with glass. With glass generally comes more automation too and you become more of a system manager and less of an actual pilot. |
|
I learned to fly on analog.... got up in a Cessna with digital last year and was all kinds of confused.
|
|
Civilian fixed wing.
As was previously stated, learn on steam move on to glass. I see a lot of "children of the magenta" in my line of work. I try to fix them |
|
Civilian (ASEL, AMEL, Instrument Airplane). Learned on Analog, also checked out on Digital.
I see the advantages that digital has over analog, HOWEVER, it comes at a cost. One must do a lot more flying to keep proficient on digital. I don't fly digital for a month and it's a struggle to get back at it. I don't fly analog for 6 months and it's no big deal. Digital makes situational awareness and basic attitude control easier, but it takes a lot longer to pull relevant data from the screen. It's simply easier to see "needles up" vs. parsing out "112" knots and "6498" feet, etc. I also fly safety pilot for a number of guys like me that don't get a lot of flight time. They can fly passably with steam gauges, but really struggle with digital cockpits. Clearly there's a place for both. A serious businessman making lots of flights should go digital. Those of us that just go out once a month or so with perhaps 1 or 2 trips a year are safer sticking with analog. |
|
|
Mil, one airplane is almost all glass; other is mostly glass with some backup analog. I used to be hard on having a moving map, but find myself turning it off most of the time now. I am a HUD cripple, but can do it on gauges.
|
|
Private pilot, instrument rated. 1000+ hours. Very little time using glass panel. I feel much more comfortable with steam gauges. That may change if I had more time with a glass panel.
|
|
i don't understand the preference for analog. I guess it depends on the type of flying you're doing. I can understand, maybe, if you're flying locally or VFR. Cross country navigation, IFR, and flying into large airports...glass is sooooooo much easier. Glass coupled with full automation and GPS capabilities is the winner for doing "work". Recreational flying can easily be argued either way.
I have very little VFR time. The vast majority of my 3,000+ hrs. is international and cross country for "work". |
|
Mostly mil, flew SAABs and RJs for a few years just prior to 9/11. The biggest difference was between the Harrier GrMk3 and the GrMk5. OMG. Going from the only external nav aid being a fixed card TACAN (yes that's right fixed card) with a heading system (INAS) that worked in true to twin MFDs was pure heaven!
|
|
Back in the dark ages, I learned on steam gauges. In my career, I've flown all steam, half glass, and all glass. I much prefer an all glass airplane. the situational awareness you get from glass is worlds ahead of a steam gauge airplane. My "play" airplane is steam gauges, VFR only, I've even flown it on a 1000 mile cross country trip, but one day, it will be all glass.
Back in the beginning of my professional flying, we did lot's of full approaches, DME arc's with the RMI, NDB's, non radar, walked backwards, uphill, barefoot in the snow to get to the airplane, etc..If I never did any of that again, I would be perfectly fine with it. I doubt that any of the professional pilots starting out today will ever see a steam gauge airplane, especially if they go the airline route, so why not start training on glass, since that's what they will be flying. Digital instruments are lighter, more reliable and present so much more information than steam. The biggest thing is knowing how to manage all the information/displays and the automation. What's not to like about moving maps, trend vectors, range to altitude selected (the "green banana", or "kermit's weenie" on the ND)? As to the above comment about the AOA indicator, why wouldn't you want to be able to see the energy state of the airplane at a glance. That can be pretty useful in say a wind shear escape, or terrain avoidance maneuver. Civ, fixed wing. |
|
Quoted:
i don't understand the preference for analog. I guess it depends on the type of flying you're doing. I can understand, maybe, if you're flying locally or VFR. Cross country navigation, IFR, and flying into large airports...glass is sooooooo much easier. Glass coupled with full automation and GPS capabilities is the winner for doing "work". Recreational flying can easily be argued either way. I have very little VFR time. The vast majority of my 3,000+ hrs. is international and cross country for "work". View Quote The preference for analog in training comes from seeing (firsthand) the new generation of pilots in action. In general, they have zero situatiinal awareness and if a clearance doesn't involve DIRECT TO or VNAV they are lost. I had 1500 hour guys in the right seat of a king air that were lost when you covered up the GPS and asked them where are we in relation to the ILS we are being vectored for. |
|
The reason I posted this topic is that a conversation on a helicopter forum got pretty stupid and heated about it.
I prefer glass all the way. More info in a smaller area. Smaller and quicker scan. MUCH better SA in IMC or VFR conditions. I have 5 huge MFDs that can display what I want, where I want it. As simple or complex as it needs to be. Putting up a CIB display when doing zero illum dust landings is quite a luxury. Like Bob58 said, learn on steam, fly on glass. |
|
Quoted:
The reason I posted this topic is that a conversation on a helicopter forum got pretty stupid and heated about it. View Quote A conversation between a bunch of helicopter pilots got stupid and heated? No wai! Fixed wing pilots argue like flocks of premenstrual geese. Helicopter pilots argue like bands of rampaging retarded monkeys. |
|
Quoted:
That's fucking awesome. I'm so stealing that one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Civilian fixed wing. As was previously stated, learn on steam move on to glass. I see a lot of "children of the magenta" in my line of work. I try to fix them That's fucking awesome. I'm so stealing that one. I can't take credit for it. It was American Airlines who coined that phrase to describe the automation dependency in the wake of the crash of AA 965. Let me add..... I teach a fairly automated aircraft. I give people some fairly uncomplicated scenarios (relatively speaking) and they just fall apart. I have seen the CRM break down to the point of two pilots almost coming to blows (maybe a slight exaggeration) over how to accomplish an approach. I see two pilots both heads down banging away on the FMS with "George" flying the plane very often. The utter dependence the glass has generated is staggering. The automation is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It is there for you to use it and to make the flight more comfortable/economical/smoother/whatever but you have got to be a part of the crew and not an observer, which I see all too often. This isn't an indictment of old pilots or young pilots. I have seen both use the automation well, and I have seen both totally dependent upon it. Automation dependence and a lack and/or erosion of basic attitude instrument flying skills is what will kill people. Case in point - a couple of years ago a crew got a sim (different plane than my current one) into a flat spin simulating (as best as the machine could) what happened with AF 447. And both crew members just watched and said "what's it doing." And don't get me started on the egos!! |
|
Quoted: i don't understand the preference for analog. I guess it depends on the type of flying you're doing. I can understand, maybe, if you're flying locally or VFR. Cross country navigation, IFR, and flying into large airports...glass is sooooooo much easier. Glass coupled with full automation and GPS capabilities is the winner for doing "work". Recreational flying can easily be argued either way. I have very little VFR time. The vast majority of my 3,000+ hrs. is international and cross country for "work". View Quote |
|
Quoted:
The preference for analog in training comes from seeing (firsthand) the new generation of pilots in action. In general, they have zero situatiinal awareness and if a clearance doesn't involve DIRECT TO or VNAV they are lost. I had 1500 hour guys in the right seat of a king air that were lost when you covered up the GPS and asked them where are we in relation to the ILS we are being vectored for. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
i don't understand the preference for analog. I guess it depends on the type of flying you're doing. I can understand, maybe, if you're flying locally or VFR. Cross country navigation, IFR, and flying into large airports...glass is sooooooo much easier. Glass coupled with full automation and GPS capabilities is the winner for doing "work". Recreational flying can easily be argued either way. I have very little VFR time. The vast majority of my 3,000+ hrs. is international and cross country for "work". The preference for analog in training comes from seeing (firsthand) the new generation of pilots in action. In general, they have zero situatiinal awareness and if a clearance doesn't involve DIRECT TO or VNAV they are lost. I had 1500 hour guys in the right seat of a king air that were lost when you covered up the GPS and asked them where are we in relation to the ILS we are being vectored for. I'm with you about learning on analog. I'm targeting my response to those that are past the initial learning stage and will be actually using their plane for something (transportation, work, fun, etc.) The company I work for flies both glass and analog. It is a roll of the dice which one you pick up and we are qualified for both. |
|
AA did a talk on "Children of the Magenta Line"...video below.
https://vimeo.com/64502012 |
|
Quoted:
AA did a talk on "Children of the Magenta Line"...video below. https://vimeo.com/64502012 View Quote I've seen Captain VanderBurgh's videos many, many times in recurrent, never get tired of them. There are some companion AAMP videos, but I can't find them on line. It all goes to training, if a pilot stumbles with the loss of automation, or the GPS, it's most likely poor training, but a weak pilot will have a bigger problem with the basics. |
|
I've been flying 20 yrs on the "steam" gauges in helicopters and just transitioned into a new B206L with a G500 powered by a touch screen 650 about a week ago. There's a lot going on within these screens and I have to force myself to look at them instead or going to the standby steam gauges. As far as shooting instrument approaches, they are the only way to go. For VFR, they're nice but not necessary since you rarely have to look at them anyway. In fact, I think they would almost be dangerous without the autopilot--it's so easy to get captivated by the screens and forget to do other things.
The hardest part is gauging how fast things are changing. Watching an altimeter's rate winding up or down can save you from looking at the VSI. Not that easy on the glass with the tapes. They have that little magenta bar that shows you where you'll be in six seconds, but you still have to read a number. My brain could process an approximate angle on a steam gauge than an actual number for some reason. I'm sure I'll get used to it, but that's my initial impression for only have 4 hrs on the glass. |
|
.mil rotary wing -- Glass
It takes less work to get a complete scan. Well-designed panels will draw attention to anything in outside the normal operating range. You can also fit more information into a more compact space, which CAN be a good thing. I'm not a fan of touch screen though. Give me buttons and switches. My hands don't always seem to work touch screens for some reason, and that's doubly true with flight gloves on. |
|
Civ FW.
Done both. Steam is dead as disco for the vast majority of commerical flying. Trend vectors and HUDs are awesome. Learn to fly without instruments. |
|
|
|
Glass, and there's no comparison. Civ. Flown gen 1,2,3,4(?) Glass. More S/A is always a good thing.
That said, I'm in agreement that some things should have actual hardware switches and buttons. |
|
Which one pays better? What is the retirement?
Given the same, then glass. But as long as the steam have a magenta line, that is all I care about. |
|
|
Most of my career was spent in steam gauge King Airs.
Now flying all glass Citation Encore+ with Pro Line 21. Gonna have to vote for "All Glass". It was hard to transition to glass but very glad we did now. Much more data. In the case of the Encore+ plus it's the combination of the PL21, the FMS, as well as the big FADEC engines that make it such a wonderful aircraft. I need to change my avatar to a pic of Encore+ front office.... |
|
I like analog because it is what is on my airplane and I like flying and would not be able to afford to fly and upgrade my panel. So I fly analog with a garmin 496 yoke mounted and works fine for me. Oh and airplane is a Cherokee 140.
|
|
Quoted:
.mil rotary wing -- Glass It takes less work to get a complete scan. Well-designed panels will draw attention to anything in outside the normal operating range. You can also fit more information into a more compact space, which CAN be a good thing. I'm not a fan of touch screen though. Give me buttons and switches. My hands don't always seem to work touch screens for some reason, and that's doubly true with flight gloves on. View Quote touch screen is getting better. I use gloves, works for the most part. I do fat finger sometimes. |
|
Quoted:
touch screen is getting better. I use gloves, works for the most part. I do fat finger sometimes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
.mil rotary wing -- Glass It takes less work to get a complete scan. Well-designed panels will draw attention to anything in outside the normal operating range. You can also fit more information into a more compact space, which CAN be a good thing. I'm not a fan of touch screen though. Give me buttons and switches. My hands don't always seem to work touch screens for some reason, and that's doubly true with flight gloves on. touch screen is getting better. I use gloves, works for the most part. I do fat finger sometimes. My 5 MFDs arent touch screen, but damn we put a lot of finger prints on them And my crew dogs hate us for it |
|
I have no glass experience, other than ehsi and eadi in a couple of planes, which I don't feel count.
I'd love to give glass a try someday, so I can form an opinion. |
|
Quoted:
I have no glass experience, other than ehsi and eadi in a couple of planes, which I don't feel count. I'd love to give glass a try someday, so I can form an opinion. View Quote Well, you can on MSFS. . There's nothing to it. Very intuitive. You will especially like the trend indicators, after you get used to them. |
|
|
Quoted:
Well, you can on MSFS. . There's nothing to it. Very intuitive. You will especially like the trend indicators, after you get used to them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no glass experience, other than ehsi and eadi in a couple of planes, which I don't feel count. I'd love to give glass a try someday, so I can form an opinion. Well, you can on MSFS. . There's nothing to it. Very intuitive. You will especially like the trend indicators, after you get used to them. It takes all of looking at it once to get used to it. |
|
Quoted:
touch screen is getting better. I use gloves, works for the most part. I do fat finger sometimes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
.mil rotary wing -- Glass It takes less work to get a complete scan. Well-designed panels will draw attention to anything in outside the normal operating range. You can also fit more information into a more compact space, which CAN be a good thing. I'm not a fan of touch screen though. Give me buttons and switches. My hands don't always seem to work touch screens for some reason, and that's doubly true with flight gloves on. touch screen is getting better. I use gloves, works for the most part. I do fat finger sometimes. I'm the guy who can't always get an iPad to recognize inputs, so take it for what it's worth! |
|
I love the glass cockpit. All the infomation is centralized in the cockpit that can be easy to read and locate.
Bad thing about it. It is a computer system. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.