Ewfflyer

Well here's my background. I came out of a Big Ten school, flight instructed in 1979 172N's and 152's(with no modern GPS), flew freight in C310's for 2000hrs, and then worked for a Piper/Socata dealer in the Midwest. So I've seen the evolution into glass from both manufacturers both with Avidyne and Garmin, and also have trained folks in that transition.

My opinion from not only my recent job but run-ins during the others, is I've dealt with people that have learned traditionally and in the 'new-age' toys. Every single time the traditional learning trumps glass. I feel that not only in Instrument training, but also the PPL that you HAVE to learn the basics in order to really develope your skillset. I'm trying to train a guy for Instrument that previously trained with guys that only went out and did approaches with him. He relies heavily on the AP, and has very little Basic attitude flying skills, which is where I stepped in now. He is however flying a 6-pack plane, but in this case it's another example of putting the cart before the horse.

My perfect world of training:

Get PPL in an underpowered, ill-equipped C150/152 or Piper 140/150/161

Get Inst in 172 or higher, Piper 180/181 or higher with a Basic IFR GPS(KLN90B or 94, Garmin 430/530)

Once you get your Instrument rating, you can go forth and build upon your knowledge and transition into a Glass cockpit and systems, including Autopilots, traffic systems, etc....

G1000 isn't hard anyways, take the functions of a G430/530 for most of it anyways, it just displays that information and then some. You can learn it on your desktop for cheap, and then you don't need to waste too much money learning it in an airplane.

I wish you the best of luck

Just my .02, I'm off the soapbox and going to bed!

flyingsaluki1

This is exactly what I just did at my aviation university. 152 for private/time building. 172R with a KLN 94 for instrument.
I'm on to my commercial now which includes a G1000 transition. It's been an almost effortless transition. Only difficulty so far is with programming the G1000. All of the basics still apply. my instrument scan is still essentially the same. All the G1000 does is make everything easier at a higher cost

Jawallace81

I would start on the 6 pack and then transition to glass. You will have some knowledge base of old school to fall back on if you get a gig flying an older twin or something.

nciflyer

I would learn both. Steam vs. Glass each have their own emphasis on certain skill sets. Steam is about visualizing the outside world in your head given using nothing but the six pack and VORs and is a simple system to operate. Whereas with glass everything is visualized for you but tests skills in knobology (aka learning how to make the machine bow to your will). Switch back and forth every now and then to see what you're missing on the other panel. Shoot a VOR approach with steam then try it with glass or do it the other way around. And by all means avoid using the moving map as much as possible initially. Only use the moving map when you're confused, that'll make it a great learning tool rather than a crutch. It drives me crazy to watch students fly the approach with the moving map and hardly ever look at the CDI! For training purposes though it's better to stick with one setup, but I think if you try both every now and then it might give a different perspective and shed light on some things. Good pilots can tackle a particular task with different perspectives and in different ways.

Steam gauges require more pre-planning too, in order to stay ahead of the airplane. For example a full and proper early approach briefing where you setup all the navaids and build a strong mental image of your flight path. With steam you always have to know your next navaid, frequency, radial, etc. Whereas for glass much of this is done for you and will make life very easy, only assuming you've set up the programming correctly. You've probably heard people joke about how you don't ever want to ask "Why the hell is the FMS/autopilot making us turn?!"

Granted, glass panel or not you always have to stay ahead of the airplane. Glass does not exempt pilots from this. The main job of glass is to give us more information in a condensed and easier to interpret format. I'm leaving autopilot out of all of this btw...

Regarding basic hand eye coordination and instrument scan I think there's little difference learning difficulty wise. Transfer of scan skills is good between both panels. Although no doubt you will end up with a different scan between panel types. I think glass has a lot better arrangement than the six pack with everything overlayed on a massive artificial horizon so you don't have to shift vision much to get the info you need. However, it is harder to detect trends in airspeed and altitude changes with the vertical instrument "tapes" and takes slightly longer to interpret them since you have to actually read the number on the "tape". Whereas with needles it is very easy to see their position at a glance without seeing the number it's pointing at, like reading a clock. Also, it is much easier to see slight changes in needles because it's easier to detect their rotation. But with steam and needles the spacing between instruments is less optimal.