PROFILE CLIMB

It appears the glass cockpit makes life easy for the pilot as computers do all the work, now flying steam gauges you have to actually think.I guess it could be argued that the glass cockpit frees up the pilot for other tasks, what are you're opinions?

undflyboy06

I do agree that glass cockpits, along with the automation allows the pilot to perform additional tasks while the workload is high, and increases situational awareness to a certainty.

I feel the "big gotcha" is not getting to reliant or lazy, since your scan is confined to a such smaller area, and easier. Don't get me wrong, I would love to fly an entirely glass cockpit and nice automation again, but I know what happens after you fly glass for a while.

I didn't build up a solid building block of steam gauge flying before I went to the airlines right out of school, 2007. When I started flying the 145, I transitioned to Glass pretty quickly, and thought I was pretty good at it, and was really comfortable when I got used to the aircraft.

After getting furloughed, I went to 135 cargo where you would almost poop your pants if you had a Garmin 430 in it. I quickly realized that I didn't know jack about actual flying and that my scan was atrocious. After 3 years flying night freight, I can safely say that flying steam gauges has dramatically solidified my sick and rudder skills, scan, and overall situational awareness in the cockpit.

I think it would benefit the new pilots to still learn in all steam gauges today, then transition to glass once they have their instrument or even multi-engine rating. The reason is if you want to work your way up by building hours, you will have to fly freight, flight instruct, or many other options. The only problem is that a lot of those jobs still have planes older then me, and entirely steam gauge.

But, the folks these days have to try and sell new airplanes, and loading the cockpit up with the latest bells and whistles puts the perspective of the buyer in a certain mind frame, buy the aircraft.

Just my two cents.

9kBud

Spoken like a true part 135 pilot. Having done the transition back and forth a couple times, I agree with all the above. I wouldn't use the word "lazy" to explain what flying glass does to a pilot either. It simply promotes a different skill set that is very important in airplanes with similar capabilities. Having said that, the scan you get off a six pack with little automation benefits you in ALL airplanes. Except those without instruments

FlyJSH

I wish we could "Sticky" this post.

cougar

Lazy, no. Just a different skill set. Although the FAA has recently put out an AC about their concern for the degradation of "hand flying skills", I think this is a rather one sided view of a larger issue.

A general definition for levels of automation can be used to help define this issue. In general, automation levels start at level 1 - No automation, to Level 4 - FMS based Automation.

The older pilots tend to be solid with their hand flying skills, and to different degrees are comfortable with the automation up to A/P on and vertical speed, FL CH, Heading select/Hold, etc. But most don't become familiar with the FMS enough to be proficient with it.

Conversely, (I'm generalizing again), the younger pilots seem to be much more familiar with the FMS. However their stick and rudder skills aren't as strong.

Obviously the individual's initial training bears most of the responsibly for this. With a limited amount of time for training, the main focus of today's programs have switched more toward an emphasis on higher levels of automation.

I think it is important that pilots are skilled in all levels of automation, from no automation to a VNAV CDA, RNAV AR .1 RNP approach.

I think a focus on one over the other is misguided.

Yoda2

First, I agree with the previous posters. I would also say lazy is not the proper description. One of the biggest problems with TAA is the lack of standardization. Secondarily; complexity, currency issues and transition to them are other significant issues. However standardization would go a long way towards solving the secondary issues. I am all for progress and inovation, however I hold the FAA responsible for not having or exercising the foresight to prevent this. There is one more chance to nip this issue in the bud. That is to get this under control prior to the full scale rollout of ADS B. Avionics manufacturers are now no different than those making Cell phones. Just think about getting used to a new phone; and do we understand and are able to make use of all its features, to operate the phone proficiently and competently... I know several GA pilots that have stopped flying due to the proliferation of TAA, and the negative issues associated with these aircraft, combined with accessability issues to descent steam gauge models. It takes the average pilot 15 to 20 Hrs. to make the transition just to fly VFR. It takes over a 100 to become safe and proficient to operate IFR; and I'm not talking enough ability to pass an instrument checkride, I mean proficient. This is rediculous and has become another death nail in GA. Younger pilots might argue this point, though from another perspective and not considering the big picture. Checking someone out in an unfamiliar aircraft used to be about flying the aircraft; it's now about flying the radios... Same thing with a trip to Flight Safety/Simuflite, Etc.; it's all about the box. Due to the limited time instructors have to spend with students, it is no wonder we still have unacceptable accident and incident rates and that LOC events are on the rise. When we have instructors highlighting their abilities with TAA and even writing books on the subject, that should be an indication of an issue right there. Nothing against that and they are performing a valuable service, however it's still an indication of a major issue. I don't think going backwards is the answer though it is certainly time to pause for some reassessment...

chignutsak

Nope, I was already lazy, can't blame it on glass.

bozobigtop

Sounds like DC-7 pilots transitioning to the B-707. I tell you what my boss told me, don't hate the players, hate the game!

Billy Pilgrim

FWIW - I was in Afghanistan with a Brit C-130 instructor who told me they had some Virgin pilots at their Christmas party one year. After some talking they headed over to the Herc sim and lo and behold none of the pilots could handfly it to a landing. Sad.

I've only got about 1,000 hours now, but less than 1.0 of that is on auto pilot. I definitely think it makes a difference.

Would you rather have a systems manager fly your plane or a pilot.

Aerophile

I'm not going to get into it, but my short answer to your title question is "yes" but I also believe "lazy" isn't the correct word either. Does glass make you a better pilot? No.