Is the trainer you fly and start with important to an career in aviation?

[photofly]

So the ab-initio training that you've never done, you don't have a preference for never having done it in a steam gauge aircraft, nor in a glass panel display?

A good point photofly. My comments are based on my own experience as a student and my experience teaching pilots who learned to fly on both steam gauges and glass panels. I did not notice any difference between the two groups. Both groups had some pilots that had problems with basic attitude flying, and all of those showed great improvement after some instruction. But it's a small sample size, and I could easily be wrong. If you say that it's important to learn on steam gauges instead of glass, and you produce good pilots, I'm not going to argue with your methods.

It’s not important to learn on steam gauges vs. glass. It’s important to learn with as few as possible instruments, the better to avoid them getting in the way of understanding how an aircraft flies.

It’s not important whether the display is electronic or mechanical, it’s important that it can be distilled down to the minimum relevant amount of information so the student can focus on that which is important to understand what the aircraft is doing in response to their control inputs, and how that correlates with the view outside.

If a glass panel display had a “minimum legal instrumentation for day vfr flight” mode then it would be a much better environment that a steam gauge six pack.

Once again, it’s not the fact of the electronic display, it’s the sophisticated integration of so much information that in my opinion makes it less than ideal for the first few hours.

The fact that this question is asked:

What I have researched so far is that if i plan to work for the majors, learning in a glass cockpit will help me as the future planes I'd be in would be glass cockpit (vs steam guage).

Is a warning sign that the OP thinks that learning to fly is all about gauges, or displays, and not about learning how to control an airplane. It’s the first danger sign of “instrumentitis”, the disease whose cure lies in covering the instruments during flight!

[PilotDAR]

If a glass panel display had a “minimum legal instrumentation for day vfr flight” mode then it would be a much better environment that a steam gauge six pack.

A great idea! I suggest that mode display two things only: A slip indicator in real time, and the altitude trend over the last few minutes. Seeing your altitude is not so important, as knowing that you can, and have maintained it. Unfortunately, our aviation tend toward perfection seems to dictate an artificial need to be at a specific altitude of a circuit, or controlled airspace. This leads to fixation, where for the sake of learning to fly the aircraft, it's not necessary.

As for airspeed, a weight loaded wing wants to fly at a certain airspeed, and below that airspeed, is not going to fly. At the transition between those speeds, use lots of caution. Sure, AoA plays an important role in understanding advanced flying techniques, but if a pilot simply waits for the aircraft to accelerate to flying speed, it's going to fly if you let it. Similarly, if you hold the plane over the runway nicely, and let the speed decay, it's going to stop flying and land. An airspeed indicator is something of a distraction for this, as it is not corrected for the weight of the aircraft, nor a few other more subtle errors.

So, I agree that the fewer instruments available to distract the student pilot, the better - learn to fly the aircraft by sense and feel. Therefore, do not choose the primary trainer based upon how full the instrument panel is.

[photofly]

If a glass panel display had a “minimum legal instrumentation for day vfr flight” mode then it would be a much better environment that a steam gauge six pack.

A great idea! I suggest that mode display two things only: A slip indicator in real time, and the altitude trend over the last few minutes.

Hey. I want a “minimum day VFR instrumentation mode”, that is, everything and only what is required to satisfy CAR 605.24 and CAR 425.23(1)(b). If you want your own teaching mode, showing other stuff, call it something else.

[TT1900]

[quote=PilotDAR post_id=1044566 time=1530364385 user_id=39402

As for airspeed, a weight loaded wing wants to fly at a certain airspeed, and below that airspeed, is not going to fly. At the transition between those speeds, use lots of caution. Sure, AoA plays an important role in understanding advanced flying techniques, but if a pilot simply waits for the aircraft to accelerate to flying speed, it's going to fly if you let it. Similarly, if you hold the plane over the runway nicely, and let the speed decay, it's going to stop flying and land. An airspeed indicator is something of a distraction for this, as it is not corrected for the weight of the aircraft, nor a few other more subtle errors.

[/quote]

This is absurd and a recipe for preventable accidents. "Use lots of caution"; its ab-initio instruction! The students often don't know enough to know they're getting into trouble. Even with airspeed indicators how often do students allow the speed to decrease below desirable? And now we're just going to "feel" it out? No thanks.

Nowhere is AoA, if available, more important than low-energy close to the ground. Sounds a lot like take-off and landing. As you know AoA accounts for weight and the other small factors, which is why it's my preferred measure vice airspeed. Very valuable tool.

Without instrumentation an instructor loses valuable teaching aids. Instead of telling a student what to do instrumentation allows a progression of guidance. For example, with no airspeed indication, if you were getting slow how would you get the student to correct? You would have to either have a discussion about feel or just tell them to add or remove power. With an airspeed indicator I can use the following: "cross check", "cross check airspeed", "airspeed low/high", and finally "add/remove power". If the progression doesn't work the next thing they hear is either "recover", "overshoot", or "I have control". By doing this you give the student an opportunity to recognize and correct their own error, build cross-check, and demonstrate their level of awareness and decision making. As an instructor you gain valuable feedback on your student. The goal isn't to built a perfect pilot but a thinking pilot who uses all data sources to successfully achieve a given objective.

I do agree that an all optioned glass cockpit is overkill for initial training and even some advanced operations which is why they come with several de-clutter modes, at least the ones I've flown. However, I think that by not incorporating basic instrumentation you'd be doing a great disservice to students and depriving them of several valuable skills, not to mention increasing risk for all involved.

As always, opinions are like a**holes and my views are just that, one man's opinion.

[AuxBatOn]

One thing to consider during training is what the student will be using after training. You want to make sure what he’ll ise after training is at least introduced during training. Most airplanes use ASI vs AOA indicator. Learning to fly using the ASI and making sure one is comfortable controlling an aircraft throughout its flight enveloppe using the ASI and interpreting what it means in that enveloppe is crucial.

[photofly]

if you were getting slow how would you get the student to correct? You would have to either have a discussion about feel or just tell them to add or remove power.

if a student gets too slow, they need to lower the nose. I'll leave the "crosscheck" instructions for the flight attendants and the "cabin doors to automatic" call.

But of course if a student is correctly taught to look at the horizon and fly the aircraft attitude, instead of the instruments, they don't get slow. And we prove this is feasible and correct by flying a couple of circuits with no airspeed indicator.

[TT1900]

if you were getting slow how would you get the student to correct? You would have to either have a discussion about feel or just tell them to add or remove power.

But of course if a student is correctly taught to look at the horizon and fly the aircraft attitude, instead of the instruments, they don't get slow. And we prove this is feasible and correct by flying a couple of circuits with no airspeed indicator.

Why not add power? Ive never flown an airliner so I'll defer to your experience.

So the attitude for level flight or three degree path is always constant? And proper attitude always results in correct performance? I think not. Weight, config, and environmental factors make flying variable. Im not advocating flying solely by instruments but incorporating all tools and teaching students to recognize, analyze, and correct deviations on their own. The earlier a pilot learns proper scan, incorporation of multiple information sources, and proper priority of information the better off they'll be.

How do you correctly teach attitudes so that they don't get slow? Do you show them every attitude for every possible weight, configuration, and environmental factor possible? No wonder people are complaining about their PPL taking 100hrs.

You prove flying without ASI is feasible. Lots of things are feasible, doesn't make them intelligent or correct.

[flyingjerry]

I think this thread has gone on a bit of a tangent. Although many good points have been argued on what makes the "best" pilot, the type of trainer or panel you do your basic training on makes no difference in the eventual ability to get to the majors.

If you want to work for the Majors you need a realistic career plan to get there. Since you have no training currently you should (at least look into) go(ing) to a school that has a pathway program that starts with training and then leads to a 703 or even potentially a regional. From there you will have the "best" shot at getting to a major airline.

Seneca College and their partnership with Jazz and GGN come to mind. Essentially you go there for a few years and provided you're the top in your class you graduate with an aviation diploma and a job at a regional. They also have pathways to become an instructor and then go from there.

[5x5]

I think this thread has gone on a bit of a tangent.

Funny you'd say that and then proceed with a thinly veiled advertisement. I think that's quite a bit more of a tangent than anything previous and in very poor taste to boot.

[C.W.E.]

Well for sure Seneca College had a strange way of teaching people to fly multi engine airplanes.

Based on their method of training or at least the way they used to do multi engine training I wouldn't let one of their graduates near any multi engine airplane I owned.

[Lightchop]

Hi guys.

I am currently looking to get my PPL and CPL with one of the flight schools located in Boundary Bay Airport (closest location to me from East Vancouver area via Knight Bridge).

My goal is to work for one of the major airlines. I have 0 flight experience but am very eager to learn.

My question is : does the type of trainer you learn in affect your flying experience? I know this seems vague, but the one flight school I visited and liked was Sea Land Air Flight School. They have a fleet of Diamonds and diamonds only. No Cessnas or Pipers. This planes are only 15 yrs old and from what i know have glass cockpits. What I have researched so far is that if i plan to work for the majors, learning in a glass cockpit will help me as the future planes I'd be in would be glass cockpit (vs steam guage).

Professional Flying Centre (PROIFC) would start me off on Cessnas (not in good condition from what I saw when I visited). Thesee planes seem to be way more dated (I think the dispatcher said 70 years old).

Can you give me some answers as to if this really matters? Will attending Sea Land Air and flying ONLY diamonds affect my training to work for an airline?

Thanks!! I really appreciate all your answers.

I know lots of airline pilots who went to CFC, ProIFR, PFC, Langley Flying School etc. I'd personally say learn on a Cessna. Just because a Diamond has fancy glass doesn't mean it's better.

[photofly]

if you were getting slow how would you get the student to correct? You would have to either have a discussion about feel or just tell them to add or remove power.

But of course if a student is correctly taught to look at the horizon and fly the aircraft attitude, instead of the instruments, they don't get slow. And we prove this is feasible and correct by flying a couple of circuits with no airspeed indicator.

Why not add power? Ive never flown an airliner so I'll defer to your experience.

I'm referring to flying a primary trainer, not an airliner. (Although, the thought-train of "I'm slow, I fix that by adding power" is what led to the AF447 disaster.) At the range of speeds where "too slow" is a problem, the primary response (and sometimes the only response necessary) is to lower the nose.

So the attitude for level flight or three degree path is always constant?

Why the **** are you worried about the attitude for a three degree flight path in primary training? Look out of the window and assess using your eyes whether the aircraft is going towards the runway! And yes, the attitude for level flight is easily recognized by looking at the horizon, and referring to the altimeter to see if it's working out.

And proper attitude always results in correct performance?

Attitude + power = performance. Well done. We will make a pilot out of you, yet!

Im not advocating flying solely by instruments but incorporating all tools and teaching students to recognize, analyze, and correct deviations on their own. The earlier a pilot learns proper scan, incorporation of multiple information sources, and proper priority of information the better off they'll be... people are complaining about their PPL taking 100hrs.

Yes they are, and now I understand why!

[C.W.E.]

Yes they are, and now I understand why!

Sadly a few of us understand why it takes these instructors so long to teach ab-inito flying, it is because they were not taught the basics properly and it just spirals downward.

One of the biggest clues to how they were taught is found as soon as they start the climb after takeoff, they chase the airspeed needle and climb in a roller coaster profile.

[TT1900]

Photo fly,

You're the one who referenced airlines, not me. I've never flown anything with more than two seats.

My point was that attitudes aren't constant for a given performance. Attitude flying is certainly important, but taking away basic instrumentation isn't helping anyone. An altimeter is ok but ASI isn't? Both bring the eyes inside and in flying VFR you can visually assess altitude rather accurately, airspeed not so much. I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse.

I'm comfortable in my abilities. I don't think you'd be of much help in "making me a pilot", but thanks for being condescending. Do your students enjoy that?

[photofly]

Photo fly,

You're the one who referenced airlines, not me. I've never flown anything with more than two seats.

My point was that attitudes aren't constant for a given performance.

Pretty much, they are, actually. The weight of a 172 doesn't vary enormously, temperature doesn't fluctuate over the course of an hour, and on any given day I can fly a circuit more or less indistinguishably with or without the airspeed indicator.

Attitude flying is certainly important, but taking away basic instrumentation isn't helping anyone.

It's not taken away for fun, it's taken away when necessary to convince people that their eyes don't need to be inside looking at glass panels or gauges, to fly an airplane. We use the instruments to judge if the attitude is correct, but that's a hard lesson for some people to learn.

An altimeter is ok but ASI isn't?

Somewhat, yes. For the purposes of basic training, the skills we want are the ability to maintain level flight, and to maintain close control of angle of attack. You can do both of those things in the short term without an airspeed indicator, not so much without an altimeter.

I want an airspeed indicator in my basic trainer, and I want an altimeter too. I'd like the ability to cover up either, frankly, for short periods of time. I think students can learn a lot about how to fly and what they really need instruments for, when you remove one or more and see what can and can't be done.

Yes, you need to be able to integrate multiple sources of information. But those first few hours, where *everything* is new, I think those multiple sources of information need to be as few as possible in order to build a solid foundation of "horizon goes up, houses get bigger, horizon goes down, houses get smaller, horizon goes down too much, houses get bigger again." That really isn't about numbers, gauges, six second trend information or velocity vectors. Basic flying skills are not an intellectual exercise, or we could teach them on the ground. It's more visceral than that.

[photofly]

One of the biggest clues to how they were taught is found as soon as they start the climb after takeoff, they chase the airspeed needle and climb in a roller coaster profile.

Cover up the airspeed indicator and this behaviour vanishes, instantly.

[TT1900]

We agree, mostly.

Airspeed is life, especially close to the ground. I think you're discounting the importance of airspeed awareness.

Otherwise, I'll agree with everything you said.

[C.W.E.]

Somewhat, yes. For the purposes of basic training, the skills we want are the ability to maintain level flight, and to maintain close control of angle of attack. You can do both of those things in the short term without an airspeed indicator, not so much without an altimeter.

And the altimeter needle can be seen in your peripheral vision and when maintaining altitude it is easy to see when you are not flying at the desired altitude. If it moves off zero you are not maintaining altitude.

Cover up the airspeed indicator and this behaviour vanishes, instantly.

Exactly, so how come so many instructors do not teach basic flying correctly?

Another very common fault in airplane handling skills is correcting for a cross wind during a landing and not using or understanding the need for use of rudder to align the airplane with the runway and ending up contacting the runway flying sideways.

[photofly]

Cover up the airspeed indicator and this behaviour vanishes, instantly.

Exactly, so how come so many instructors do not teach basic flying correctly?

Maybe they're in glass panel equipped trainers where the instructor can't cover up the airspeed?
I suppose he or she could get busy with the paper, scissors and tape.

[MrTurbine]

this thread in currently on a rabbit trail of a lifetime.
Leave it to pilots to always have to prove how smart they are. You asked for advice, so here are my two cents.

No it doesn’t matter what training aircraft you start with. Just be willing to learn, and try to fly as many different types as possible. Each new aircraft you fly has something new and very valuable to teach you.
I recommend, get the obvious CPL multi ifr, and if you don’t go the instructing route, at least do some aerobatics on a tailwheel aircraft for an hour or two with someone experienced and get a float rating. Broaden your horizons, talk to people who fly various different types of airplanes, and enjoy every bit of the industry.
Do some cross countries on airplanes with a traditional 6 pack, another one with a glass cockpit airplane, some on a tailwheel airplane and some with traditional tricycle gear, or amphibian /floats.

Good luck.
Ps, try and word the headline to your post better next time , also, stop playing flight sim pro.