Is a Beech 1900D..

[mmm..bacon]

..considered to be 'glass cockpit'? I've heard, coming through my licences, that they are, but looking at them, more like 'poor man's glass'...

[Shiny Side Up]

Glass, schmass.

All that matters is do you get paid to fly it.

[PositiveRate27]

2nd the above... don't think "glass time" has factored in any of the jobs I've had. Similarly, if I was in charge of hiring, I'd take the candidate with 1000hrs of steam gauges with a KLN over 1000hrs on glass. I'd also recommend anyone going through their instrument rating to do as much on steam as possible. It's not likely you'll be flying a glass suite out of flight school ; )

[mmm..bacon]

Aparrently, airlines care...thinking to go get a 1900 job to help things out..

[iflyforpie]

What is glass anyways? Most of the instruments in the Cessna I fly appear to be WWII surplus but they all have 'glass' on the front.

Yes, a 1900 has 'poor man's' glass. Basically, the mechanical flight directors and HSIs have been replaced with otherwise identical CRT or LCD based ones--with the EHSI having a quasi ND display available.

The next step up is like the 737 Classics with the bigger and better NDs and putting airspeed info on the Flight Director.

Next step is the older 757s and 767s that add EICAS to the electronic flight director and navigation display.

The next step, and where I say that an airplane is truly glass is having the large side by side PFD and ND of the A320, 747-400, and onwards... and even the 737 NG minus the EICAS, and of course anything with an Avidyne or G1000. This is the point where the last of your analogue primary instruments are gone.

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. I always found glass instrument readouts far more intuitive and giving far better SA. As far as learning the systems, chances are you next airplane will be quite different, meaning you will have to 'unlearn' things. Personally, I think being able to read and propery use steam gauges is a more challenging skill.

[V2plus10]

No. The 1900d is an efis aircraft, but in no way is it close to being a glass cockpit aircraft.

[Shiny Side Up]

Aparrently, airlines care...thinking to go get a 1900 job to help things out..

Who told you that?

[chinglish]

I'd consider a 1900D "half glass" just like most EFIS aircraft but that's splitting hairs. Personally I don't understand why any of this matters. I've flown full steam, half glass, full glass, piston, turbo prop and jet. hands down the easiest is full glass/ jet. Once you wrap you're mind around the automation modes and energy management all of the toys make it quite easy.

[Shiny Side Up]

More importantly though, no one hiring anywhere gives a flying shit about how much and what type of panel you've been flying behind. It certainly does,kt trump PIC time, or Multi-time, and especially multi-pic time.

The only place you'll hear that glass panel time matters is a FTU trying to sell more expensive time on a machine that you don't need to spend more money on to get "valuable glass experience".

Glass panels just ain't that hard to learn.

[PROC_HDG]

Despite what many posters above have said, airlines often care. At my current airline, they value candidates with time on FMS/EFIS/Glass because they know what a difference it makes in initial training on a glass airliner.

Don't move jobs just for a 'glass' cockpit, but if you are flying one, I'd put it on my resume.

PROC_HDG

[schnitzel2k3]

Despite the avionics, the 1900 is one of the best aircraft to refine your skills in. Unfortunately some of the worst operators fly them. The good 1900 operators usually require you to move quite a ways from any big cities.

It's big, it's fast, it's complicated, but very well put together. The guys who know know I loved my time on the 1900. I miss it tremendously, but...read above about the worst operators living close to big cities above.

Now I say this having not flown anything smaller than a 1900 (at least not from Beechcraft), so take my coments with a grain of salt.

I think the EFIS displays are simple, but the system is complex enough to require some thought when things start to fail.

Hence a lot of operators valuing 1900 time and the avionics, like the aircraft, are a good stepping stone.

S.

[KK7]

Aparrently, airlines care...thinking to go get a 1900 job to help things out..

Who told you that?

Actually many airlines in Asia put a minimum time requirement for EFIS. Look through the job ads on this site for asian carriers and you'll find lots.

But what is probably more important is what aircraft type do those airlines consider to have EFIS. There is no book that says which aircraft is what, it's either up to you to justify it, or figure out if they consider your time to be EFIS or not.

[Shiny Side Up]

Bizarre.

[PROC_HDG]

Bizarre.

I don't see how this is bizarre. Airlines have certain types of time they like to see because certain types of time are indicative of certain types of experience. Can you teach somebody to fly a turbine aircraft with no turbine time? Of course. But a candidate with turbine time is obviously going to be that much more valuable. The same goes for a glass or EFIS cockpit. Many people have difficulty transitioning from conventional cockpits to full glass or EFIS systems, and as such it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for airlines to value this kind of prior experience.

Now, that doesn't mean you should go find a B1900 job just because it has EFIS...there are many far more important factors to consider.

PROC_HDG

[Shiny Side Up]

Many people have difficulty transitioning from conventional cockpits to full glass or EFIS systems,

That's the bizarre part. Glass panels just aren't that hard to figure out or transition to. You don't need 500 hours, or at least shouldn't need, of operating one to be considered proficient at it. You need like one, maybe two if you're slow. There's flight sims more complex to figure out.

I guess. This kind of stuff just makes me depressed at the quality of pilot material.

Maybe they should be looking for guys with better stick skills instead of glass experience, less Transasias.

[chinglish]

^
interesting that you mentioned Transasia. I always thought of the Transasia accident as a breakdown in CRM over stick skills. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Captain (who was PF) ran the engine failure drill by himself without including the FO. I think good CRM skills are harder to come by than lets say Glass Experience. I'm willing to bet that failure of CRM is the cause of more accidents than looking at fancy LCD screens. Although some of those AirBus pilots are trying to prove me wrong...

[complexintentions]

Many people have difficulty transitioning from conventional cockpits to full glass or EFIS systems,

That's the bizarre part. Glass panels just aren't that hard to figure out or transition to. You don't need 500 hours, or at least shouldn't need, of operating one to be considered proficient at it. You need like one, maybe two if you're slow. There's flight sims more complex to figure out.

I guess. This kind of stuff just makes me depressed at the quality of pilot material.

Maybe they should be looking for guys with better stick skills instead of glass experience, less Transasias.

Oh, if only everyone could be as awesome a pilot as you. *eye roll here*

It isn't about what's easier or harder, it's about what's RELEVANT. Most airlines operate glass cockpits, so they prefer prior experience on that equipment. Not so hard to understand? Doesn't have anything to with the "quality of the pilot material". (Sounds like a description of what is harvested in sperm banks).

I flew with a FO the other day who had come to EK from flying the DC10. And yeah, it was a bit of a learning curve for him transitioning to the B777: three crew to two, glass, auto throttles, FBW, the whole nine yards. The new systems aren't hard to learn, and no one ever said it takes 500 hours to figure it out - but combine new systems with entirely new procedures and SOP's and you quickly find out why airlines prefer to hire similar prior experience.

And yes I agree that glass is "easier" than conventional instruments - I have thousands of hours on both. But that is completely missing the point. No one hires a computer programmer because of his vast experience on an abacus.

BTW, "stick skills" are only one small part of an airline pilot's skill set, and rarely even the most important one. Still need to have them, but there have been a ton of accidents with Captain Hot Stick at the helm.

[PROC_HDG]

^+1

[Shiny Side Up]

Most airlines operate glass cockpits, so they prefer prior experience on that equipment. Not so hard to understand? Doesn't have anything to with the "quality of the pilot material". (Sounds like a description of what is harvested in sperm banks).

I flew with a FO the other day who had come to EK from flying the DC10. And yeah, it was a bit of a learning curve for him transitioning to the B777: three crew to two, glass, auto throttles, FBW, the whole nine yards.

You know what, i get that. I get that there's more to converting from one type of operation to the other, and its the experience as a whole in a previous operation that's important. SOPs, autothrottles, fbw, etc. But no one lists "SOP experience" on a resume, or "autothrottle experience" they just list types and its assumed that if you're proficient in said type of operation, its not going to be a stretch for you to transition. But for some reason you replace some of the steam with some glass and that's become a noteworthy skill? I I feel for some reason too many pilots are obsessed with and make a bigger deal of this one aspect of flying that its way out of proportion. You see schools selling "glass training" and guys making a huge deal out of moving into and getting "experience" with sai gizmos. The 500 hours actually came from some resume padding I saw recently, as if it made the fellow more qualified for a job than having a grand total of 550 hours of single time and a Cpl would make him. Moving into a 1900, or having that experience should stand on its own merit as opposed to what's in front of the pilot in it.

Glass itself just ain't that big of a deal. It seems like a strange qualification that's becoming important at the expense of others. The chief commplaints i hear about FOs from captains these days are their lacking in many regards from their two crew ability, their base knowledge to their stick ability, but they always know how to push the right buttons on the panel. Maybe we need to shift some of the focus?

[PROC_HDG]

Other things people put on their resumes:

-Turbine time
-705 Ops experience
-Large Aircraft (12500+)
-Autopilot, FMS, ETOPS, WATRS
-Jet

A candidate that had NONE of the above would certainly not be unable to be taught to fly a large 705 jet aircraft with FMS and autopilot in WATRS airspace and ETOPS, but you put it on your resume and airlines look for it for obvious reasons. The same goes for EFIS/Glass Cockpit.

Not everything is another indication that "none of the youngsters know how to fly anymore" and "back in my day we knew how to blah blah blah". Some things just make sense.

PROC_HDG

[Shiny Side Up]

Of course they put those things on, those things matter more. That's my point. Those are noteworthy experience points, and hopefully indicators of the experience required for some jobs. But I don't get the idea that's what we're talking about with guys in the OP's situation. If we're assuming that "coming up through the licenses" means he's somewhere between his cpl and atpl, then he probably needs to worry about building experience in directions where how much "glass" experience he has shouldn't be the focus. For example: would you take a right seat job to get behind glass over a left seat one all else being equal? What about a single job verses a multi one if the single had glass?

Now if by coming up through the licenses he means he's working on his cpl, then "glass experience" means even less at his stage of the game. He just plain needs experience, and probably desperately needs some more stick practice.

As i've said, a distorted sense of priorities seems to have arisen when it comes to the newer crop of pilots.

[complexintentions]

As i've said, a distorted sense of priorities seems to have arisen when it comes to the newer crop of pilots.

Actually, the first poster was asking if the Beech 1900 was considered "glass" for the sake of meeting what an potential employer wants. As someone presumably trying to become as marketable as possible, how is this a reflection of his distorted priorities? If anything it demonstrates good decision making and critical thinking. Trying to add a qualification to his resume doesn't mean his other skills are bad, in fact you know nothing of them.

I think the emphasis on glass is due to the fact that without prior experience, it does take time for folks to figure out the automation. Training time is money. And airliners are highly automated. Nothing more, nothing less behind the requirement for the glass experience.

Perhaps you meant to say the airlines have a distorted sense of priorities? But since when has an airline's priority been anything other than making a profit? Most couldn't give a toss about operational stuff beyond how it impacts the bottom line. Which may be a clue to why the industry is in the toilet, but another topic.

As PROC_HDG alludes, seems to be just another excuse for a "Kids these days" type comment.

[Shiny Side Up]

Well then maybe i'm reading that OP differently than you. One would think that a position, if its an upgrade to a 1900 would stand on its own merits, I just don't understand chasing equipment, especially for the reason given. I'd hate to think someone would take a WAWCON cut to chase a glass panel, because I don't think that in itself is important enough in regards to the other factors. It would be more reasonable in my mind to want the multi, the turbine, the two crew or the operational aspects of the 1900 gig, but those things aren't what's asked. Its, in my mind, specifically focused on what the OP finds important, and the quibbling question of whether its enough glass seems odd. I'm wondering what sort of decision the op I making and hoping that the amount of glass isn't the prime factor. That's what makes me worry about pilots, and said misplaced priorities i sense. Remember where this fellow I in his career progression.

[CpnCrunch]

Many people have difficulty transitioning from conventional cockpits to full glass or EFIS systems,

That's the bizarre part. Glass panels just aren't that hard to figure out or transition to. You don't need 500 hours, or at least shouldn't need, of operating one to be considered proficient at it. You need like one, maybe two if you're slow. There's flight sims more complex to figure out.

I guess. This kind of stuff just makes me depressed at the quality of pilot material.

Maybe they should be looking for guys with better stick skills instead of glass experience, less Transasias.

I guess it depends what you want to do with the glass panel. Perhaps farting around VFR you can figure it out in a few minutes, but I imagine it will take a heck of a lot longer than 2 hours to be competent to fly IFR. I've just about managed to get competent flying IFR with the Garmin 430, and it took a bunch of hours fiddling with the trainer, reading the manual, practicing in the sim, then practicing in the real plane. There's nothing quite like doing a real flight, with all the usual little curveballs that ATC gives you. Then there's all the little Garmin quirks you have to figure out, which you don't really want to be doing on a real IFR flight. Just this morning I finally (kind of) figured out how the OBS button works during an approach. It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the manual, but if you press the OBS key 3 times it will manually sequence to the next leg of the approach, even if you haven't reached the MAP.

[Shiny Side Up]

Actually the garmin and avidyne set ups are very reasonable to learn the ins and outs of if one spends a little bit of time with their simulators which can be aquire to use on one's PC at home. The exercises are comprehensive and the systems are relatively user friendly. Personally the Garmin is more user friendly, but that's splitting hairs. The handbook I acquired on how to instruct with them (and an associated course I took) were very enlightening, and dealing with the various failure modes of the single or multi display set ups. I could go on, but suffice to say it ain't rocket science stuff. Manipulating any of the displays tend to have more commonality than one would think, so transitioning from one system to another really shouldn't throw anyone for a loop.

Definitely any kind of glass makes life easier. What would be its purpose if I didn't? Why is it traeted as if its made life harder? No one has to climb up into the astrodome anymore.