G1000 vs Conventional Accident Rates

[VORTIME]

Hi there,

Does anyone know how the G1000 equipped aircraft compare to conventional light aircraft in the accident stats.

Interested to know if the safter technology encourages pilots to push the boundaries or if they merely operate the same flight profiles with better information.

VT

[IO540]

I very much doubt there will be enough data, as yet, to be statistically significant.

To do this properly, you would need data across the whole field of pilot expertise, types of operation, and correlate that with similar groups not flying behind a G1000.

Also the G1000 appears only in very few new planes, the numbers of which in all of Europe can probably be counted on one's fingers (and possibly toes) at this stage. Many will be owner pilots and I suspect many will be instrument rated and quite current, which is again a very small group to start with.

Better technology will enable one to push the boundaries within the grey area which nearly always exists in the flight planning go/no-go decision. At this point, I am going to get my coat :)

[soay]

Also the G1000 appears only in very few new planes, the numbers of which in all of Europe can probably be counted on one's fingers (and possibly toes) at this stage. Many will be owner pilots and I suspect many will be instrument rated and quite current, which is again a very small group to start with.
Of the two G1000 equipped aircraft I know about at Blackpool, both are owned by their pilots, one of whom did his PPL in it, while the other bought his soon after passing. Nothing to affect the statistics here. :)

[B2N2]

I doubt if these numbers will ever surface and even then, what's the use.
Discussions like this are similar to;

- Seatbelts in cars,
-Airbags in cars,
-Parachutes on an airplane.

The superior situational awareness with the Garmin 1000 (VFR and IFR)
should prevent a lot of common mistakes.
It does however not make up for inferior pilot skills or poor decision making;
something that is clearly visible in Cirrus accident statistics.

[IO540]

something that is clearly visible in Cirrus accident statistics

Where is the statistical evidence for that?

If some pilot goes off in a C172, collects 3" of ice and plummets, it won't make the news because C172s are common as muck. If a pilot does the same in an SR22, he gets good press coverage.

Same with (UK context this time) flying into a hill without a GPS, and with a GPS.

[rustle]

If some pilot goes off in a C172, collects 3" of ice and plummets, it won't make the news because C172s are common as muck. If a pilot does the same in an SR22, he gets good press coverage.

And so it should!

The whole rationale for the parachute is to get you down safely when all else fails, and if ice has degraded performance to such an extent that "plummeting" is occurring that's a bloody good time to use the parachute IMHO.

Failure to use the parachute in those circumstances, or its failure to "save" you if deployed, is newsworthy.

[High Wing Drifter]

The superior situational awareness with the Garmin 1000 (VFR and IFR) should prevent a lot of common mistakes.It is interesting that there is data that suggests that the situational awareness of crew in EFIS equiped aircraft can be lower than would otherwise have been the case with clockwork instruments.

[englishal]

It is interesting that there is data that suggests that the situational awareness of crew in EFIS equiped aircraft can be lower than would otherwise have been the case with clockwork instruments.
I can't quite work out HOW you could possibly have less situational awareness with a great big MFD with moving map plastered all over it ??? UNless the pilot is stupid of course...

[High Wing Drifter]

I know what you mean, the data comes airliner FDRs so we can rule out incompetance. This was discussed during my MCC too. Regardless of what the pilots think, the data suggests that the scan is slower and it is easier for the scan to breakdown when under stress.

I recall, some time ago reading a study that concluded that the definate visisble boundaries between clockwork instruments led to a quick and resiliant scan, but the boundaryless and more detailed EFIS displays resulted in more flight path deviations. I can't locate that document on Google anymore so I'm afraid this is from my memory, but it was definately along those lines.

[mm_flynn]

I have had the situation in my car of knowing exactly where I am (Mountain Ave, 100 miles from home) but having no real idea of where I am in the general sense. I.e. of being able to say where I am relative to, say Leatherhead a point not currently on the display. So I can believe that a pilot with the full set of magic can know exactly where he is relative to the bits on the screen but have lost the intuitve situational awareness beyond the data on the screen. I can see it possible to happen, but would have thought that behind a G1000 your are a lot less likely to loose SA than on steam guages.

[IO540]

There seems to be confusion here between instrument scan and situational awareness. The former is mostly about aircraft control (and perhaps flying a procedure like an ILS); the latter is mostly concerned with major navigation.

The situational awareness (SA) requirements clearly vary according to the type of mission.

There are loads of airliners flying today, carrying hundreds of passengers each, where the pilots have no moving map of any sort. I guess modern Boeing/Airbus planes all have a MM but there is an awful lot of much older stuff flying around.

How come they don't fly into controlled airspace and mountains?? For a start, they all fly IFR so CAS is practically irrelevant :) They aren't squeezing under the LTMA at 2400ft. One is either under positive radar control or at FL350 or so, or both. All they need to know is the next waypoint. The only time they get anywhere near terrain is in departure/terminal phases and there they tend to be on procedures and/or under radar control. Occassionally they get it spectacularly wrong and end up in a mountain, usually (due to having no MM) thinking they were somewhere completely different, and lots of books have been written on that.

Lots of them even have an old-style GPS but without a MM this is as good for SA as a chocolate teapot.

IFR (airways) in the GA context is similar and can be done in a similar half-blind "DCT XXX" manner, but one can be going to/from airfields that are OCAS so one needs extra information on stuff like CAS. This is totally the case when flying UK-style IFR, or VFR. AFAIK, all MM GPS data comes from Jepp and their CAS representation is dreadful. It's OK if you have a real VFR chart to hand (printed or electronic) and then you can relate the cryptic shapes on the GPS MM to the chart and work out where you are relative to CAS. This "information transfer" is routine work for pilots flying with a MM GPS; one can't get all the info one needs from the MM and I suspect this is true with the G1000's airspace representation (especially in Europe) too. Of course any proper flight would be fully pre-planned and be flown on the planned route but here we are talking about some kind of a diversion.

I can see that a pilot who gives up the real VFR chart for the Jepp GPS MM representation could get into a pickle, and there is probably more temptation to do that with say a G1000 than with a small GPS and a chart.

Jepp do have electronic versions of their VFR charts, which are readable on a big screen (I know, having run them under Flitedeck) but these don't run under Jeppview which is their MFD product.

As regards a poorer instrument scan, I suppose it's possible that this is worse than with steam gauges, though I find it hard to believe because everything is so much bigger than steam gauges. But I have no experience with a G1000 in flight.

[High Wing Drifter]

There seems to be confusion here between instrument scan and situational awareness. The former is mostly about aircraft control (and perhaps flying a procedure like an ILS); the latter is mostly concerned with major navigation.
No confusion, situational awareness is your awareness of the weather, your present and future position in space, your position relative to other aircraft and obstacles, the aircraft attitude, the configuration and state of the aircraft and your own condition (self awareness), not just your 2D position. Clearly your future position in space is determined by your speed and attitude and pretty much determines how how everything else pans out. Your scan is the key to maintaining said awareness. Clearly not keeping up with these or working so hard that you forget to lower the gear or turn at 10 DME, etc is all potentialy relevant to the thread title.

It would be interesting to know more about the afore mentioned potential issues with Airliner EFIS and is there any relevance of interest to pilots who use something like a G1000 in single pilot IFR.

[Fuji Abound]

Does anyone know how the G1000 equipped aircraft compare to conventional light aircraft in the accident stats.
As to the question I would agree that G1000 glass cockpits are so new it will be some time before a statistical analysis has merit. Moreover when this become possible there are dangers. On the one hand for a while it is more likely those flying glass cockpits will be reasonably serious about their flying, and the aircraft they are flying will be new or nearly new. These factors will predate in favour of a lower accident rate. On the other hand it is more likely pilots will use these aircraft for a wider range of missions in a wider range of met conditions. This will predate in favour of a higher accident rate.

From my own experience on both a single and twin with G1000 cockpit the situational awareness is outstanding. Indeed it is difficult to imagine how this could be significantly improved.

On the other hand there are a large number of differences between a G1000 and conventional cockpit.

Firstly, the primary instrumentation is extremely accurate. The AI is sufficiently large that angles of bank that would be imperceptible on a conventional AI are very apparent. Similarly speed and altitude tapes are equally accurate. For many it will take time to adjust to this degree of accuracy and to the temptation to chase phantoms. In fact the trend indicators become far more relevant.

Secondly, the amount of information can be bewildering. This encompasses both engine and navigational systems.

Thirdly, whilst most of the functions are intuitive, some are less so. Whilst that may not be so important whilst VFR, some surety of what to press when and where IFR particularly if the approach profile is changing or not as expected only comes with time.

All of these factors I suspect predate in favour of greater currency and familiarity than with conventional avionics, particularly when operating IFR.

All that said, in my opinion the G1000 is a huge stride forward. Every piece of information that you might need is available. Flying today we were discussing the weather information displayed on the moving map, continuously updated wind vectors and speeds, the ability to display simultaneously NDB, DME, dual VOR and GPS information, together with the smooth integration of approach information for any chosen destination. In short a huge advance on G4 and G530s.

On the other side of the coin Lane writes a good article in Flying within the last few months about her perceived loss of the “experience” in consequence of flying with a G1000. Worth a read and some very valid points are made.

Love it or hate. I love it for touring, waste of space and money round the local cabbage patch whilst chucking in a few aeros. Would I chose to fly a twin without the G1000 cockpit - if I had the choice - no. Is it safer - with time and experience - yes, without, almost certainly not!

Finally VORTIME why do you ask?

[englishal]

My own experience of the G1000 (C172 / C182/ DA40 / DA42) is that it is far easier to fly accurately. By that I mean +/- 20 feet in altitude and +/- 2 ° in heading, when compared to normal instruments. The Map is fantastic for situational awareness both VFR and IFR, and for common IFR tasks like holding or intercepting the final approach course (ILS, VOR etc...)...it adds another level of safety. One of my friends flew into a mountain in IMC in a twin with normal instrumentation and no GPS (failed to execute a missed approach at the MAP due to loss of situational awareness one can assume), had he had a G1000 the TAWS function would have shown him the high ground in their path, and even shown the missed approach point and put the missed approach course on the screen / HSI. You really would have to be not paying attention to miss this.

The scan is straight forward. All pertinent info is placed on the screen right in front of the pilot, so you can instantly see if there are any deviations.

[VORTIME]

"Finally VORTIME why do you ask?"

I check the Euroncap safety ratings for my car so why not my a/c type? I have also wondered how safe it is going from a 10'' wide AI back to the 2'' AI.

VT

[maxdrypower]

I am a low hours pilot with a share in a new garmin equipped 172 based at barton. I have about twelve hours on it thus far. The only thing I have found with it , and I wouldnt define it as problem per se is that you get very lazy when it comes to Nav (vfr flying) . The map display is so good you tend to ignore the vfr chart and just fly yourself round any controlled airspace danger areas etc etc because it is all shown right there in front of you along with your exact location , You can select your little waypoints user defined or selected from the list and follow the yellow brick road so to speak , This is not a problem like I say if you are going to fly solely this aeroplane .But say for example you were going to step up to say CPL then you would be losing vital VFR nav skills . As for saftey I think this is a lovely safe little aeroplane everything is displayed brilliantly for oyu and any problems ranging from a CO2 detector failure to high egt is flagged up with a flashing alert display . It really does make you feel more confident , there maybe its downfall perhaps low houred pilots ina fool proof aeroplane . At the end of the day if the sytems fail and the screens go blank or the fan stops its just another single engined engine aircraft and it reacts exactly the same way as any other 172 . The garmin just gives you info you already have in a 172 represented ina slightly different way. At the very least it should stop daft airspace infringements as its there in front of you , and for those not familiar with the system it flags up and tells you the airsopace is ten minutes ahead , what it is where it ios whose it is and how high it is , its fantastic
Just my thoughts

[scooter boy]

VORTIME, this is an impossible question to answer at this juncture.
Suffice it to say that it really wouldn't surprise me if accident rates were considerably lower in the G1000 category for the following reasons:

Aircraft - these will almost all be new and well-equiped aircraft, probably hangared, possibly deiced, maybe with TCAS many will be owned outright by the pilot as personal transport and not flown by others (the 2 in my hangar are). The relatively small number of accidents caused by mechanical failure (rather than pilot error) should if anything be lower.

Pilots - have demonstrated a positive evolutionary trait in selecting the G1000 and getting familiar with it - anybody who has flown one of these for more than a few hours will rave about the massively enhanced situational awareness that is the raison d'etre of this technology. Most will have had conversion/refresher training esp. if they are owner/pilots. For many people single pilot IFR will become safer even in extremely high stress/workload situations.

As for straying into adverse conditions as a consequence of the enhanced confidence the G1000 may convey - this is something that has happened with conventional panel aircraft since flying was invented, I don't see how having a glass panel will make a difference here.

Just my opinion for what it's worth.

SB