PDA

View Full Version : Glass Panels Vs Steam Gauges..??


Ex FSO GRIFFO
1st Mar 2012, 14:07
From the AvWeb site....


REPORT: NO SAFETY ADVANTAGE TO GLASS PANELS
The safety records of airplanes with glass panels are about the same as airplanes of the same model with analog cockpits, according to a new study by the Air Safety Institute, a division of the AOPA Foundation.

However, "glass-panel aircraft may be more susceptible to accidents during takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds," the study found.

The available data were insufficient to conclude what caused that difference. Some factors, according to the study, might include transition training, a tendency to fixate on the glass panels instead of external cues, or difficulty in interpreting airspeed and altitude from the glass-panel readouts compared to interpreting analog displays. The complete study, which provides an exhaustive and complex analysis of the data, is available free online (PDF).

I don't use them often enough to become 'automatic' at looking for
IAS / Alt......

Your thoughts??

(Glass of red, snack....)

Cheers:ok:

Jabawocky
1st Mar 2012, 19:30
Having a lot of time on Glass, and learning on steam, I would say I am happy with either.

The advantage of modern EFIS systems is all the litttle extra's that may not directly influence ability to fly on instruments, but can make for better flying safety due to good info.

An example of this is real time wind vectors, you are not needing whiz wheels or calculators and taking your eye off the bigger picture as much.

IVSI is easier to hold altitudes with when hand flying....once I learned to use that well :)....thanks Chuckles:ok:

Situational awareness improves with the moving map gear as well. At a glance you can get a better SA picture.

As for ability to hand fly in so much as "handling" the aeroplane, I would say no big deal. For a newbie to glass, initially I would say it is worse, until they get some time on it. After doing my CIR on steam I found the change hard work for a bit, so I forced myself to fly to TOC by hand, until I was used to it. Now I still do it, no AP, just to keep on top of it all.

So how about a nice little EFIS in ya Tiger Griffo? :} You will need a battery;)

nomorecatering
1st Mar 2012, 22:42
Flying Glass, especially G1000 is infinitely safer in the long run. Yiu have a huge horizon, a HSIthat yu dont have to reset like a DG, HDG bugs, speed and ALT trend vectors, moving map, you can have the nearest airports displayed in a list. Also ALT alerts. it all means you can fly more accurately, you always know where you are, you literally cant get lost with a G1000.

However, if you cant fly in the firstplace, the G1000 wont save you. To that effect, I do the first half dozen lessons with the screens covered, get them flying visual attitude first.

The G1000 doesnt make a bad pilot a good one, but it does make a good one even better due to the increased situational awareness.

As for IFR flying, its just the bees knees, when I started flying 23 years ago I woudl never have dreamed of a C172 with a flight director.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
1st Mar 2012, 22:55
Hi Jab....I just KNOW that was a case of 'get ya tongue outa ya cheek'....

Yeah, the donk has a generator too....to power the - ugh - radio for JT & X/ponder.....
Thought about putting a 'Dynon' or similar in it - when the price comes down - just so I won't infringe the UL of CTA........

Cheers:p:p

ForkTailedDrKiller
2nd Mar 2012, 00:56
Hmmm, my first experience with "glass" was in Jaba's Retard Vehicle "Space Shuttle". Not a problem! I just had to add an additional item to my pre-TO list - "Just point to the ASI, Jaba"!
I think infomation overload is initially an issue but soon overcome with some training and experience.

G1000 is an awsome bit of kit, but I am not particularly surprised that it doesn't appear to be leading to an increase in safety. I wonder if any potential safety enhancement is countered by an increase tendency to allow technology to exceed ability!

Flying Glass, especially G1000 is infinitely safer in the long run.Sorry, but I just can't see it!

Yiu have a huge horizon,
The little one on the AH seems to work fine.
a HSIthat yu dont have to reset like a DG
The Bonanza that I currently fly has that
HDG bugs
Yup - got that too
speed and ALT trend vectors
maybe not the former, but "yup" to the latter - I think its called a VSI
moving map
Yup, G430/530 has that and the G495 even has pretty colours!
Personally, I would not fly G1000 without a portable GPS (ie G495) as backup anyway.
you can have the nearest airports displayed in a list.
Yup, got that in G430 and G495
Also ALT alerts
Lots of AP have that
it all means you can fly more accurately,
I think I fly pretty accurately now
you always know where you are, you literally cant get lost with a G1000
Pretty hard to get lost with any sort of GPS on board

Dr :8

The Green Goblin
2nd Mar 2012, 00:59
I would like to see glass displaying traditional flight instruments. I think the PFD setup we use in airliners is a marketing company (boeing, airbus) wet dream, but a stick and rudder pilots chagrin.

There is a reason why the six pack was settled in and used so successfully for so long. The human eye detects sudden movement, not small changes like a PFD. Round dials with hands give a better overal pictures of the flight path and health of systems IMO.

I often wonder if the AF330 accident would not have happened if there was a round altimeter winding down at a great pace, vs the alt tape.

When the altitude tape is whirring down at a great of pace, it becomes easy to ignore as the movement is not pronounced.

Trent 972
2nd Mar 2012, 02:22
Studies (http://www.hwysafety.org/research/advisories/iihs_advisory_17.pdf)in the USA on accident satistics of vehicles fitted with ABS brakes have continually shown that these vehicles are involved in as many if not more accidents than vehicles not fitted with ABS.
Risk Compensation
ie. "My cars ABS brakes are so good I can reduce the distance between me and the car travelling in front"
or
"My glass cockpit displays so much information, I couldn't possibly get into trouble".
.. I've flown Glass for 24 years and 14 years of steam prior to that with a bit each-way in between, and I am in no doubt that Glass is really good but not the panacea for flight safety that some may think.
TGG makes a good point about Glass Cockpit displays with rapidly changing flight parameters. May as well p!ss into the breeze.

The Green Goblin
2nd Mar 2012, 05:12
Yeah I find with speed and altitude tape you have to read the number and then comprehend the information.

With a round dial for altitude you need to keep the long hand at the top! The airspeed needs to be pointing in the right spot (next to the bug for approach etc) and you're sweet.

Whos bright idea was it to change it all?

Flying Binghi
2nd Mar 2012, 05:42
.

"glass-panel aircraft may be more susceptible to accidents during takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds,"

Yeah, i were on the 'glass' one take off and one little insect in the pitot and NO glass....:uhoh:

Still like the 'glass', though i'm lookin to put a standard six pack back into the aircraft on the off side panel... just in case..:)





.

morno
2nd Mar 2012, 05:47
To be able to be safe in an automated and glass cockpit environment you need 2 crucial things:

1. PROPER TRAINING! Understanding what it's telling you, is the most important thing.
2. Proficiency. If you go out and only do one or two flights every 6 months in a glass cockpit, then you can't expect to be safe.

I've spent various hours on half glass setups and full glass setups. The half glass setups, while good, are still not really that much better than traditional steam. The full glass setups though, the level of information you can have as well as the capabilities of the system (when you're talking automation added into it) is beyond what you and I can do by ourselves without a lot of thought and hands on flying.

Glass can give you a lot of information, but you still have to remember the basics, KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. Another words, it might be nice to have some information on a screen, but if all it's doing is clogging up space and distracting you, get rid of it. Information overload can put you into a dangerous situation probably more than information underload (is that a word?) can.

The 3 rules of glass and automation (they go hand in hand these days):
1. What's it doing now?
2. What's it going to do next?
3. What have I told it to do?

Those 3 things have kept me alive so far, :}.

morno

Jabawocky
2nd Mar 2012, 06:24
Yeah, i were on the 'glass' one take off and one little insect in the pitot and NO glass....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif

Maybe you need a better supplier of your glass. One little bug up my pitot coming back from YHBA one day, and it was all OK.....VA Captain beside me was mighty impressed. We fried his ass with the pitot heat too! :} Took some removing when we got back.

So, not all glass is created equal :ok: :)

mcgrath50
2nd Mar 2012, 07:02
Swings and round abouts really, glass provides a wealth of information that can save your life or distract you to your death.

In the same vein, I find it easier to know exactly at what altitude I am at any moment in a climb (say 3,546) but glass gives me a better understanding that that is 1/2 a dial away from 4,000. It's for this reason the fuel gauges on the G1000 for example are still 'bar graphs' so you have a visual reference.

This I find becomes an issue for students who have learnt on all glass systems when on approach and to a lesser extent climb. They get obsessed with chasing a speed to the exact knot rather than making sure the needle is pointing around the right spot and playing with the feel of the aircraft. They seem to want to fly by numbers.

As others have said, it all boils down to a product of the training systems and what you are used to at the time.

Flying Binghi
2nd Mar 2012, 07:15
.

Maybe you need a better supplier of your glass...

My thoughts at the time. I'm told all the TSIO'd stuff is the same re pitot blockage problems so nuthuin i can do unless i go experimental - or a second pitot.




.

The Green Goblin
2nd Mar 2012, 07:30
Guys, it's one thing to talk about a glass flight deck in an Airliner, it's another thing entirely to then compare its operation with a G1000 in a light aircraft and state how good they are.

Yeah a G1000 is the ants pants, but you can still look at the window, you still have bell cranks and cables connecting everything together and the power lever is still connected to the engine. The autopilot operates (if installed) in basic modes of operation and is generally used in the cruise when you feel like a break. If your lucky it can be coupled to the GPS and operate in Nav mode.

A glass flight deck in an airliner is a portal to the computers that are running the show for you. And there is a computer for everything with a second computer to that computer. There is even a computer that operates the bloody landing gear and alternates between it's backup every cycle. When you lower the gear, you don't even wait for three greens, you call gear down and rely on one computer telling another computer that it's not down and informing you via ECAM. The information on your screens is delivered by information interpreted by computers and you operate accordingly. The computer tells you the procedure, then lights up the buttons you need to press, before informing you which systems are affected.

So with all due respect, it's one thing to talk about how great it is to be a weekend warrior with some fancy toys, it's another flying an automated machine at flight levels 8/10s the speed of sound relying on glass cockpit information derived from a mountain of computers.

Jabawocky
2nd Mar 2012, 08:03
My thoughts at the time. I'm told all the TSIO'd stuff is the same re pitot blockage problems so nuthuin i can do unless i go experimental

Depends what you are putting it in I guess. Is it a certified machine?

forever flying
2nd Mar 2012, 08:23
Initially when training on a glass cockpit (referring to a G1000) I found there was a tendency to read the altitude or speed exactly as it was, and an attempt to correct it.

For elaboration; on steam gauges 'keeping the needle at the top' or wherever it needed to be and holding it there meant you were maintaining altitude. I found when using the G1000 that reading altitude as '1980' when I was trying to maintain 2000 made me have a tendency to correct it, even though 20 feet really isn't that much difference.

Now with quite a few hours using them it's become natural to understand what to feel...but for new students who are learning on the G1000, I personally find it's all an information overload for them at that stage in training.

Preference: steam for lighties.

Ultralights
2nd Mar 2012, 10:36
give me steam anyway when VFR. can monitor the vitals in your peripheral vision while still keeping eyes out of the window. no need to even read the numbers, just memory of where the needle should be.

Piano Man
2nd Mar 2012, 10:56
I agree with Ultralights.

Any VFR flying that involves a "feel" for the aircraft then glass is a complete waste of space. Eyes should be outside most of the time, and your eyes should be checking the six pack just to verify that all is ok :ok:

Feather #3
2nd Mar 2012, 21:29
One argument for glass in VFR is that it's cheaper to maintain than steam.

IFR is another matter. A mate purchased an Aspen 1000 for less than the cost of overhauling the AH & DG!

The problem I had in converting to glass was coping with tape readouts, especially in any rough air. After that, fine.

G'day ;)

Jabawocky
2nd Mar 2012, 22:04
I disagree with piano ad UL, when vfr you fly the same way, once you can safely use glass, your quick glimpse feeds you all the info just the same.

A G1000 in ya Beaver would not be a good look though:ok:

T28D
2nd Mar 2012, 22:16
There I thought VFR we are supposed to look out the windows, ears are more important for A/C performance that guages of any type.

Arnold E
2nd Mar 2012, 23:37
As glass (non certified) becomes more common in light aircraft and we do more inst 8's and 9's I have become less and less enamoured with glass despite my aircraft being full of it. I have found that many times the glass stuff needs correcting, yet if there is steam backup, more often than not the steam instruments just need recertifying. This is not hard and fast ofcourse, but it is a "trend" that I think I am seeing. It makes me wonder about the lighties that have no steam gauges, only non certified glass. These would ofcourse be in experimental, but there is getting more and more of them. I have now decided to fit a steam ASI and Altimeter to my aircraft, because of what I have been seeing.

metalman2
3rd Mar 2012, 00:08
For me it's what I'm used to , I've been flying an AC with a small Dynon and a full set of steam, I hardly even look at the little screen, I'm just used to seeing the "old" gauges. But , in my RV I will be using ,probably, Skyviews because for the about the cost of the steam gauges and the gyros I can have a pretty screen in front of me, having said that I'll still have at least a little ASI and ALT tucked away somewhere ,just in case. Having said "THAT" really you should be able to operate an aircraft safely VFR without any instruments at all, wouldn't leave the ground with US gauges but could certainly get one back on the ground!

mcgrath50
3rd Mar 2012, 00:45
A G1000 in ya Beaver would not be a good look though

My last girlfriend would probably tell you I could have used a large moving map display to help navigate the beaver!

:E

Howard Hughes
3rd Mar 2012, 01:34
Would love to know what percentage of those accidents were pilots that had converted from 'steam', as opposed to pilots who learnt on glass. Also are the numbers skewed because a lot of early glass aircraft had comparably high performance for their class? (ie: Cirrus, etc)

Fred Gassit
3rd Mar 2012, 02:07
I agree with Arnold, my own panel is yet to be built but there is also a powerful cost incentive to go glass.
Cost and reliability aside, The ability of a glass panel to distract and a lack of standardisation is a potential problem for light aircraft I think.
Jumping from one light aircraft to another used to be a simple process, now there may be a whole integrated flight deck to learn as well, all for something that might do 120 kts that you wanted for a quick trip around the paddock.

Jabawocky
3rd Mar 2012, 10:59
seriously folks.........................it is not that hard :ugh:

Even old folk like Forkie can do it with little help.......despite his pprune antics.

Get over it :rolleyes:

Homesick-Angel
3rd Mar 2012, 14:11
G1000 is like a vacuum cleaner.It sucks your eyes in and I wouldn't like the thought of some of these guys trained at the sausage factories having to go out and fly 45 year old rustbuckets only on steam.must be an interesting first few days on the job for them:}
However.
At night, or in muck, I would take the g1000 anytime. Just easier once you get the hang of it to get a snapshot in a hurry.

NIK320
4th Mar 2012, 12:03
It boils down to whatever your comfortable with.

There is no reason why a pilot flying G1000 every day over a pilot with analogue gauges and a 430 is safer.

Neither setup will provide protection against a stall, spin, landing with the gear up or from hitting mountains.
The only protection against turning the aircraft into a pile of twisted metal is the pilot.

If the pilot doesn't react appropriately, it doesn't matter how many warnings go off.

Rusty1970
5th Mar 2012, 11:30
There is no reason why a pilot flying G1000 every day over a pilot with analogue gauges and a 430 is safer.

Neither setup will provide protection against a stall, spin, landing with the gear up or from hitting mountains.
The only protection against turning the aircraft into a pile of twisted metal is the pilot.

If the pilot doesn't react appropriately, it doesn't matter how many warnings go off.

I'm not sure that's quite right, or at least it is overly simplistic.

Sure, if you stuff up, bad things happen. So it is correct up to a point.

But by extension, that's like saying it doesn't matter if you have a co-pilot writing your speed on a sheet of paper and handing it to you. Of course it matters how you get the information regarding factors that affect the safety of the flight.

Millions (probably tens of millions) of dollars of R&D money have gone into glass cockpits. There are good reasons why Mr Boeing or Mr Airbus don't use analogue gauges anymore. Reliability is probably one, but clarity is another.

They started using just numbers for things like airspeed. They proved too difficult for pilots to read quickly, hence the moves to tapes which, like round gauges, are easier to read at a glance. I am sure the rest of the display has been similarly studied.

You are always going to be better at reading what you are more familiar with, but in the end the newer style, for a pilot with equal time with both types, are probably better. Otherwise I expect we'd still be seeing aircraft with good old round gauges.

And I've only flown with the round ones, so not especially a convert. Just using common sense.

The Green Goblin
5th Mar 2012, 19:39
Rusty,

I'd say it's more a weight and cost saving thing than anything,

An airliner full of round gauges for everything would be quite heavy (the gauges etc)

6 LCD panels would weigh bugger all and be cheaper to replace than having stores full of gauges as spares.

I'd also say you are not qualified to comment if you have never flown one.

P.S a G1000 type display is probably a better setup than the PFD/ND display in an airliner. :cool:

DBTW
6th Mar 2012, 00:25
Rusty, I think you are right. Glass is quickly becoming the norm.

Do you remember when not having a mobile phone or a computer was considered "cool" and intellectual? Now such people are considered quaintly anachronistic, and nearly everyone has both. In the not too distant future, only electronic instruments will be available.

In terms of aircraft instrumentation, the message is clear. Get used to glass cockpits.

NB: there is no competition between glass and steam driven instruments...all we are doing here is discussing pilot preference.

Over the past several decades, glass and digital presentations have become better and very much easier to interpret. What I see as the danger is that individuals are using the simplicity of operation for new technology as an excuse for not understanding important aspects of flight. Or even worse, they employ electronics and automatics to the extent where their hand flying skills have become unrecognisable. This seems to me to be the real topic here. At the beginning and the end of the conversation, whether they are steam or electronically driven, the instruments are still just instruments, and they are aids to flying, not the means. We must guard against the new technology narrowing our boundaries and decreasing our skill levels, because the aim of the new technology is to release brain capacity to enable a greater understanding. With that said, pilots must still have enough faith in their instruments to stake their lives on them, and be able to use them without becoming overwhelmed by the volume of information.

There is a big follow-on to that last statement. Pilots must also have enough faith in their own skills to be able to stake their lives on being able to continue to fly should the new electronic instruments revert to being sexy looking blank screens. IE: if you are worried about how you would fly without the GNS1000, or with the auto-pilot disengaged because that is how you fly and keep oriented, then maybe you need to look out a bit more and practice some hand flying.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
6th Mar 2012, 01:23
RE...
"NB: there is no competition between glass and steam driven instruments...all we are doing here is discussing pilot preference."

The thread started by talking about a 'No Safety Advantage', not necessarily a 'pilot preference'....
although I can see the link. i.e. If i were to 'prefer' one system over the other, then I might handle the aircraft better / safer, using that system....

However....I would assert that an aircraft being flown an approach speed of say, 70kts, will still perform exactly like an aeroplane being flown at 70 kts, regardless of how that IAS is displayed to the pilot....

It seems that the interpretation of the instrument may be the difference, or knowing just where to look to read the (smaller) figure / 'tape', 'in a hurry', rather than maybe the 'placement' of the fairly large and obvious needle on the dial.....
:ok:

Fred Gassit
6th Mar 2012, 06:18
In conducting hundreds of assessments on pilots, and often doing the training between times, I have seen bad disorientation maybe a half dozen times. Each time was with a glass PFD/MFD display. Some of the pilots would admit to having difficulty with the speed/altitude tapes, the flight director would confuse others but I think that could happen on an electromechanical display as well.

This was happening to full time, capable pilots. I like glass PFD's and ND's personally a few operators I've observed do better with clock type airspeed and alt displays.

Like Goblin says, when you compare weight and cost/reliability the primary drivers to digital displays become apparent.

Interestingly enough, I just went to the local aero shop today and saw a DVD on the shelf on how to use the G1000, the thought that I couldn't just get in a little old Cessna and fly it until I had trolled through that is a little off putting.

Arnold E
6th Mar 2012, 08:23
However....I would assert that an aircraft being flown an approach speed of say, 70kts, will still perform exactly like an aeroplane being flown at 70 kts, regardless of how that IAS is displayed to the pilot....

The point I was trying to make earlier, (perhaps poorly) was that some glass might be showing you 70 knots when you are actually doing some other speed. I have been seeing that some of them "drift" in calibration more so than the steam gauges. Just because it looks fancy and is electronic does not necessarily make it better. I am not talking about certified gear such as G1000, have seen no problems with them at this stage, but ofcourse they cost an arm and a leg and then some.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
6th Mar 2012, 08:39
I agree 'Arnold',

My favourite aircraft has 'steam'...cause its an 'oldie'....but 'I Have A Dream'....which unfortunately involves 6 numbers...

And in my 'dream 210', I would have maybe the Aspen panels, 2 of, and retain the steam ASI, Alt, T&B, and even the FAI if I wasn't running out of room...it might also have a GPS connected so that I would never never ever get 'lost'...
NOT that I ever have been.... I just normally go 'reasonably straight' to where I wanna go....
sorta.....

Cheers:ok::ok:

Rusty1970
6th Mar 2012, 22:33
Notwithstanding things I wrote in an earlier post, from Flying Magazine see below. Though I'd always caution people to read the actual report rather than just a journalists summary of it.

Glass Cockpits Provide No Safety Benefit, Study Says

AOPA’s Air Safety Institute recently released The Accident Record of Technologically Advanced Airplanes — a report that concludes that the introduction of TAAs (technologically advance aircraft; the definition is extremely broad) has not decreased accident rates, as some expected to happen. In fact, newer glass cockpit airplanes had “demonstrably higher rates of accidents during takeoffs, landings and go-arounds,” according to the study.

Glass-panel airplanes have become ubiquitous over the past 10 years; nearly every new airplane type today is delivered with flat-panel avionics. The increasing number of TAAs enabled ASI’s study, which included 20,000 certified piston-engine airplanes delivered between 1996 and 2010 by seven leading airplane manufacturers: Cessna, Cirrus, Piper, Hawker Beechcraft, Diamond, Lancair/Columbia and Mooney. The airplanes studied included approximately equal numbers of TAAs and analog panels.

The study found that the accident rate varied between different categories of airplanes, but found “differences between analog and glass panels were minimal.” The study’s authors reached no conclusion as to why landing or takeoff accidents would be greater with TAAs.

Flying Binghi
9th Mar 2012, 21:49
.

...The study’s authors reached no conclusion as to why landing or takeoff accidents would be greater with TAAs


As the prangs were apparently VFR at the time it may be the 'tape' indicators that are the problem. Many posts to this thread re the tapes indicate as much.

IMO nothing beats one of them big ol round dial indicators that yer can even read with yer periffrial vision - No need to look at it directly as yer do with them silly tapes... No need to fixate on the tape to aquire info as the world outside turns upside down.....






.

nomorecatering
9th Mar 2012, 22:44
I did my first 3000 hrs on steam guages and was very at home with them, in all sorts of aircraft types. Then I went to a new company whos aircraft were all glass (G1000).

I must say it took about 100 hrs at least to get used to the glass. The first flight on a G1000 was like trying to take a drink from a fire hose. So much information, i didnt know where to look, couldnt read the tapes fast enough. There were no needle points to refer to.

Over time I adapted to the new format. The key for ALT is to use the ALT BUG. I dont red the numbers any more, I just look for the relative position of the BUG and adjust back pressure as required. You just have to think differently, like ging from an auto to a manual car.

I now fly both types daily. I dont even think about it, just get in and go. But in the old aircraft I miss the accuracy of the AI in glass, IFR i dont get the leans as much on the G1000. The old AH's are quite hard to set a precise attitude, wher as on the Garmin if I want 2.5 deg nose up I can nail it.

Steam guages are going the way of the dodo, too labour intensive to maintain. One weekend I pulled apart a few old instruments at at home and couldnt believe the amount of tiny springs, gears, levers etc there was. All take time to put back together which costs $.

Glass wont stop you pranging if you cant fly a damn attitude in the first place by looking out the window VFR. IFR...oh lordy lordy, I love the G1000.

Flying Binghi
9th Mar 2012, 23:03
.

...One weekend I pulled apart a few old instruments at at home and couldnt believe the amount of tiny springs, gears, levers etc there was. All take time to put back together whichcosts $...

Heh, pull apart yer garmin 1000 and you just wont believe the shear number of very little very 'expensive' lectro bits and pieces needed to make it work - and they all gotta work. At least the traditional six pack dont all fail at once and give yer a very large black hole to look at..:bored:




.

nomorecatering
10th Mar 2012, 03:08
Binghi,

Your point is taken, but you let Garmin worry about that, they just give you a new screen.

It will be interesting to see the CFIT accident rate in the future as more aircraft are equiped with synthetic vision.

As for Aspen avionics units, we had 3 Seminoles and all had significant problems with teh Aspen unit. Either failing completely, or showing a 30 deg AoB when you were wings level, HDG out by 60 deg. One even caught fire (the Aspen that is)...well I really mean it produced smoke.

Flying Binghi
10th Mar 2012, 04:59
.

Your point is taken, but you let Garmin worry about that, they just give you a new screen...


nomorecatering, yer dont have to sell me on glass - i like. And my experience with Garmin has been positive. The post warrenty fixed price repair service is a good idea... pull it out, send it back, and it comes back lookin like new with no 'surprise' extra costs..:)

As for what sort of problems a garmin can have...

Garmin Service Alerts are published to warn users of potential safety issues concerning Garmin products... Garmin: Service Alerts (http://www8.garmin.com/aviation/servicenotices.jsp)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the thread subject...

Report: No Safety Advantage To Glass Panels (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Report_NoSafetyAdvantageToGlassPanels_206250-1.html)

"...glass-panel aircraft may be more susceptible to accidents during takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds..."



via http://www.avweb.com/pdf/ntsb_glass-cockpit-lsa_report_closing-comments.pdf ...


"...The data tell us that equipment specific training will save lives. So to that end, we have adopted recommendations today responsive to the data – recommendations on pilot knowledge testing standards, training, simulators, documentation and service difficulty reporting so that the potential safety improvements that these systems provide can be realized by the general aviation pilot community..."

Well, lookin to me we is headin towards what some posters here have alluden to and that is major training, testing and simulator work (read lotsa money) just so yer can read a glass panel airspeed indicator..:ooh:





.

tinpis
10th Mar 2012, 19:29
Never got the hang of them tapes, but then I dont like digital watches, no sense of time.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
12th Mar 2012, 01:14
You think 'that' is a 'Glass Cockpit'......??

Nah!

'THIS is a 'Glass Cockpit'!!!!........Apols to Hoges.......:}:}

Space Shuttle Discovery - 360VR Images (http://360vr.com/2011/06/22-discovery-flight-deck-opf_6236/index.html)

Cheers::p;)

Flying Binghi
14th Mar 2012, 12:40
.

Christ, what a mess. No wonder glass panel pilots are gettin killed. Imagine trying to work this sun lit jumble out in a hurry....



http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/IMG_0855.jpg








.

jas24zzk
14th Mar 2012, 12:45
Lol binghi... i was thinking in the thread you copied this from, that it would take longer to learn to use it all, than it did to fly......

Fondair
14th Mar 2012, 13:00
Lets not come to conclusions based on that generic branded glass panel. :}

Fred Gassit
14th Mar 2012, 23:15
Hideous ergonomics aside, the pair of them cost about as much as one electric AH.

Jabawocky
15th Mar 2012, 03:37
Fondair, not sure what your point was really meant to be, but lets just say that it will not fail in such simple modes as a bug up ya pitot like the TSO'd units you may be fond of.

As for nomorecatering and his Aspen experience, yet another TSO device, it lines up pretty well with Jank Ranga's experiences as well, and I assume you are in Melbourne or a latitude there or south ;)

Now dont get me wrong, I am not anti TSO, heck I have $20K plus of it in my panel too, but you are kidding yourself if you think it buys you greater quality, better features or reliability. In general terms it does not. Often the opposite.

Flying Binghi
I am not really botherwed with copyright, and who owns what IP when stuff is in the public domain.......but in future go get your own material :ugh:

And as for working it out, myself as a mere plankton in the aviation world, and a retired Jumbo driver can work it out in all manner of operations, so if you could not get your head around that pretty quickly, you should give away the idea of anything but a VFR C152.

Ergonomically I believe it works verry well. If someone comes up with any suggestions on layout, and can justify their claim, and it is able to be reprogrammed, I'll do it. But right now, someone in the right seat can ask for any flight parameter displayed and we can answer it in a flash. Probably quicker and more finite than you can with a traditional Cessna or Beech.

Heck...when Forkie got the V Tail fitted with an EDM he was stunned at just how useless all the Beech gauges were. :ouch:

Flying Binghi
15th Mar 2012, 11:57
.


I am not really botherwed with copyright, and who owns what IP when stuff is in the public domain.......but in future go get your own material



Jabawocky, you presented the picture to a public pilots forum... just like the words you present to the forum, the pictures can be commented on as well within the forum...:hmm:





.

Flying Binghi
15th Mar 2012, 12:19
.

via Jabawocky #49;

...And as for working it out, myself as a mere plankton in the aviation world, and a retired Jumbo driver can work it out in all manner of operations, so if you could not get your head around that pretty quickly, you should give away the idea of anything but a VFR C152.

Ergonomically I believe it works verry well. If someone comes up with any suggestions on layout, and can justify their claim, and it is able to be reprogrammed, I'll do it. But right now, someone in the right seat can ask for any flight parameter displayed and we can answer it in a flash. Probably quicker and more finite than you can with a traditional Cessna or Beech.

Heck...when Forkie got the V Tail fitted with an EDM he was stunned at just how useless all the Beech gauges were.


"...a retired Jumbo driver can work it out in all manner of operations..."

Hmmm... and yet we still have them dead pilots - reference the thread starter report.

....perhaps that were a recomendation of the report writers, that the accident pilots shoulda been flying 152s.... i musta missed it at first read..:rolleyes:



via Jabawocky #49;

I am not anti TSO, heck I have $20K plus of it in my panel too, but you are kidding yourself if you think it buys you greater quality, better features or reliability. In general terms it does not...



I thought we were compareing glass to steam ? From what i've seen all the glass, certified or not, is a real dogs breakfast - the report refers to the non-standardization.




.