A fair few posts are missing the point here. The study has little to do with automatics and being a "system monitor" no longer capable of hand flying the aircraft. I actually bothered to look at the study on the NTSB website
Interesting points:
- the number of accidents was more or less the same for traditional vs glass
- the number of fatalities was significantly higher for glass than traditional
- the glass community is typically a more experienced, older and more business flying orientated community than the traditional group
- most of the student type flying is in the traditional group (even though more and more flying academies are starting to use them)
- far more flights in the glass cockpit group fly IFR vs VFR
A big problem cited is the complexity of the glass cockpit and the lack of commonality between glass displays. I remember from my GA days that constantly switching from Cessna, to Piper, Beech, etc was quite challenging even though they had very similar instruments. Doing that with different glass cockpits is probably too much for your average weekend GA flyer.
The other big one is the handling of failures. A significant portion of glass display fatalities involve loss of control or flight into terrain after instrument failure. The NTSB cites a very poor understanding of what feeds the displays and how failures should be handled. Those of us who fly jets or t-props with glass cockpits know how challenging instrument failures are to diagnose and cope with. It's hard enough for two of us in there, let alone a single pilot who flies one hundred hours a year.
Glass cockpits in GA single might be a good idea for the 200 hour a year plus community who can afford thorough and recurrent training. Any less than that and it's probably better to stick with the old steam gauges...
P