The 2 basic benefits of glass technology are to decrease workload and increase situational awareness. These benefits were thought to increase safety. Statistically glass has increased safety in airline use, where the accident rates are much lower in the generations of aircraft that have these systems. If ever there was a system that illustrates the axiom "don't work harder, work smarter", glass systems are a perfect example.
But even in airline use (as we've recently seen), a failure to understand the strengths and weaknesses of glass systems when a systems failure occurs, can result in the crash of an otherwise perfectly servicable airplane.
Glass is not perfect because the programmed computer logic within it, is designed and written by fallable human beings. The information and map databases contained within are not always accurate either for the same reasons. Anyone who's ever used an auto GPS device for any length of time knows the internal map database isn't always accurate, and the GPS doesn't always select the best route. However that knowledge doesn't prevent the GPS device from being useful, instead it promotes more intelligent use of the device.
It should be the same with glass equipped aircraft. You have to know the glass system, including it's strenghs and weaknesses. Read the service alerts for your system (Garmin for example has these on their website), so you'll understand recently discovered problems. Don't expect glass to be magic and don't expect it to be infallable. It can't take you though unsafe skys and unsafe situations, that your avaition skills tell you are unsafe. If you learn to use glass properly, do expect it to be useful, but within its limits. Also be prepared to turn some of the automation off, if it's safer to fly without it.
Just wanted to add this - Humans will NEVER be taken out of the loop when it comes to operating aircraft. They may sit on the ground in front a console instead of sitting in a cockpit (as in military UAVs), but they will ALWAYS be required. Even Airbus has never attempted to automate the taxiing of an airliner on the ground. Compared to airpseed holds, climb rates, and heading changes at waypoints, ground taxiing is far too complex and unpredictable to automate. My point? Automation will ALWAYS have its limits, because automation can't think outside of its programmed logic, the way humans can. It took me nearly 3 decades of my professional career working with automation to understand this, mainly because I came up in this business in the golden era of "computers can do anything". No they can't, it's a machine like any other machine, with limits just like any other machine.
Last edited by Flight Safety; 12th Mar 2010 at 12:59.
Reason: To add the last paragraph