NTSB Report: Glass cockpits have not led to expected safety improvements

[GarageYears]

************************************************************

NTSB STUDY SHOWS INTRODUCTION OF 'GLASS COCKPITS' IN GENERAL
AVIATION AIRPLANES HAS NOT LED TO EXPECTED SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS

************************************************************

Washington, DC -- Today the National Transportation Safety
Board adopted a study concluding that single engine
airplanes equipped with glass cockpits had no better overall
safety record than airplanes with conventional
instrumentation.

The safety study, which was adopted unanimously by the
Safety Board, was initiated more than a year ago to
determine if light airplanes equipped with digital primary
flight displays, often referred to as “glass cockpits,” were
inherently safer than those equipped with conventional
instruments.

The study, which looked at the accident rates of over 8,000
small piston-powered airplanes manufactured between 2002 and
2006, found that those equipped with glass cockpits had a
higher fatal accident rate then similar aircraft with
conventional instruments.

The Safety Board determined that because glass cockpits are
both complex and vary from aircraft to aircraft in function,
design and failure modes, pilots are not always provided
with all of the information they need -- both by aircraft
manufacturers and the Federal Aviation Administration -- to
adequately understand the unique operational and functional
details of the primary flight instruments in their
airplanes.

*****************************************

Full text on NTSB website.

Comments?

- GY :hmm:

[Huck]

It's the V-Tailed Doctor Killer syndrome, yet again.

Those that can afford glass cockpits in private aircraft tend to buy a little more capability than they really should.....

[protectthehornet]

I for one am not really impressed with glass cockpits.

I remember doing quite a bit with my old steam gauge DC9. I knew where I was, where I was going and what sort of terrain clearance I had (using a chart plus nav instruments)

While it was demanding of my poor brain, it kept me on my toes...not just sitting back watching things happen and go bad before my eyes.

I like the old T scan for basic flight instruments and thought I had gone to Heaven when I got a good RMI and HSI.

While I always wanted a moving map display superimposed on wx radar, I didn't need it to survive.

Steam gauges got expensive to fix...glass cockpit...one tube and you lose alot...I lost an Attitude Gyro once...covered it up with a piece of paper and hung in there...

[p51guy]

When I went to all manual 737's and 727's to the 757/767 I had to bail out the check airmen a couple of times to finish my check out. One time going into Dulles he took the leg and didn't select approach until we had blown through the glide slope. I told him to disconnect everything, push over and regain the glide slope late at night and we landed. Next it was an international check and we left San Jose Costa Rica with the turn over the volcano from the vor he totally screwed up programming. I just turned and flew out the radial disregarding everything he programmed in and stayed on course while letting him catch up. I had been flying as a captain for 5 years before these events so knew when to take over a situation going bad. The new generation pilots scare me, especially international countries. They do not want anybody to hand fly. Everybody is trained for monitoring automation flying, not hand flying. Let's see how long it takes for another Buffalo incident.

[greybeard]

Those "elder" of us who learnt on the clocks and dials, a DC-3 and onto the F-28 for me, can appreciate and I believe intelligently use the glass concept as we always have the real underlying picture available.
Those who ONLY have glass, ONLY HAVE GLASS, and certainly it will happen, it all goes blank, and most of the time so does the brain for those critical seconds.
There is so much info on the one display, all very nice but not readily available in other formats in front of the pilot in a critical flight phase.
One of my fellow Instructors had to do an ILS/DME at Singapore for real on the stand-by A/H his side, basic ILS on the other side, lower screen, behind the other column, hand flown, as it was the only one of 4 screens still working in a L-31.
As the other pilot was a 200hr, first flight in the right seat, his options were limited to say the least.
BUT had a similar basic grounding in all the points mentioned above.

Be safe.

:ok:

[rcl7700]

In light piston planes (as in jets) glass cockpits are great. I could not believe it when I had terrain, airspace, and TCAS on my screen the first time I flew on a C-172 with the G-1000. I would never recommend substituting training in conventional instruments, but they can compliment IFR training to some degree.

Maybe the numbers are higher because of the popularity of these aircraft in flight training? Many schools have switched completely to glass.

I agree with the V-Tail analogy, especially now that some are even equipped with TKS anti-ice systems. Grab a nicely equipped Cirrus and you might forget you are in a piston single. AP, FD, XM WX, Radar, TCAS, GPWS, EFIS, Anti-Ice, etc. Leave it up to marketing to turn the requirement of a parachute attached to your aircraft as added security for you.

If used correctly (like everything else) glass in light pistons is a great tool.

rcl

[EGMA]

Are we surprised ? Glass lets you do more with less. But when things go south you're less able to handle the problem.

Same thing with motoring, do idiot proof cars mean less accidents?

[cwatters]

Did the study look at the cause of the accident or just the number?

[stormin norman]

It dosn't suprise me.Many of the pilots i have flown privately with recently appear to spend more time playing with the GPS rather than looking out of the window with a map.

[lederhosen]

This links to the issue of the MPL and general dumbing down of pilot training.

On the one hand training needs to be relevant. On the other hand as pilots are positioned further and further out of the loop a lot of basic knowledge is being lost.

You also lose what you do not use. Interesting to observe the poor performance of pilots, who presumably must have grasped the basics of instrument flying to get a licence, when the crutch of the FMC is removed due to misprogramming or other problems.

Having said all that the NTSB report relates to light aircraft and the statistics for glass in big jets tell another story.

[Mr Good Cat]

I for one am not really impressed with glass cockpits.

I remember doing quite a bit with my old steam gauge DC9. I knew where I was, where I was going and what sort of terrain clearance I had (using a chart plus nav instruments)

While it was demanding of my poor brain, it kept me on my toes...not just sitting back watching things happen and go bad before my eyes.

I like the old T scan for basic flight instruments and thought I had gone to Heaven when I got a good RMI and HSI.

While I always wanted a moving map display superimposed on wx radar, I didn't need it to survive.

Steam gauges got expensive to fix...glass cockpit...one tube and you lose alot...I lost an Attitude Gyro once...covered it up with a piece of paper and hung in there...

You are 411A and I claim my 5 dollars...

[B767-383]

The results speak for themselfs. Basic training, t-scan & decision making, is still the best way to prevent accidents. A glass cockpit kan give the pilot a false sense of safety leading to complacency. All the new toys that modern avionics provide increases the time that pilots spend looking inside the cockpit instead of looking outside(information overload).

Modern avionics are a great thing when properly used, just keep in mind to have a plan B and once in a while train the basic stuff.:ok:

[Mr Good Cat]

I agree that in training it's essential to use only the basic instruments to acquire the 'fundamentals' upon which instrument flying is based.

However, once in the world of commercial aviation and big jets the technology is available and should be used to it's maximum (and I'm not referring to automation here before I receive all the flak).

In fact I believe our airliners are not taking advantage of all the technology currently available, if you take a look at Biz Jets for example. If we could make Electronic Flight Bags (backed up with one copy of paper charts) available on every med-lge airliner, along with EVS and all of those other clever Biz Jet toys, our situational awareness would be much greater with a much reduced workload.

I love flying on the basics without the automation when it's a nice day and a nice location like the States, but if I'm flying into Addis Ababa in a monsoon at night I'd like all the safety tools available to me please.:ok:

MGC

[oxenos]

MY idea of a good glass cockpit is one with nice big windows

[White Knight]

Addis at night during the 'monsoon' (well, rainy season would be more apt I think than monsoon) in a piston single?? Rather you than me:ok:

Doesn't matter if you've steam gauges or glass cockpit - if you get too slow when turning base to final in the puddle jumper circuit you will still STALL, SPIN, CRASH and BURN just like it was drummed into us PPL students all those years ago...

Mind you - glass hasn't helped some out too well in the airline world either.. Kathmandu when Thai planted one, Cali with American and so on:rolleyes:

[simonhk]

I believe the introduction of ABS in production cars just led to bigger, more spectacular accidents....

At my old job at the beeb, I was always banging on about how technology was almost irrelevant, it was people and organisation and communication that led to gains and improvement. The next big project was a huge networked production system costing circa £60M, and nothing spent on how people might work together better, communicate better, organise better etc etc. I left.

At best, "improved technology" exchanges one bunch of idiosynchrasies for a new bunch.

More relevant to aviation - As long as information is presented unambiguously by the hardware, there is far more scope for it to be miss-interpreted, ignored, forgotten, missed, etc by the warmware.

S

[Permafrost_ATPL]

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 :ok:

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

[kriskross]

Having just retired from a major European airline flying totally glass cockpit aircraft, I am somewhat disappointed with some of our less experienced flight deck members, who blindly following the green or magenta line, don't even know what countries they are flying over, let alone which of the displayed airports are suitable for diversion. I would certainly not recommend Samos for a diversion on the way to Turkey or the Middle East, although it is displayed by the data base.

I may have been flying these routes for 30 years, but still get the map out, much to the surprise of my fellow crew members.

[W2k]

While I'm but a PPL student on my 18th hour I think Permafrost_ATPL is right on the spot.

When I started on my PPL in january, there was a choice I had to make. There are multiple flying clubs and schools operating at the airfield where I fly. Some of them offer glass cockpit aircraft (DA40's) and make a big point of this in their marketing. While I love the techy stuff I made it a point to choose a flying club that had good old steam gauge PA28's. Much better to learn on the basic stuff, I thought. Cheaper too (although I would have been able to afford either).

I've no plans to continue on to CPL/ATPL, I fly for the fun of it, so I can do the difference training for glass cockpits when and if I feel like it.

This report pretty much reinforces my belief that I made the right choice.

[protectthehornet]

NO, I'm not 411A. I think he flew the L1011.

W2k...good for you. your choice is a wise one and I think the PA28 series (if properly maintained) is a superior choice in airplanes to that other thing.

I am reminded of a tragic crash of a citationjet owned and operated by a very wealthy tech woman. I am also reminded of so many techy guys in silicon valley who wanted to learn to fly in the early 80's...I was instructing in the heart of silicon valley then.

They all kept on saying: I can get a computer to do this...

I said: what happens when the computer breaks down (how many times have I had to reboot/restart this morning already!!!)

I think FLYING should be very hard to learn. I think things should get harder, more demanding and not easier. I do think certain improvements in information availaility are fine. It is just a certain thing that Ernest K. Gann hinted at in his great book, "Fate is the Hunter". It started out as : A Whore is easy to meet. Some first landings in a DC3 easy, some in a DC2 had the crash wagons coming. Glass is easy, until it fails.

AS pilots, we must never just be sitting there watching things happen. Sadly, glass cockpits can (not always mind you) lead to just coming along for the ride.

its just like the guy who use to climb four flights of stairs to get to a store. THEN THEY installed an escalator and he rode up...he became flabby and the day the escalator broke, he had to climb the stairs and it was too tough.

I still remember a checkride for a check flying company (remember those?) I had to do an NDB aproach on partial panel...no attitude gyro, no directional gyro...it makes an impression on you for life.

[Tmbstory]

White Knight:

I liked your Post No:15.

It brought back memories of my Tiger Moth Days, taught to us by instructors during circuit training, was the ditty " If you want to Stall, Spin, Crash and Burn, hold off bank in a gliding turn."

Thanks

Tmb

[oxenos]

I spent 25 years flying 737-200s, right up to the time they were disappearing off the register. By then just about everything else was glass cockpit.
It was noticable that the more capable F/Os said that they were glad to get the chance to fly the old technology, as they felt it improved their basic skills. The less capable couldn't wait to get on an aeroplane where all they had to do was press buttons and act as system managers.

[Nigd3]

Chaps

Please take note of what Permafrost ATPL has said.
The report is about GA single engine aircraft and is based on researched facts and figures not gut feelings and impressions.

Maybe wait for the report about glass cockpits and automation in a 2 crew commercially operated aircraft before diverging from the subject.

[cats_five]

Was there ever an expectation that they would?

[Nigd3]

Cats Five

Are you referring to posters keeping to the subject more closely or the NTSB bringing out a report?

My answers would be "probably not" and "eventually yes, in some shape or form". Its up to you to decide which answer is for which question

[cats_five]

No, I mean that a glass cockpit would reduce accidents. It might just be the wording where this was started but it left me with the impression that someone, somewhere thought they would be safer.

[Re-Heat]

Only way GA with glass cockpits would be safer would be if Apple designed the interface.

Too many knobs and gizmos to distract low-hour PPLs with death-zone experience sub 200hrs at the moment. Totally detracts from stick and rudder skills in my opinion. Very few have strong enough tuition and inclination to use gizmos as support of basic skills rather than to supplement them.

Pity. In commercial aviation, they demonstrably raise situational awareness, and so too should they at the GA level of aviation.

[Chronus]

How could NTSB expect an improvement to GA safety through glass cockpits in light aircraft when such systems remain doubtful as to their value for safety in commercial aviation.
In 1996 two B757 s went into the sea, Birgenair 301 and Aeroperu 603. Both attributable to blocked pitot-static systems driving air-data computers projected digitaly onto glass screens.
Whilst the loss of AF 447 remains unresolved it is speculated that a similar pitot-static problem may have been a factor.
The THY Schipol B737 crash is an another example of the interface between sophisticated automation and human factors.
Such accidents are mainly due to inefficient processing of time-critical information by the pilots whose environmental awareness and cognitive capabilities are reduced by an information overload.
The advanced colour screens of the glass cockpit may have impressive displays but no mechanisms to test or improve upon the data provided by the older pitot-static system. The glass cockpit represents an inverted pyramid syndrome added by technology to and built upon unchanged and limited foundation.
Perhaps they are a forerunner to complete automation and robotics, where the need of a human systems monitor will be sitting stationary in front of a monitor on the ground. This ofcourse already exists for military use in UAV `s. The only up side to this is that at least pilot error will no longer be a cause.
Anyway the glass cockpit is a misnomer, the more apt term is the digital cockpit.

[Huck]

In 1996 two B757 s went into the sea, Birgenair 301 and Aeroperu 603. Both attributable to blocked pitot-static systems driving air-data computers projected digitaly onto glass screens.


You can add the Fedex MD11 in Subic Bay to that list, in 1999.

[goldfish85]

Protectthehornet:

I agree. A couple of years ago I bought a book on cokcpit displays (I forget the title), written about 1980. They showed a picture of the B747-200 flight deck as the example of the latest and a picture of the B-757/767 as the wave of the future. My reaction -- from a pilot's perspective was that the new glass hasn't really improved things for the pilot. There are clearly advantages in terms of reliability, reduced spares, and, probably, cost. But pilot workload and ease of flying -- no.

Glass navigation displays. Now that's a different story. Moving maps have been a real boon.


Goldfish

[protectthehornet]

goldfish85

do you remember the mechanical moving map display? you put a paper map into the gadget, wound it up and it moved along at your estimated ground speed.

I remember our fleet manager saying how expensive it was to maintain the steam gauges.

But I do think that the steam gauges somehow brought you into the "aviate" part of flying. somehow closer to that which keeps us up in the sky.

[Re-Heat]

In 1996 two B757 s went into the sea, Birgenair 301 and Aeroperu 603. Both attributable to blocked pitot-static systems driving air-data computers projected digitaly onto glass screens.
Yes, but there are countless examples of steam-driven gauges being misread and producing erroneous data as well. Rubbish in - rubbish out never changed with glass cockpits. Besides, informational advantages outweigh other factors in complex, electric, modern aircraft. The 787 simply could not fly with steam gauges. We have moved on past this argument...

In the context of the original post, what is amiss is excess reliance in GA on fancy gauges by those who don't have any basic flying skill.

[p51guy]

Basic flying skills are becoming a problem with the airlines now too. Too many airlines promote automation as the only way to operate since flying skills are being lost with the new aircraft. Airbus made an issue of the loss of flying skills of the new pilots. The Sully's in aviation are going away fast and are being replaced by systems operators. Unfortunately the airlines find this more cost effective so will continue to let it happen.

[ironbutt57]

"The study, which looked at the accident rates of over 8,000
small piston-powered airplanes manufactured between 2002 and
2006, found that those equipped with glass cockpits had a
higher fatal accident rate then similar aircraft with
conventional instruments."

It's not about jets gentleman, its about small piston powered airplanes, where I would suspect the amount of training dedicated to operating the "glass" features is not quite emphasized enough...

[KiloMikePapa]

I simply cannot believe the conclusions some of you are associating with this report! Are you guys sure the Tenerife disaster should not be linked to a glass cockpit somewhere :=

Perhaps you could be bothered to read the report first before jumping onto conclusions :ugh:

The report can be found at http://www.avweb.com/pdf/ntsb_glass-cockpit-lsa_report.pdf

The findings and recommendations: http://www.avweb.com/pdf/ntsb_glass-cockpit-lsa_report_finding-recommendations.pdf

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

[oceancrosser]

p51guy wrote
When I went to all manual 737's and 727's to the 757/767 I had to bail out the check airmen a couple of times to finish my check out. One time going into Dulles he took the leg and didn't select approach until we had blown through the glide slope. I told him to disconnect everything, push over and regain the glide slope late at night and we landed. Next it was an international check and we left San Jose Costa Rica with the turn over the volcano from the vor he totally screwed up programming. I just turned and flew out the radial disregarding everything he programmed in and stayed on course while letting him catch up. I had been flying as a captain for 5 years before these events so knew when to take over a situation going bad. The new generation pilots scare me, especially international countries. They do not want anybody to hand fly. Everybody is trained for monitoring automation flying, not hand flying. Let's see how long it takes for another Buffalo incident.

What exactly do you mean?
"regain the glide slope late at night" Yes waiting for night time always improves glide slope interception.
"international check" Only the Americans would come up with something like that.
"The new generation pilots scare me, especially international countries".
Which countries are "international countries"??? This could only come from an "American" (probably from the Homeland).
Perhaps you should stick to flying in the "heartland"???

[D O Guerrero]

Huck - so what? I can think of lots of crashes that happened on aircraft with electro-mechanical instruments. How about the Northwest Airlines 727 where they forgot to turn on the probe heat and had misreading ASIs?
The accidents still happened - they were just for different reasons.

This thread should be entitled "IN my day...."

[Marchettiman]

Can we combine the Airbus warning about the loss of basic pilot handling skills with this report?
To my mind, those of us who experienced the old Tiger Moth/Chipmunk or similar tailwheel type route to learning to fly probably have better basic handling skills than those trained on more modern and much easier nosewheel types. It was of necessity that we learned to handle those aircraft with careful and co-ordinated use of all three controls or we would have failed at the first hurdle. Similarily when learning to fly on instruments to pass an IR flight test using steam driven round dials (preferably without the luxury of an HSI) means you can interpret the raw data and have instinctive situational awareness and understanding that just doesn’t come from staring at a glass screen and believing the picture all the time.
By all means make things easier using modern technology but as many contributors have noted when it all goes pear-shaped all aeroplanes rely on basic pilot inputs to stay under control and high ground won’t move out of the way just because your fancy glass screen has died, and you don’t instantly know where you are.
So let’s bring back proper aircraft for basic flying training, round dials for IF training and rewrite the training syllabus to incorporate learning these basic skills before doing specific glass cockpit training at a later stage. It might even make flying training a bit cheaper and more selective….or is that politically incorrect nowadays?

[protectthehornet]

oceancrosser

we are seperated by a common language...I understood and appreciated everything P51 guy wrote.

he wrote like someone who's been ''there''. you write like someone who went to public school and has a nice necktie.

[oceancrosser]

Thanks protectthehornet. I will try to stay in my place as a pilot from "an international country".
Public School, sure. Not sure where my tie is (my uniform tie is not really nice).
But I know the type p51guy is, one that flew "all manual 737s and 727" and had a hard time adjusting to later models. Apparently had an issue with check airmen as well. I used to fly with guys of his kind (even Americans).
But after almost 30 years in, 15K+ hrs, and yes I even started on round dial airplanes and the "all manual DC-8" was my workplace for a while, so I feel qualified to comment. And I have been one of those "check airmen" on a glass cockpit airplane for a fairly long time.
Even did a considerable part of my training in the US, and still fly there a few times a month (rarely by choice though).
I understood p51guy´s rant pretty well (apart from the textual issues). I just don't agree with his views.
And remember, the Buffalo accident happened in the US. :=

[Dave Gittins]

I think I can maybe understand the issue being a low time PPL rating (like 250 hours in 41 years). I have always loved to fly and always struggled to maintain currency. The more complex the contraption and the more demanding the environment the harder it gets. Hence the V-tailed retired dentist killer.

The easiest thing to stay current in that I ever flew was a Slingsby Cadet Mk III in 1969.

The off topic comments about lack of skills in jet pilots are something I understand and worry about because (again) the more complex the kit, the less of it you fully understand and the further behind it you can quickly get.

For me, I always prefer the situational awareness a map a compass and a clock gives me.

[Flight Safety]

One of the NTSB recommendations in the report, is provision of PC based procedure trainers for glass cockpit systems, to help familiarize pilots with features and failure modes.

I checked the Garmin website, and it turns out they sell PC based trainers for the G1000. They have a trainer available for each aircraft type the G1000 system is currently fitted in. I noticed for example the trainer for the Cessna/Columbia 350/400 even includes the autopilot. The cost of the single user trainers is $24.95 USD, which is a bargain. Multiuser trainers are $99.95 USD, which is still a bargain.

Your PC has to meet minimum requirements, including a graphics accelerator using at least DirectX 9.0c, and a joystick. The MAC is not supported. You can run dxdiag.exe (shows all things DirectX on your PC) to determine if your PC meets the requirements.

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?pID=6420&ra=true#accessoryTab

Current manuals for each aircraft type are also available for download at the website. Training manuals are also available for download.

[Slickster]

That's great, Flight Safety, but I'm guessing the types of people who buy these kinds of aeroplanes probably don't feel the need to train. All the gear, no idea, springs to mind.

Probably best leave it to Darwin.

[Centaurus]

In the simulator I once saw an experienced 737 crew roll inverted and go in vertically on an ILS at night in IMC when one of the autothrottle clutch motors failed with that throttle at idle from previous level flight deceleration with flap extension. Neither pilot saw the huge split in the throttles as one went to 80 percent N1 to hold the glide slope with full flap and the other perfectly serviceable engine was at idle. All the crew had to do was simply switch of the autothrottle and use both throttles manually.

But when the captain finally did see one throttle at idle he thought it was an engine failure and called for the engine failure checklist. It was then the autopilot disconnected from the ILS allowing the aircraft to roll upside down with the captain still looking at the FMA display and wondering why the ADI was in a funny position. All the time the first officer was still turning the pages of the QRH looking for Section 7 (Non- Normals Engine and APU). The F/O never saw the crash as he was still flicking the pages as we hit the deck.

Both pilots were blind followers of automation as per their company policy. Scary stuff indeed,

[p51guy]

Somehow after rereading my post and your response I think you misinterpreted my post. I am not saying manual airplanes are better than automated ones, just that basic flying skills get you out of situations that bad automation inputs put you into sometimes.

I had no problem transitioning to automation, just saw a lot of pilots try to fix an automation problem with automation and going totally heads down in the cockpit when a simple turn or power or pitch change while looking out the window took care of everything. Now that you are pointed right you can take your time in reengaging the automation. Also reading here I have seen many posts saying their airlines encourage total automation and little or no hand flying. Most of them didn't come from the US. Also I don't hate checkairmen. Some of them have a hard time swallowing their pride when they muck something up and try to salvage a situation while staying in automatic mode. Most line guys don't.

[Flight Safety]

Slickster, p51guy, and PTH. My point about the G1000 is that I've always strongly believed that you should KNOW the systems of your airplane, both mechanical and electronic. Many months ago I tried to create a document for posting on pprune, regarding automation and its proper design and use in aircraft, as I've designed, managed and worked computer automation all my adult life. I decided not to post it because it was far too long and if you can't say it in a few paragraphs, you don't know how to say it. So what follows is my attempt at the short version:

Processes exist in business (including airlines and airplanes) to serve customers. They're repeated over and over, thousands and thousands of times as the business operates. Processes, including those in airlines and airplanes, lend themselves to improvements by automation. But the automation, like all other machine devices incorporated into processes, are subject to failure. Because failures will ALWAYS occur, an operator (including professional operators like pilots) most ALWAYS oversee and manage the process.

When automation is designed into a process (including an airplane) it will ALWAYS possess a limited amount of program logic (some systems more, some less) to cope with normal and abnormal conditions. When a failure occurs and the logic cannot accurately and correctly deal with the failure, the automation MUST clearly notify the operator and then back out of the process, so corrective action can be taken by the operator. If you manufacture toilet seats and the automation fails and you don't notice it, you just throw the bad toilet seats into the recycle bin. However if you're airborne and you don't catch it, well we've been reading about these lately.

Automation does not require a dumber operator, it requires a smarter operator who understands both the mechanical and the automation systems of the process he/she is overseeing. One reason this is required is because some automation does NOT always give good quaility failure feedback to the operator, and sometimes it will not back out of the process when it should (both are automation design issues). Thus you must intimately know the system to recognize the failure that is not well indicated or not well responded to. The recent trends of some airlines towards pilots of lower standards because of automation, are moving exactly in the wrong direction. Automation requires even more skill, not less. In the case of the pilot, good basic airmanship as well as good system management skills are absolutely required for safe operation.

There, that only took three paragraphs. :O

[jimmygill]

The study, which looked at the accident rates of over 8,000 small piston-powered airplanes manufactured between 2002 and 2006, found that those equipped with glass cockpits had a higher fatal accident rate then similar aircraft with conventional instruments.

Were these 8000 accidents or accidents in a sample size of 8000 aircrafts? How many fatal accidents? Does any one have link to the study?

[His dudeness]

From the report:

Glass Cockpit:
– (1)Fewer hours per aircraft
– (3)Higher percentage of hours flown for personal/business
– Lower percentage of hours for instructional flights
– (2)Higher percentage of hours flown in IMC



Summary of Results
• Lower total accident rates for glass cockpit cohort
• Higher fatal rate for glass cockpit cohort
• Accidents reflect differences in aircraft use that might explain differences in accident severity
• (4) Pattern of results does not show a safety benefit for glass cockpit group during the studied period

So I´m not sure if I´d agree with a lot of posts in this thread. All I see there is that glass cockpits can´t be counted on as a substitute for experience (4) for low time[in the Airplane] (1), solo pilots (3) flying in bad weather (2).

Hardly a surprise.
In fact, my personal experience is that the transition from early romian empire radio stacks to highly sophisticated eqipment absorbs a lot of brainpower until you adopt to the workflow pattern you need in this enviroment. Change from one airplane with Universal FMS to one of the same type with, say, a GNS-XLS. It simply takes time to learn. During that time, one should have knowledgable company. Thats why in the commercial world there is supervision time required.

[Steamhead]

There is another side to this glass cockpit problem.
Some time ago we upgraded one piper training pa 28 (at our FTO ) with a garmin 430 box 1 and KX155 box 2. The FTO computor was loaded with the garmin simulator and the instructors were all willing to give instruction on the simulator for free.
The aircraft was very popular with PPL's ,but what was very evident, was that, when you got in the aircraft after a PPL had flown it, Box 2 was selected on the panel as the primary radio. They could not be bothered to learn how to use the garmin.

[muduckace]

Agreed, too much shiny stuff is distracting for private pilots, especially ones who don't really know what they are looking at in the first place.

[vanHorck]

people complain that those who prefer steam gauges are old fashioned...

My Seneca IV has steam gauges plus a simple moving map (IIIc), and I think I have the best of both worlds.
To me it was striking to read some of the excess fatalities may come from failures of glass components and the pilots not knowing what to do.....

Glass panels are far too complex to allow the first Mr PPL loose on them without formal training. Glass cockpits should be like a separate rating similar to a night rating perhaps

[rottenray]

A glass cockpit will not increase safety in and of itself.

In some respects, "we" were safer with steam gauges which took more training.

Modern displays and electronics are highly beneficial - when used as a replacement for older technology.

Unfortunately, some operations assume that more automation / better instrumentation = greater safety/lower cost.


Such is not the case. They don't realize they are trading "today" against "tomorrow," or if they do, they just don't care.


A successful and safe operation will still rely mainly upon the "meat" up front - the skilled pilots - to conduct business in the safest and most cost-effective way possible.


Sad is this.

Automation and enhanced cockpit paraphernalia has been mistaken to be a replacement for skill, instead of an augmentation of skill.

There are a few operations which have made a decent balance in this regard, but I won't mention them.


Of course, the "glass cockpit" hasn't proven to be significantly safer than the previous needle and fluid systems- the village idiot could have predicted the same outcome.

I'm sure this comment will get a good flaming, and I sincerely don't intend to offend those who have started careers after the rush to automation and "fool-proof" displays began.

Many of you are pilots who keep to the tradition of F/N/A.

But, frankly, the easier one makes flying a commercial transport, the lower the baseline of pilot skill is required.

Most (not all) carriers take full advantage of this.

Again, be gentle with your comments.

And consider this - as automation grows, the concept of pilotless flights become more realistic to the bean-counter types who have so far reduced the business to a common, base experience for all involved.

I'm not insulting anyone with this post. Carriers now see long-time experienced pilots as a liability instead of an asset.

I'm merely making an observation: As framers automate, so the need for skilled pilots goes down.


In any statistical process, there will be a datum point where the projected and the reality meet.

IMO we're about to see this. In the foreseeable future, we will witness a situation where even the LCC cannot maintain a profit, due to discounting to stay competitive along with increasing fuel costs.


Speaking to the commercial, fewer highly qualified pilots are going to work.

Part of this is due to experienced pilots successfully "landing" themselves in a corporate situation.

I know a few retired mil folks who have decided to apply their discipline and skill to other industry. Two have become charter coach drivers, another has taken a job dispatching cabs, and has brought to the table his knowledge of ATC operations.

In large, the competition is fierce when seeking a position with a carrier. There are more potential pilots than there are potential seats.

Quality universally has suffered in "employer" markets versus "employee" markets. For the most part, the desperate and the unemployable do better than those with notable resumes and experience. They are cheaper and more willing to work extravagant hours.

In some cases, I think those who interview better may be getting the jobs, as opposed to those who might have more skill but lack the bluster and BS needed to successfully complete the interview process.

(The USAF actually had guidelines for this at one time; they understood that good pilots were not necessarily good candidates based on a non-technical interview.)

I am not saying anything against low-time pilots, other than this - you don't have the same resources available to you that the previous two generations had. You are expected to do far more with far less.

Most of you do incredibly well, given what you have to work with, and given what you have to put up with.


Someone - on another site, blue, with lots of pretty photos - made the remark that being a commercial pilot has devolved into being a bus driver.


I disagree, because by and large the traveling public tends to thank bus drivers.

The flying public these days couldn't care less, and those few (myself included) who would wish to thank a flight crew for a safe flight now have such a hard time doing so. Connecting flights are tighter than ever, and airports are now less charming and less comfortable.

And, sadly, many flight crew just cannot be bothered these days. Apparently the love of flight doesn't exist within them, as they are not apt to entertain any complimentary conversation.


Frankly, the "$49 anywhere" fare structure can't end soon enough for me.

I wish my SLF peers would finally recognize that you get "almost" what you pay for.

WN is doing a good job right now, basically because they haven't changed their modus operendi much - they still operate as an LCC with reasonably friendly faces.

The legacy carriers are hard-put to keep up.


In a perfect world, cockpit enhancements would cause crews to work less, instead of being an excuse to work longer hours.

In a perfect world, increased frame efficiency would offset the cost of running flights with the panache they deserve.

In a perfect world, this thread would never exist.



RR

[vapilot2004]

"Give me a lamp and a toggle switch with a tell tale warning light on the fail safe items thank you." :}

One problem with glass/lcd is along with the "relative" simplicity and consolidation came less tactile and moving needle feedback and more digital assumptive electrickery.

[jimmygill]

Is it available online.

[ExSp33db1rd]

It doesn't matter from where one receives the information one needs, glass or steam driven, so long as one keeps a clear picture of what it is one wants and is looking for, if I need to know my height I can look at an Altimeter or a moving height 'tape' - so long as I remember what I want and why I want it - and where to find it.

Even before glass cockpits, technology was confusing some, I recall a student F/o giving me a new heading to fly after an ATC change of instruction shortly after departure. I ignored him, and subsequently advised that I wasn't cross with him because he had incorrectly handled the new INS gadget we had recently received, but because we were leaving Singapore for Australia and he wanted me to steer 310 deg ! ( think about it )

An old navigation instructor told me to stop trying to do a maths exam in a rattling steel cabinet, and to imagine that I was sat on the top of the tail steering the aircraft over a map of the World. Great advice, keep the big picture going - in your head.

[Bruce Wayne]

ExSp33db1rd,

Indeed, having read and agreed with many of the prior comments, non-glass cockpit has also caused a degree of problems in representation of data, however i do wonder if and perhaps that maybe a point to consider is that glass cockpits were originally a manner in which to simplify the presentation of data.

Conversely, by way of perhaps 'function creep' the simplified manner of presenting data has become 'layered' with degrees of complexity, display presentation and modes.

Maybe the suggestion by a previous poster of an inverted pyramid is perhaps apt.

Keeping this to a GA environment, as that is the reference point of the study, the commercial operation has a degree of commonality in the fleet and recurrent checks, whereas in the GA environment the lack of commonality breaks down.

Mixed in with various modes and manners of presentation the workload increases and potential loss of situational awareness increases.

Not a good place to be in.

Food for thought ?

[S76Heavy]

Seeing my kids move through virtual reality on the internet, I think that one of the dangers of a "neat" display of information is that one is prone to think that the representation IS reality, and that what is not displayed, is not there in the real world.
So I suspect an overreliance on the displayed information without the knowledge and experience to "see through" the information displayed, is a root cause of it not being safer than old gauges to the inexperienced.

I like the analogy of imagining sitting on the tail and steering the aircraft over the big map. To me it is definately about seeing the larger picture and fitting the displayed information into your mental picture, rather than letting the display become your mental picture.

[cockney steve]

Has anyone considered the relevance of the TYPE of A/craft fitted with Glass?

I would hazard a guess that the "new tech" is predominantly fitted to airframes of the same ilk, IE, modern, slippery composites, far less forgiving than the stodgy spam-cans of yore.
I would not consider training on anything other than analogue instruments,for the same reason I prefer printed manuals to a CD version.

The book is intuitive,-once you know the layout, it's easy to open in the right area and flip between sections.....cycling around through ~600 pages of PDF's and then not being able to read the whole page without scrolling around,is a real ballache. Steam-gauges are simple,intuitive and stand-alone (agreed, superimposed "glass" instruments do have their place.) IMHO, Glass is the sort of environment best-suited to day-in day-out usage and the familiarity that comes with daily intensive use......the GA pilot in the UK, at least, does not fly enough to develop that intimate knowledge of the glass environment that results in instinctive button-pushing of the correct sequence.

I can play with a computer at home, Cockpit instrumentation should be clear, unambiguous and immediately visible -motor-cars have not adopted digital-panels as mainstream,despite the mass-market and the relatively high-intensity use they get.

I'm not a Luddite,but a lot of the argument for glass seems to be "technology for it's own sake" I'm with the others who think a lot of glass adopters have abilities which don't match their purchasing capacity.

[GMDS]

When I changed from a conventional cockpit to full glass, I resented the same as a lot of batchmates. They called it the five color s#!thouse. I saw no depth and had a hard time to find the individual parameter.
Adapting to a flatscreen and finding depth (3rd dimension) was a matter of getting used to and worked after a certain time. To find the individual values, correctly interpret them was another story and took even more time. Eventually it all worked out and I feel comfortable now.
I am a airline pilot and I HAVE RECEIVED that time and can keep on the routine. Private pilots in their light twins or overpowered singles generally DO NOT take or CANNOT afford that time and therfore do not get the routine. So they are prone to the new traps, therefore the increase in incidents, I presume.

Generally the glass instrument layout is overcrowded. Remember when the auto industry tried new forms of tachymeter and rpm indicators (especially the French)? They all eventually came back to a layout with individual instruments, mostly analogue display and generally very much standardised. Why? Because such a layout works best for the average Joe.
If glass cockpit designers for basic training and basic use aircraft would chose a layout with more distinct and individual/single instrument like presentation, I guess we would not have this effect. The lesser trained human perception functions more sequential than parallel and needs a clearer presentation of what it needs at a specific moment. Too many interwoven layouts and especially too many additional gimmicks lead to distraction.

THAT'S what is fatal in a low trained single pilot cockpit.

[Jumb0driver]

I loved most of what RR had posted, and I didn't understand the rest. I converted to glass in my 50's, and found it hard work. I'd flown JP3's, 5's, Hawk and Hunter followed by a mix of A\C with conventional cockpits, and the emphasis was on Airmanship.
Afler I'd got comfortable on the Boeing 744 glass cockpit I was laid off in the great aviation depression of 2008-9, and had the oportunity to try out on the 767. Well it was not pretty, as not only was the glass very different, but some of the Boeing "standard cockpit" items were different. Immagine my surprise when, during the Sim assesment I went to disconnect the auto-throttle, only to hit the toga switch!
My point is this: there are many differing "glass cockpits" even from the same framer. If it is possible to have a standard design, whereby the information required is in the same place on every PFD or ND, be it C172 or B787, then every pilot will have a "standard" from which he/She will be able to start without learning a completly new cockpit display. This should enable new pilots the chance to develop airmanship in a familliar environment without having to put 95% of their brain power into just feeling comfortable with the display/ cockpit environment.

OK. I just realised the problem. The bean counters would have 18 year-olds takinga PPL course in January, and have them PIC on a 744 by march. Sorry i spoke

RW

[Flight Safety]

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.

[safetypee]

“The introduction of GA glass cockpits has not led to expected safety improvements”; but what was expected.
An associated presentation suggests that the expectation was an overall improvement in safety and not anything specifically. The ‘glass cockpit’ accident rate trends towards IFR flight and with lower experience pilots. Thus the failed expectation may be related to problems with ‘glass’ in providing situation awareness via the displays, or that the pilots lack instrument flying skills either generally, or specifically in glass cockpits.

From a very limited evaluation of a modern ‘wide screen’ GA display, the capability for accurate instrument flight appears less than with a conventional format. Whilst large scale ‘ground’ visualisation provides attitude information it can detract from speed and altitude awareness.
Some displays have been promoted as presenting the big picture instantaneously, but IMHO none are as good as ‘dial’ instruments - ASI, Altimeter, and VSI.
It is the skilled use of these instruments which enable the formulation of the big picture. This is the mental model of the aircraft’s flight path and which is taught and enhanced via an instrument scan.

Many commercial aircraft EFIS suffer similar problems, but the difference in comparison with GA could be greater use of automation, which might alleviate some of the EFIS weaknesses, and higher instrument flying skill levels, although these may suffer derogation with automation use.

[ExSp33db1rd]

I think one of the problems with Glass cockpits is the ability for manufacturers to add too many surplus 'attractions' to sell more units, the old planned obsolescence ploy.

The only requirement is to move a piece of machinery safely from A to B, all the rest is to help avoid hitting another piece of machinery ( or the ground ! ) on the way, all the old aircraft managed that perfectly well, by and large. All the add-ons that were invented like Altitude Alert, TACAS etc. came about as the volume of traffic increased and the ATC environment became more complicated, and is a very valid reason - within limits - but the Glass Cockpit Industry is progressing like the mobile telephone industry, the examples of which now do just about everything except make a simple voice contact between two parties, and are complicated to use as a consequence - at least to me !!

I differ in this opinion only with regard to INS, ( now superceded by GPS )the coming of which,in my opinion, was the greatest advance in aviation in our present lifetime.

I have a friend who was an Electronics Engineer in the aviation inustry, and who now owns his own aeroplane, he has fitted it with a Glass cockpit, including auto-pilot and virtually a full FMS system and I believe he is working on an auto-land facility - but it is a Microlight ( LSA ) ! Microlights are forbidden to fly at night, or in IFR, so this is just for fun, and has no place in the general Microlight World of course.

The points mentioned about G.A./ Recreational pilots not being current on the various displays available, and therefore more at risk, is very valid, I've just been type rated on a new, to me, microlight type that is fitted with a digital RPM readout - I hate it, can't see it easily, can't see a 'trend' out of the corner of my eye as the large needle ( not ) moves. Bit like a digital watch, one looks at the 'picture' to tell the time, and the traditional " T " layout was familiar on all aircraft.

Still, I must confess that youngsters who have a couple of years experience of Flight Simulator who now come along to learn to fly, are a breed apart, I might not send them solo, but I might give them an Instrument Rating on their first lesson! - but Airmanship ? that still has to be gained, and that is the same be it glass or steam.

( I get my own back when we start stalling exercises - when you stall a computer game you don't fall off your chair ! )

back to my cave

[protectthehornet]

I agree with you that airmanship still has to be gained...and like simmering a stew, takes a long time.

Glass can be fine...if the pilot has the time to learn it, understand it and practice it...and has a steam gauge backup that is big enough for old eyes to see easily. but airlines don't want to take the time to teach you...you will learn on the line is often a phrase I have heard.

But airmanship...that takes time...and a wee dram of luck.

[Huck]

This topic is red-hot at my company right now.

Here's what I think: when glass/FMS/two-man cockpits were introduced in the 1990's here, all the pilots were coming over from rope-start aircraft. They had the requisite skills, airmanship and situational awareness to fly analog already, so the glass training was just to learn the new capabilities.

Now, we've got guys/gals coming up that have never flown round dials - they went from RJ's to the 757 to the 777. Not a bad way to come up, but it does require a little more emphasis on basic airmanship that was not previously required.

[p51guy]

Starting your career in a glass cockpit must be quite an experience.

Us old guys started with baby steps. Starting with taildraggers and eventually getting into electric airplanes that had batteries to start the engine and a radio plus lights to fly at night. Much much later we got HSI's so you didn't have to fly back course localizer approaches flying opposite the needle. Then one day we got to fly a plane with an autopilot. Wow. It held altitude and heading so you didn't have to do it. The round gauges were now a welcome help after learning to fly with a needle ball and airspeed. Then came autoland and you didn't even need to touch the controls, just monitor them.

Now all of that is bypassed so our new young pilots are taught how to manage a flight guidance system. Our new SOP's at a lot of airlines throughout the world is to encourage total automation.

I hope it works. We will eventually see. Once the Sully generation is gone.

[ExSp33db1rd]

.......but it does require a little more emphasis on basic airmanship that was not previously required


Disagree there, basic airmanship was always a first requirement, but I think it might need a greater 'understanding' of why various bits of information are being presented, and where to look for that information when one needs it, e.g. you need to know speed, height, heading, engine parameters etc., and it was probably easier to assimilate all that when one had direct hands-on control over all the variable factors, rather than just sitting watching the computer do it all and wondering why it's doing that now !!


Starting your career in a glass cockpit must be quite an experience.


Not sure, after all they have nothing to compare it to, and are being taught how to use the tools they will use for the rest of their lives, so will probably build from the bottom up and think nothing of it.

I started to fly with a bunch who had previously flown Tiger Moths, and they were sh*t scared of the prospect of flying the Harvard - our ab initio trainer - whereas I was an Innocent Abroad, it was an aeroplane, wasn't it, and weren't we going to be taught to fly it ? Of course they solo'd sooner than me, they had some basic handling experience - and airmanship - that surprise, surprise translated to handling the Harvard, just another aeroplane.

I recall another Nav. instructor telling me that I'd never make a navigator until I'd been over Berlin with the shells coming throught the cockpit whilst I tried to work out the wind velocity by flying three headings 120 deg. apart and assessing the drift on each leg through the drift sight ! I never had to,but years later I despaired of my own students attempts to use the sextant to navigate across the Atlantic, but they never had to, by the time they were ready to join the line, INS had come along.

Later on, teaching young co-pilots who had experience of Flight Simulator, a colleague remarked that whereas they could fly an instrument approach to minima better than we ever could ( maybe ! ) they had trouble breaking out and connecting the real aeroplane to the real World, whereas the old (but considerably younger than I am now ! ) W.W. II bomber pilots that we started our airline career with couldn't fly an ILS to save their lives ( well, some of them ! ) and yet drop out of cloud too high, too fast, not configured and say "The runway is over there - Sir " they would straighten out and fly an immaculate visual approach and touchdown - even with a tail-dragger.

It's Horses for Courses, each generation have their own mountains to climb.

[jackharr]

I don’t have much experience of glass cockpits although a hybrid was introduced into our 146s just before I retired.

You people seem saying that the all-singing all-dancing display has serious drawbacks when compared to old fashioned round dials; I can well understand the reasoning. But do you have problems with electronic displays that look and behave like the old analogue instruments? Surely modern electronics are far more reliable – and probably cheaper - than “steam” driven instruments? Does, for example an electronic (digital) turn and slip exist? I have in the back of my mind the concept of an alternative display that mimics traditional instruments but is actually glass (electronic). It would be a good system in training aircraft but being so out of touch now (12th year of retirement), for all I know such things already exist.

Jack

[vapilot2004]

I think the problem the NTSB presents is simple. Replacing numerous needles, dials and readouts with a handful of CRT's (later LCD's) held more promise than it delivered. Having related information collated onto a single display eases roving eyes and the addition of trend tell tales and critical number bracketing will surely enhance the safe operation of any aircraft. Or will it?

I recall reading a human factors paper put out by either Stanford or MIT in the early eighties where they looked at how we interpret single device data (gauge) compared to one item among multiple readouts on glass.

It was discovered that a discrete device generally produced a stronger stimulus in comparison to a number or graphical readout on a CRT screen. The difference had something to do with how our mind works - words to the effect of "more 'weight' was assigned to the stand-alone gauge" and one reason given was "the gauge occupied a physical station on a panel board or aircraft cockpit."

The recommendation? You guessed it. Training.

[protectthehornet]

some of you know that you can get a multi engine rating limited to center line thrust...like a cessna 337, citation (some) and even the F4 phantom (according to an old phantom driver)

perhaps the time has come to offer a glass instrument rating and a steam gauge instrument rating...ditto for ATP and types .

when you are coming in to land...you watch your airspeed...but with everything plus the kitchen sink maybe the brain isn't set up to do that right with glass?

[barit1]

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer 1820-1903

:uhoh:

[p51guy]

We went to Capetown, South Africa a few years ago and coming home to the US my pilot friend and I along with our wives were invited up to the cockpit in mid flight. It was a 747-400 with a glass cockpit. We had a long chat with the captain, invited him to the Reno Air Races, and he was happy to have somebody to talk to. This was prior to 9/11.

I didn't want to show my ignorance so didn't ask but it took me 15 minutes to find our altitude on the glass cockpit. Maybe the suggestion of a glass cockpit rating is warranted. Seems like overkill but maybe a glass cockpit panel signoff, like being signed off for x-country as a student pilot would be good. I see a lot of my friends being concerned about if they are getting a glass sim or not on their next training. Most have little or no exposure to it.

I remember our 2 day course to qualify for our new B737 300 from the 200 using computer trainers. Two months later you got your first flight and you can guess how that went because the FO had the same training. They said you would learn it on the line. From who?

[Re-Heat]

I remember our 2 day course to qualify for our new B737 300 from the 200 using computer trainers. Two months later you got your first flight and you can guess how that went because the FO had the same training. They said you would learn it on the line. From who?
Slightly ludicrous given the complexity/capability of the aircraft (even over the more-glass 757) - that would seem to be FAA-led rather than pervasive over the world though, as other regimes required greater training on transfer.

Not wishing to divert too much, the FAA has abdicated so much on their reg responsibilities as compared to what is done elsewhere, relying on union agreements that are no longer effective post-deregulation, that it is not fit for adequate oversight. Not much near-term change is going to happen from Washington though...

I think this whole thread is slightly missing the point (aside from the fact that the main subject was GA in the report):

- Quirky design is unhelpful if it differs from instinctive knowledge - regardless of a glass or steam-dial flightdeck (particularly for a GA pilot) - the quid pro quo is that familiarity for the 200hr fATPL is better where training is consistent and designed to the type flown on the line...even if they have not experienced the seat of the pants moments as much...
- Gizmos must be Apple-ised if they are to be useful and not distract from aviate/navigate/communicate principles
- PPL piston ratings should possibly have restrictions based upon cockpit complexity, rather than present limitations based solely on mechanical complexity

Many cockpit designs are killers if you are not instinctively used to them - think of Soviet AIs, or complexity of something like the B1B or B52 - none of the below mass-produced cockpits are standard

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/cockpits/b1b/b1b_panel_01.jpg
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/fint-HORIZON-%28SEND%29.jpg
http://www.genebenson.com/Neat%20Stuff/neat_stuff_images/b_52_cockpit_2.jpg
http://scharch.org/Dick_Baer/_RFB%20Images/B-17_Cockpit.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3357491706_3c8e576f90.jpg

There is a difference between acknowledging poor design and being precious about change though...!

[p51guy]

The 737 300 was FMC, not glass cockpit. The VNAV and LNAV was what we had never seen before. The FMC was the transition, not the glass cockpit which had not happened yet. I was saying it takes time to adapt to new technology. You don't do a two day course and sometime later go out and know what you are doing.

I guess that is why I have no problem going back to 727 mode and flying the clearance manually until the automation agrees with the way we are going. I know what the clearance says, I don,t have time to reprogram at this point. Aviate, navigate, communicate comes to mind when things turn to s**t.

[Centaurus]

I have in the back of my mind the concept of an alternative display that mimics traditional instruments but is actually glass (electronic). It would be a good system in training aircraft but being so out of touch now (12th year of retirement), for all I know such things already exist

I first flew a glass cockpit 737-300 in 1990 and had no trouble converting from the analogue 737-200. To me the glass cockpit was nothing more than a pretty looking ADI and HSI. I hardly ever used the MAP mode apart from curiosity because I could constantly fix my position with the usual combination of RMI needles, DME and VOR/ILS course indicators. I suppose you could call it the big picture.

It was around then that some airlines operating the new 737-300 took the option of staying with the standard flight instrument panel of round dials in one screen that was available in EFIS form. I believe that was a good idea because it avoided the danger of fixation on one instrument that had so much glass cockpit information presented on it - the ADI and its peripherals within that instrument such as drum ASI, IVSI, LOC and GS, ground speed and radio altimeter etc.

Instrument scan was required just like the 737-200 and pilots had no problem with rusty scan technique that is now the bane of the current generation of flight crew. But there again, isn't the current thinking by airlines that instrument scan is far less important that the past generation of pilots think - if only because the name of the game is full use of all automatics from lift off to touch down and everything is done for you by the PFM boxes?

I often wonder how many operators retain that glass cockpit concept of standard round dials? Not many, I bet.

[Re-Heat]

The 737 300 was FMC, not glass cockpit. The VNAV and LNAV was what we had never seen before. The FMC was the transition, not the glass cockpit which had not happened yet. I was saying it takes time to adapt to new technology. You don't do a two day course and sometime later go out and know what you are doing.
Yes, I know and I agree with you - certainly training as you described in not fit for purpose without gaining and maintaining regular currency. The -300 did of course have 2 years' additional development over the 757 that was already flying.

I often wonder how many operators retain that glass cockpit concept of standard round dials? Not many, I bet.
Same bizarre step option was available on the NG transition - you could have it delivered with 3/4/5 instrumentation portrayal on the screens or a full glass 777.

Degraded scan is a real problem at all levels of aviation, though I would go so far as to say that most PPL instructors don't place enough emphasis on it (if at all). Hardly helps when flying with an abnormal glass cockpit, and you don't even have a framework by which you regularly monitor the "right" outputs.

[GMDS]

Some adapt faster to a new cockpit than others, it's sometimes also a matter of self percetion ...

I find it however quite revealing that for their direct recruitment on new equipment, airlines make a marked distinction between conventional and glass cockpit experience. Now where do you think this might originate? Could it be statistics of failure or higher training needs? I do think so.

Considering that, it must come as no surprise what the NTSB found out. The remedy is training, which implies cost and time ... and those two seem to be the biggest hurdles in privat and commercial aviation.

[protectthehornet]

when our airline went from low tech (DC9, 737-200, 300, 757) to high tech airbus. it turned out that those with no FMC experience learned the airbus FMC fsater than those who had to forget the boeing way and learn the airbus way.

[411A]

You are 411A and I claim my 5 dollars...

Sorry, Cat, you lose.

In my view, the new glass panels actually has improved safety in GA airplanes, especially in some cases of nightime situational awareness....at least that is what my friends tell me that have 'converted'.

Now, having said this, would I convert my forty year old twin to glass...not likely, I like it just the way it is, with its forty year old airline radios (King Gold Crown) and all.

MY idea of a good glass cockpit is one with nice big windows

Likewise...and I've flown one for the last thirty years...TriStar.:)

[KiloMikePapa]

p51guy:
I didn't want to show my ignorance so didn't ask but it took me 15 minutes to find our altitude on the glass cockpit.

I find that very hard to believe and that is putting it mildly! 15 minutes :eek:? And how many pilots have misread the traditional 3 pointer altimeter in a critical situation (with led to the introduction of the easier to read drum type altitude indicator on some types)?
File:3-Pointer Altimeter.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3-Pointer_Altimeter.svg)

A look at the PFD of the 747-400:

Photos: Boeing 747-428F/ER/SCD Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France-Cargo/Boeing-747-428F-ER-SCD/1020062/L/&sid=1dcf755f16cbec6866679711e4346a94)

[Centaurus]

The 737 300 was FMC, not glass cockpit.

I must be going nuts here or most probably I have missed the point. I flew many hours on the 737-300 and that was certainly an EFIS glass cockpit type. Certainly all the regulators I have dealt with considered the 737-300 EFIS was by definition a glass-cockpit aircraft. Sure the first 737-300's were non-EFIS and there are a few still around in Indonesia for a start.

[protectthehornet]

my airline ( a big major US carrier) still has some 737-300's with FMC and steam gauges.

it does happen...and p51 guy is quite right.

so, that's the story here in the states.

[Piltdown Man]

I am really pleased that the NTSB has released this report. Glass is over complicated. You have to beat too much information into the wretched thing to give you the time of day let alone where you are let alone where you are going. Personally, I think there should be a switch fitted to these systems so you are able to give the software engineer's balls a tweak when the system doesn't work at advertised. If such a device was fitted, within a few minutes you'd find that the only people prepared to work on these systems were women.

There's no surprise it doesn't work on small aircraft. Fancy systems installed in aircraft (and probably everything else) only ever appear to work in the hands of those who are 1. Prepared to learn how to use them and 2. Those who have Plan B running alongside Plan A for when that one fails.

PM

[p51guy]

When I was reluctant to admit my ignorance of not being able to find the altitude in the 747 glass cockpit we were carrying on a discussion about other things too. Until that night I knew where the altimeter was located on all aircraft I had flown. I could have spent the last several years of my career on a B777 but didn't want to fly all nighters and be on reserve. My buddies in my class were on it and tried to coax me to switch. Finally one of them said "stay on the B757/767". He said I had a flight last week to Brazil at midnight and it took me 45 minutes to find the autopilot switch. I didn't want to embarrass myself so hand flew it. He hadn't flown for so long he forgot where the switch was. A captain that can't turn on the autopilot doesn't exude much confidence with his crew. He was an ex Marine fighter pilot so he was really good at handflying.

[Sciolistes]

Some bizarre stuff being posted here :\

[KiloMikePapa]

If true, some of the statements are not only bizarre but also downright scary :eek:

[oceancrosser]

Oh no worries, PTH will tell you that's just normal in the USA... :}

[Re-Heat]

Boeings are not radically different between models - most things are in a similar location...:eek:

[protectthehornet]

it seems to me that the non navigational displays are quite small...airspeed/altitude and the like

so, it also seems to me that this type of display was more for attitude and monitoring of the flight director/autopilot system.

and I think that makes is less friendly to pilots hand flying the plane.

I am all for information in the cockpit...moving maps and the like...but when we reduce the really important stuff...the ''aviate'' stuff ( aviate navigate communicate) we are asking for problems.

[iceman50]

protectthehornet

I really think you should come out of the past and move forward!

As for
it also seems to me that this type of display was more for attitude and monitoring of the flight director/autopilot system.

and I think that makes is less friendly to pilots hand flying the plane.

Attitude is the most important instrument! That is why it is big and in the centre!! You talk about the "T" scan have you ever heard of the "selective radial scan"?

and

when our airline went from low tech (DC9, 737-200, 300, 757) to high tech airbus. it turned out that those with no FMC experience learned the airbus FMC fsater than those who had to forget the boeing way and learn the airbus way.
must have been a problem with your airline then, as when I changed from 6 years B757/767 to A340/A330 there was NO major hurdle you just had to LEARN the slightly different way of doing it. Allegedly the reasons for the differences was that Mr Boeing did not want Mr Airbus to have the same buttons / pages on their MDCU's. Great for win for "Flight Safety"!

[protectthehornet]

Iceman 50

yes, attitude is very important...and I'm sure the pilot of Colgan near BUF was looking at it.

too bad he wasn't watching his airspeed....out of the past indeed!

ocean crosser...what is your problem?

[Chocks_Away85]

I wish that the G-1000/Avidyne and others had a basic function where you can turn off all the excessive-ness and just present the 6 main guages in standard format.

Ok so the redundancy still isn't there but as I am still a student PPL I would love to just turn off the GPS r/h screen, and flick the PFD over to the 6 core instruments found in any good trainer.

I really don't care too much for all the information the screen gives, things like V-speed pennants on the ASI should be in your head if you are familiar on type. It gradually pushes the information out of your head and into the screen making you feel like you don't need to remember.

Mobile phones are a good analogy, years ago everybody had to remember peoples numbers or write them in a notepad. Now everybody freaks when their phone is broken, damaged or they forget it because they can't remember things without it.

Reliance on technology in this way is troublesome.

[p51guy]

Chocks, I hope you keep thinking the same way no matter what you see posted here. You seem to have the right idea of how to fly using real info vs computed data. The new generation will disagree with you but you somehow found a way to fly the way it was meant to be. You are very lucky. Now go out and have a wonderful career doing it just the way you are. Thank whoever taught you or congratulations on figuring it out yourself. I had a combination of both.

[con-pilot]

I agree with p51guy, master the basics of instrument flying and everything else comes easy.

From an old fart that thought he had died and gone to heaven when I flew an aircraft with a real flight director. PN-108 if any one cares. With no pitch sync.

[iceman50]

Chocks_Away85

I really don't care too much for all the information the screen gives, things like V-speed pennants on the ASI should be in your head if you are familiar on type.

That comment unfortunately shows your inexperience. The system is probably designed to train for the future where in "large" aircraft the V speeds vary markedly depending upon many variables. Plus on the round dials we used to set "bugs" and when the proverbial hits the fan and you loose yet more of the "brain power" the "bugs" will assist.

Basic instrument scan is a must and it can be done on modern PFD's.

p51guy

how to fly using real info vs computed data

The data is all "computed" it is the "presentation" that is different. A bug in the pitot will screw up round dials just as much as "glass".

protectthehornet

yes, attitude is very important...and I'm sure the pilot of Colgan near BUF was looking at it.

too bad he wasn't watching his airspeed....out of the past indeed!

Pity you did not read my point about "scan" as that would obviously have solved his lack of attention to speed. However, there were many more holes in the swiss cheese on that accident so it does not support your thinking.

Yes out of the past because you seem to live there along with a few others and do not want to move into the future. A WIWO! (When I was on).

A lot of what we are discussing comes down to basic AIRMANSHIP.

[protectthehornet]

past vs. future:

in the past we landed on the moon...but we can't do that now.

Maybe, just maybe the older ways of computing everything yourself made you more ''in the loop'' and having machines do everything for you takes you out of the loop.

The old ways were just fine...refine them a bit is fine...its like George Costanza and his view on toilet paper.

[p51guy]

Chocks, I hope you keep thinking the same way no matter what you see posted here. You seem to have the right idea of how to fly using real info vs computed data. The new generation will disagree with you but you somehow found a way to fly the way it was meant to be. You are very lucky.

The post above proves my point.

[iceman50]

p51guy / protectthehornet

Avoid the reality and keep the blinkers on guys, you never address the points I or others are trying to make.

By the way I am NOT new generation, very much yours!!:ugh:

[protectthehornet]

isn't the whole point the need for training to proficiency and not just ''you will learn it on the line''?

There is no time to learn on the line. You are either fully competent or not. And the same thing for GA flyers...even more so as they rarely have copilots.

Sadly, engineers who create the gee whiz stuff have forgotten some earlier learned lessons. Buttons, switches and the like use to have specific shapes to remind pilots what did what. Multi use switches can be confusing. (reminded of the collision over brazil and whether the transponder was ON on the biz jet)

iceman...sometimes we don't respond to your points just ''cuz''.

I like the physicallity of moving a bug on the airspeed indicator...making a calculation...but I also want an AOA backup. I know one guy who landed hard...oops...garbage in garbage out...20,000 lbs overweight.

[p51guy]

Good for you. If you can't get basic instrument training using your G1000 panel, rent an older generation aircraft with basic instruments. It will be essential if you ever lose electrical power at night and are down to basic standby power or no instruments. Automation is great if it is backed up with basics. Glass cockpits are great likewise. Always be able to go back to needle, ball, and airspeed if that is all you have. You never know when your airline goes out of business and you will be required to fly a 737-200 for somebody else. Flying a B757 I occasionally went to whiskey compass, standby altimiter and airspeed scan to refresh my scan. I even remembered the lead, lag error on north south headings.
Chocks,

[p51guy]

Last resort if everything fails point south and the compass will keep you level. Just make sure the ceiling is above the terrain. It works in the J3 Cub.

[fdr]

SB-10-07 (http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2010/100309.html)


"the truth is never pure and rarely simple"
Oscar Wilde "The importance of being Earnest, Act I", Feb 1895 (1854 - 1900)

It may be well worthwhile awaiting the availability of the full report before renting clothing & gnashing teeth. The basic data provided does show significantly lower overall rates of accidents per aircraft (glass,2.3%, steam 5.0% of delivered aircraft suffered an accident) but a higher fatality rate per accident for glass, (31% accidents fatal, vs 16% for steam) The fatal accident rate for each aircraft fleet size, is actually lower on the glass aircraft, 0.71%, vs 0.81%, but the glass aircraft utilization is far lower so the per hour rate is higher so glass has recorded a 1.03/100,000FH, vs 0.43/100,000FH for steam. The Glass fleet total hrs are approximately 3,786,000, or 686 per delivered aircraft, vs 5,348,000/1,878 hrs for steam aircraft.

The aircraft have a statistically significant utilization rate, (686FH/AC vs 1,878/AC steam) and if the overall VFR/IFR mix is weighted towards the glass cockpit aircraft, then there is a much larger exposure of the glass aircraft to IFR use.

Due to inherent potential for any IFR accident to be fatal, the information provided doesn't give a balanced evaluation of relative risk until such time as the population data is normalised for IFR/VFR utilisation.

the comment by NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman highlighting the role that training plays in preventing accidents involving these airplanes:

"As we discussed today, training is clearly one of the key components to reducing the accident rate of light planes equipped with glass cockpits, and this study clearly demonstrates the life and death importance of appropriate training on these complex systems... We know that while many pilots have thousands of hours of experience with conventional flight instruments, that alone is just not enough to prepare them to safely operate airplanes equipped with these glass cockpit features."

Sounds reasonable, but is not necessarily supported by the data without deeper analysis, which one hopes NTSB has conducted and placed in the full report.

Airspace complexity and congestion have altered significantly over time, and the benefits of the nav display improvements are profound. If the latest "virtual world" attitude displays are confusing, then we are in the wrong business. While pilots have been denigrated in many ways to being bus drivers (or worse as one writer has commented), the job will always be high kinetic energy and dealing with multiple conflicting demands and variables. As noted by Dr Richard Feynman in Appendix F - Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle [dissenting opinion] to the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, "The Rogers Commission":

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

Don't be too hasty discounting benefits of "glass" with proper training, safe/conservative flight decision making, and practice... nor assume that a slick expensive panel will make up for hazardous attitudes or a basic disregard for the art of flying.

"James Ross Clemens, a cousin of mine was seriously ill two or three weeks ago in London is well now.
The report of my illness grew out of his illness, this report of my death was an exaggeration. Mark Twain" Mark Twain, May 1897 (1835 - 1910)

fly safe,

FDR

[fr8tmastr]

"Oh no worries, PTH will tell you that's just normal in the USA..."


Is your problem with the USA or just USA pilots?

[oceancrosser]

Neither actually. But do read through the posts here, and you will find some "bizarre" (other peoples choice of word) postings. End of discussion for me.

[protectthehornet]

LOL

Bizare posts...someone actually said this about a post on a 737-300 not having EFIS...well some don't , yet they do have FMC and IRS

and I'm not talking about the internal revenue service.

People can't imagine that, but it was done. And that's that.

[p51guy]

Air Cal got some of the earliest 737-300's. We were not very well trained in how it worked but got a 2 day course so since most of our ac were 200's we probably didn't fly the 300 for months so had to play catch up when we got assigned to one. They didn't have glass cockpit but had the FMC that we had never seen before. If we could have transitioned to the 300 it would have worked but we only had 7 so might fly one every two or three months.

Sometimes it was just easier to hand fly it than program a complex departure that would create major power changes multiple times to accomplish what we could do very gracefully using pilotage. The San Jose departure southbound to LAX was a good example. I got the airplane one day and was so frustrated with the way the automation would do it I hand flew half way to LAX because I would never fly the way the autopilot was going to do it. We know how to make a nice smooth departure planning crossing points etc. but the autopilot only knows how to technically make them with no thought to passenger comfort.

I always flew in a way that made everybody feel they were in their living room as a corporate pilot. I tried to carry it into airline flying.

[A37575]

to accomplish what we could do very gracefully using pilotage.

Nicely worded..:ok: