NTSB Report on Glass Cockpits [Archive]

IO540

11th Mar 2010, 09:07

The report states "Sufficient data to make statistical comparisons" but clearly (on the evidence presented) this is not the case.

The way that different usage of conventional v. glass (which is basically a old v. modern comparison, since few people buy a plane for a specific type of panel) affects the risk profile is very complex. The training fleets vary, and most new planes have been "glass" for years.

So while it comes as no surpise that glass is involved in more fatal accidents (on predictable mission profile differences) I don't think one can draw any conclusions whatever, either way, about whether glass is safer per mile or per hour, etc.

Airlines discovered many years ago that more cockpit automation does improve safety, but only if the pilots understand the systems adequately. This is taken care of in First World airlines, but GA has historically lagged behind because in any given bunch of PPLs you get a load of pilots saying "I only want to do aerobatics so why should I learn about this and that" and the framework is not in place for formal training based on avionics complexity (yet we do have formal training requirements for trivia like retractable landing gear - yeah right, that's really complex....).

There is a more general thing in that private pilots are much less likely to have an anywhere near adequate understanding of all systems in a more complex plane. A "clever" instrument pilot will probably know how his air data computer gets the data and which instruments that data goes to, etc, but nowadays a lot of people with a PPL and $400k are buying planes with this kind of kit, and it's obvious that many will not have the full technical understanding. It's OK all the time everything is working but if there is a major failure they won't know what to do. But, "glass" as such doesn't come into this; you could have exactly the same avionics complexity with or without large LCD displays. A decent late-1990s avionics fit can be very similar to the latest G1000 installation in functionality - albeit without so many eggs in one basket.

And if a pilot cannot fly on the backup gauges, what can one do?? Some of the accident reports suggest that some people have been particularly dumb.

So I don't think "glass" has changed things much. When I got my TB20, new, in 2002, I got virtually no manuals and never found an instructor who knew much about it. The instructor who signed off my diff training (the one with the "ATPL", yeah right) did not know how an HSI worked, and the KLN94 GPS was well out of his comfort range :) I was technically relatively smart but the average pilot would have struggled, and I know other IFR pilots who have air data computers (£5k) but really don't understand their (non-glass) aircraft. This scenario is probably played out at various levels, anywhere below the "jet type rating" province where for obvious reasons things have been seriously tightened up.

Sciolistes

11th Mar 2010, 09:55

The obvious thing is the mission profile with most conventional instrumented aircraft being used for training and the type of incidents seem reflect newbie cockups. Also, the type of glass SEP aircraft that we are talking about, will exceed VNE extremely quickly once nose down. Not something your average spam can fixed gear and prop trainer would do quite so readily.

But I think also it seems that these glass systems aren't as reliable as perhaps the operators expect them to be and the NTSB points out that failure can be annunciated in a less than friendly way. The slides seem to intimate that a conventional ASI would have gradual loss whereas the G1000 would just remove the information. That doesn't seem right. My only experience of glass is in the 737 and on that the EADI would show the same as the conventional ASI for any class pitot pressure problem. If however the failure was the ADC then the speed tape would be replaced with a flag and a flag would also appear on the ASI with no reading leaving only the standby. Surely the G1000 would work the same way?

I take the point about complexity, we have a CRM process and a book that tells us what actions to perform for the vast majority of failures. We have had FMC and SG failures as well as equipment cooling failure which lead to the sudden appearance of multiple warnings, a totally blank EHSI screen or a degraded EADI. Not something a single pilot can easily accomplish and yet there is probably more to understand (avionics wise) for the G1000 pilot too. For example would certain failure modes automatically disconnect the autopilot? If not should the pilot be required to manually disconnect? What other systems could be affected by the failure of another? Are the warning annunciations helpful or just plain confusing? Why not display "INOP - USE STBY ASI" rather than a big red X?

And if a pilot cannot fly on the backup gauges, what can one do??
What indeed? The reality is that they probably can during training. I remember my IMC and IR training. Totally predictable upset attitudes. A real upset happens by surprise. But PPLs don't get the benefit of full flight sim training that we do. If that were available and required part of the syllabus the difference in ability would on another level.

Mark1234

11th Mar 2010, 11:08

Airlines discovered many years ago that more cockpit automation does improve safety, but only if the pilots understand the systems adequately. This is taken care of in First World airlines, but GA has historically lagged behind because in any given bunch of PPLs you get a load of pilots saying "I only want to do aerobatics so why should I learn about this and that" and the framework is not in place for formal training based on avionics complexity (yet we do have formal training requirements for trivia like retractable landing gear - yeah right, that's really complex....).Agreed wrt to training, howver I'd suggest that that's an equally flawed comparison - Airlines have also found that there is improved safety in standardisation. In an airline environment you're type-rated on a particular machine, and there's a lot to learn about each machine, they're complicated, and it's a full time job.

One size does not fit all.

I'm sure glass has the *potential* to improve on traditional 'steam' instruments, but for GA I'd suggest it has a way to go yet. I also tend to believe that there's an element of the pilot getting out of the loop when too much is offloaded to the automation - something they're aware of in the airline / CRM world. GA is a wide church; while some it may be closer to an airline environment, for some it is a hobby. You may hire, and fly many different a/c, there is relatively little standardisation amongst 'advanced' avionics. The other problem is that the more complex a system is, the more complex the failure modes; introduce software, and you increase that again. For many flying is not a full time job.

Therefore there is (still) significant milage in the KISS principle; the ASI, VOR, and all the rest of the 'steam' instruments work the same, whatever I strap into, the presentation and failure modes are familiar.

IO540

11th Mar 2010, 12:26

Also, the type of glass SEP aircraft that we are talking about, will exceed VNE extremely quickly once nose down.Not sure that's true, given that today one cannot even give away a combine harvester unless it has "glass" :)

Only a very few GA types are in the category you describe, and they are selling in tiny numbers. But sure enough anything will bust Vne if you put it into a 90 degree bank angle first, but GA-IFR types don't have such a rate of roll.

Therefore there is (still) significant milage in the KISS principle; the ASI, VOR, and all the rest of the 'steam' instruments work the same, whatever I strap into, the presentation and failure modes are familiar.

I suspect that will happen once Garmin take over the world. They are 90% done already :)

Mind you, speaking of VORs, the other day I had a VOR instrument failure on a real VOR approach which was a pure duff indication. No flag, and ident was fine... If one didn't have the situational awaneness from reasonable big moving map GPS display, that sort of thing could drive one into terrain.

Type specific training is the only way to address avionics complexity, and the issue will be how to integrate it into a syllabus whose traditionalism is jealously guarded on all fronts.

Mark1234

11th Mar 2010, 14:51

How come we're focussing on IFR here? The report simply says 'single engined a/c' - that can encompass IFR, but presumably a significant portion of SE ops are VFR...

It seems the payback is there already for the more serious pilot who spends most of their time in the same machine, and flys IFR/IMC a lot, though presumably many would want a twin for such flying.

However, I suspect the 'average' SEP pilot is mostly flying relatively un-taxing VFR operations - where quite franky I struggle to see where glass provides a benefit to offset the additional complexity/training requirement (beyond the toy measuring department..) For someone like me who hires, I'd spend my whole time training on different glass systems, and never get any flying done..

IO540

11th Mar 2010, 15:51

How come we're focussing on IFR here?

Probably because IFR operations are a significant factor in crash fatalities. If you hit something in IMC, it is usually fatal, and that skews the figures :)

Of course, nobody should ever hit anything while VFR..... ;) but lots and lots of people still manage to do it somehow ;)

IMHO, for VFR, there is a huge benefit in navigation from having a big piece of glass because situational awareness comes mostly from having a decent size map.

But it is very hard to argue that a glass cockpit (or, more accurately, an EFIS type flight parameter presentation) benefits VFR flight. I suppose a digital display makes it harder to mistake 1000ft from 11000ft :)

However, as I say above, there is evidently a great deal of "VFR" flight in IMC being done around the world, and any instrumentation which helps to keep the plane the right way up has to be a good thing then.

(I am not getting into the map+stopwatch being the "proper airmanship" way to fly; anybody believing that can fly a Tiger Moth and not worry about time passing them by :) ).

2hotwot

11th Mar 2010, 19:30

Aviation has always been a difficult area to make money in but when an opportunity to retrofit all the old fleet with something with a marvellous 'must-have' fashion appeal, comes along there are going to be very few in the industry who are not going to advise that glass is the best thing to happen in aviation since monoplanes.

But then there are still people who will only fly biplanes.;)

Rod1

11th Mar 2010, 19:54

If you are flying an aircraft with an EFIS you must have mandatory difference training signed off in your logbook, just like a CS prop or TW. I have a sticer in my log to prove it...

Rod1

IO540

11th Mar 2010, 20:33

If you are flying an aircraft with an EFIS you must have mandatory difference training signed off in your logbook, just like a CS prop or TW.

Can you reference the ANO on the above?

In any case, the training is probably not going to cover the many electrical failure modes. Or, you can have it if you want it, but nothing actually stops somebody just buying the plane without it.

Aviation has always been a difficult area to make money in but when an opportunity to retrofit all the old fleet with something with a marvellous 'must-have' fashion appeal, comes along there are going to be very few in the industry who are not going to advise that glass is the best thing to happen in aviation since monoplanes.

Absolutely right, and a G1000 costs the airframe maker a lot less than the old separate avionics.

Fuji Abound

11th Mar 2010, 21:33

Can you reference the ANO on the above?

First introduced in LASORS 2008 I think by JAA see below - page 9. Well in Euro land anyway.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Section%20F%20-%20TYPE%20AND%20CLASS%20RATING%20(AEROPLANES%20AND%20HELICOP TERS).pdf

In any case, the training is probably not going to cover the many electrical failure modes.

It should, but I agree whether or not it does, is a different matter.

Unfortunately, and in any event, in my experience both the abridged check lists and the POH are often badly lacking in terms of leading the pilot to the correct diagnosis of the fault never mind what actions to take. I have had annuciated faults with both Avidyne and Garmin and never found a satisfactory reference to either in the POH. Other issues are still surrounded in myth. I was told more than once that a fan failure on the G1000 panels will be swiftly followed by over heating and screen loss. Garmin will tell you a very different story. It is a worry when soemthing so critical is so poorly understood.

but nothing actually stops somebody just buying the plane without it.

Without a log book sign off you would be illegal.

Sciolistes

11th Mar 2010, 23:39

Not sure that's true, given that today one cannot even give away a combine harvester unless it has "glass"
Put another way, according to the slides, the conventional instrument aircraft were generally used for training. These would certainly not be the 25,000' hotships that will not ever be sold without glass in which so many problems occur when things get a bit unusual :)

Airlines have also found that there is improved safety in standardisation. In an airline environment you're type-rated on a particular machine, and there's a lot to learn about each machine, they're complicated, and it's a full time job.
Agreed, but standardisation exists in both camps. A Boeing or Airbus pilot would follow his company SOPs which are in addition to the Boeing/Airbus SOPs. Each company defines their own SOPs albeit often based on somebody else's but these generally have nothing to do with the actual operation of the aircraft, more to do without how the flight is conducted. Those manufacturer SOPs obviously exist in SEPs too.

The problem in both camps is getting pilots to follow the SOPs. In the airline world we are in a rich learning environment. If there is a trend of one long landing in a thousand the issue is jumped on by the standards people and subsequent sim checks include additional training. As a matter of course we have sim checks, line checks, documents, videos, manufacturer reports, internal safety reports not to mention mentor pilots and we fly nearly every day (thunder, fog or shine). Whereas one man and his complex glass SEP? He would need to pursue repetitive learning for several hours for every flying hour to keep get near the level of competency of your average well practised high hour airline crew, even after initial training on type and equipment. Standardisation probably isn't the issue, getting pilot to know and operate to the standards is. Perhaps hotship IMC/IR pilots should do a mandatory sim check more frequently? That would be unpopular.

If you are flying an aircraft with an EFIS you must have mandatory difference training signed off in your logbook, just like a CS prop or TW. I have a sticer in my log to prove it...
The problem is that going flying for a couple of hours is probably not enough to be competent when dealing with abnormal situations in demanding circumstances and complex equipment. The G1000 is more feature rich than 737 avionics and yet differences training is meant to be enough whereas we know what it is like to fly non-normal in demanding conditions because we have done it in the sim.

Who is doing the differences training anyway, in some cases what do they know apart doing a few easy NAVEXs and a CBT?

IO540

12th Mar 2010, 03:36

Fuji - page 9 of that PDF states "pilots should obtain differences training....." which to me does not read like it is mandatory - unlike the old "complex" stuff on the previous page.

Sciolistes

Put another way, according to the slides, the conventional instrument aircraft were generally used for training. These would certainly not be the 25,000' hotships that will not ever be sold without glass in which so many problems occur when things get a bit unusual

I think you will find that glass cockpits are becoming increasingly common on training types in the USA. It may take another 20 years over here...

When I did my IR in Arizona in 2006 I deliberately chose a 'steam gauge' school because I just wanted the IR piece of paper and did not want to spend any time learning about the G1000 (and GPS approaches) when back home I fly with a very different (Honeywell based) panel (and no GPS approaches). But even then many schools out there had G1000 fleets.

The sales of 25000ft-ceiling hotships are a very low % of new sales, today. Taking your figure literally, it is only turbocharged 250HP+ planes i.e. the SR22, Cessna (Lancair) 400, and a bit of even more marginal volume stuff like the Malibu. Unless you want to argue that a fresh PPL can jump into a Meridian or even a TBM700, which legally he can in the USA but he will never get insurance without doing the training course so it doesn't actually happen. But a US pilot will not get insurance for an SR22 either, without getting some specified training...

But historically many planes could make 25000ft. Like I say, anything with a decent motor up front and a turbo. Even my non-turbo TB20 can make 20000, and the TB21 makes 25000. These things have been around, selling steadily, for decades.

Whether you call these "slippery" is debatable. Any plane will make Vne fast if you knife edge it :) I would not call a TB20 "slippery" in any scenario where the pilot is anywhere near conscious and in control. The Cessna 400 gets its sales brochure speed from an impressive fuel flow figure, not from impressive aerodynamics ;)

So glass cockpits are nothing new really when it comes to people killing themselves through loss of control.

And a big 10" LCD with a big picture of the horizon, with brown underneath and blue above, is pretty good for keeping the whole thing the right way up :)

What might be more relevant IMHO would be an analysis of how many EFIS system failures have resulted in loss of control. There are many stories of system crashes, etc (Avidyne especially) but I don't think the figure is statistically significant in loss of control in IMC accidents.

Especially as, taking your 25000ft plane example again, the whole point of that kind of operating ceiling is that you spend 99% of your time in VMC, above the muck.

Sciolistes

12th Mar 2010, 04:29

IO540,
This point was only peripheral, the main one being that complex glass aircraft pilots cannot be expected to cope with demanding avionics non-normals if they haven't actually done it in the sim.

With regards to the minor Vne point, try a near Vne dive in your average fixed prop aircraft and try the same thing with a constant speed prop aircraft. You would probably run out of altitude in the former, in the latter as little as 2,000' is needed to go from cruise to loosing bit and bobs off the airframe :uhoh:

Fuji Abound

12th Mar 2010, 08:01

Fuji - page 9 of that PDF states "pilots should obtain differences training....." which to me does not read like it is mandatory - unlike the old "complex" stuff on the previous page.

I agree it is a little tenuous as is so often the case with aviation law. I think you need to refer to JAR-FCL 1.215 in which EFIS are recognised as a difference and then to the ANO which states that differences shall have the meaning defined by 1.215. Whether after that run around you conclude it is mandatory or not I will leave up to you. Of course as usual without a difference sign off you could be vunerable in the event of an accident. Note also the para. at the top of LASORS which for a change is quite clear - along the lines the JAA formally recognise EFIS as REQUIRING differences training which has more of a ring of MUST about it.

As to primary failures I think it is fair to say there is a significant shift to multiple redundacy - Garmin have always enabled the PDF to be swapped with the MDF and Avidyne now do that as well. A single AHARS and a single electronic gyro were other primary failure points which have been eliminated in both manufacturers latest offerings. Of course there is plenty of "old" kit which will remain in circulation for a many years. As always in aviation buy generation 3 and not generations 1 or 2. I cant prove it but I suspect with the latest offerings the chances of losing the AI is about the same as losing both AI in a dual steam gauge system with each run off a seperate system.

Many Cirrus operators have been told to pull the chute if they find themselves in IMC and suffer a complete Avidyne failure - now there is a thought. :) However it should also be remembered all of these glass ships have a perfectly sound steam gauge AI - it is called a backup instrument but it is no different from the primary AI in many aircraft. If you are unlucky enough to find yourself bouncing around in solid IMC when the PDF and MDF both shut down maintaining control AND finding a way down particularly if the cloud is on the deck is always going to be a challenge additionally so without any radio nav aids and essentially only an AI and magnetic compass with which to work. The radios should keep going even when these are integrated into the panel (G1000), with old Avidynes you would be very unlucky to have the Garmins fail at the same time and the auto pilot should still be your friend so there are still plenty of options but it is in those scenarios good training and solid skills will ultimately be required to save the day and persuade the pilot that he is better off not giving up and pulling the chute.

IO540

12th Mar 2010, 08:46

complex glass aircraft pilots cannot be expected to cope with demanding avionics non-normals if they haven't actually done it in the sim.

Or having had suitable training with somebody who understands the systems. There is a severe shortage of sims around for GA, because they are so expensive.

With regards to the minor Vne point, try a near Vne dive in your average fixed prop aircraft and try the same thing with a constant speed prop aircraft. You would probably run out of altitude in the former, in the latter as little as 2,000' is needed to go from cruise to loosing bit and bobs off the airframe

I agree that if you rolled it 90 degrees then 2000ft would be enough to reach Vne. As to when bits start falling off, that would depend on how it was made :)

I suspect with the latest offerings the chances of losing the AI is about the same as losing both AI in a dual steam gauge system with each run off a seperate system.

I agree. 2 alternators, 2 buses, 2 batteries (IF you have 2 batteries) is even better than the old vac+electrical system, especially as the vac pump is guaranteed to fail at some early stage...

hen the PDF and MDF both shut down

I know you probably refer to Diamond build quality but I think you mean MFD and not MDF :) :)

Rod1

12th Mar 2010, 08:53

“which to me does not read like it is mandatory”

I was advised I was flying illegally, checked with the head coach of the LAA who confirmed it is mandatory. I did my 10 min flight and have a sticker to prove it.

Rod1

Sciolistes

12th Mar 2010, 10:05

IO540,
Or having had suitable training with somebody who understands the systems. There is a severe shortage of sims around for GA, because they are so expensive.
Prior to my current experience I would have found it difficult to appreciate how powerful non-normal sim training is. It really is engrained as experience that you really feel you can draw on with a 'been there done that' level of confidence when the time comes. Doing a CBT or a chat in the air isn't comparable. If manufactures want pilots to buy their complex stuff, then they need to put the required training capability in place. In the case of GA glass avionics, I doubt such training needs to be aircraft specific. An FNPTII type simulator would probably be a sufficient minimum.

Mark1234

12th Mar 2010, 10:25

Whereas one man and his complex glass SEP? He would need to pursue repetitive learning for several hours for every flying hour to keep get near the level of competency of your average well practised high hour airline crew, even after initial training on type and equipment. Standardisation probably isn't the issue, getting pilot to know and operate to the standards is.

And, if they do, the next day - a different a/c, with a different set of glass, different procedures, problems, etc.. It's all very well while it works, but..

Probably because IFR operations are a significant factor in crash fatalities. If you hit something in IMC, it is usually fatal, and that skews the figures http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Of course, nobody should ever hit anything while VFR..... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif but lots and lots of people still manage to do it somehow http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Actually, I'd take issue with that, hitting things tends to be fatal IMC or VMC.. and as you said in your second sentence...

The report presupposes nothing about flight rules. I get the impression you a) have your own plane, b) fly IFR a lot. Now, it's outside my experience, but I'd expect that for that sort of thing a good glass setup is highly advantageous, and you have the chance to learn your own.

I'm at about the opposite end. I hire, fly VFR, mostly in decent conditions - if it's cr*p I generally don't go. I've probably used 10 different a/c in the last 15 flights. Glass would represent something of a nightmare for me. I know how the old fashioned gauges work, and generally can understand how they fail etc. (and I mapread, it's adequate for my purposes, but..)

What is the bulk of GA in the UK doing?

I did my 10 min flight and have a sticker to prove it.
Not to pick on you, but a 10 minute flight? That pretty much talks to the point raised in the report...

IO540

12th Mar 2010, 10:31

Fuji Abound

12th Mar 2010, 11:16

I'm at about the opposite end. I hire, fly VFR, mostly in decent conditions - if it's cr*p I generally don't go. I've probably used 10 different a/c in the last 15 flights. Glass would represent something of a nightmare for me. I know how the old fashioned gauges work, and generally can understand how they fail etc. (and I mapread, it's adequate for my purposes, but..)

I dont think glass would necessarily represent a nightmare for you. Glass systems are surprisingly easy to use and if you bin all the IFR stuff (in terms of not needing or being interested in it) they are really not very different from a set of steam gauges and a big reliable GPS. Personally I reckon if you are comfortable with Windozs you will be comfortable with glass.

(Garmin completing their takeover of The Earth; already 90% complete thanks to aggressive marketing and inept competition)

I know what you mean, but I am not sure Garmin's domination is quite as complete as they would yet wish. Surprisingly (perhaps) Avidyne have not being doing bad. They still remain the standard fit on Piper and Cirrus and although you can opt for Garmin on the Cirrus the new Avdiyne would seem more popular and is arguably better. Who else are building many GA aircraft these days? Well Aviat now offer Garmin and are still churning out a reasonable number of aircraft and as far as I know Cessna use only Garmin. In the even lighter stuff there are a couple of other glass manufacturers around that are more price competitive and many would say equally as good as either Garmin or Avidyne and of course their panels do not require certification. So at least in terms of GA I reckon Avidyne and Garmin are not too far apart albeit with Garmin maybe a head in front. It will be interesting to see if Garmin win the race.

It is interesting the other markets they have sort to dominate. Raymarine are holding on and some would say have huge market penetration having been doing stuff that Garmin are only just getting around to doing. Garmin are an interesting company - I dont fully understand why they have not gone down the route of absorbing in Microsoft style much of the opposition - you imagine take over Raymarine and Avidyne would be pretty smart moves for them but maybe they have also learnt some lessons from Bill.

IO - yeah was that a Freudian slip with MFI. These things are all very well but when one of the two right hand knobs stops working doing anything useful with the G1000 becomes a complete pain! :)

IO540

12th Mar 2010, 11:21

A Cirrus rep told me that even though Avidyne is their "standard" fit, some 98% of customers specify Garmin. This was ~ 2 years ago.

There is an interesting claim here (http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=45172&start=20)

"No technologically advanced GA aircraft....has ever had a fuel-exhaustion accident."

I do get the US AOPA mag but haven't spotted that bit in there.

Interesting... presumably (if true) due to GA finally getting a) half decent fuel gauges and b) fuel totalisers at the upper end of the market.

Garmin took over Apollo, presumably to kill off the CNX80. It has been speculated that Aspen will be their next target.

Fuji Abound

12th Mar 2010, 12:12

A Cirrus rep told me that even though Avidyne is their "standard" fit, some 98% of customers specify Garmin. This was ~ 2 years ago.

Are you sure - I didnt think the G1000 was certified for the Cirrus that long ago. You certainly see very few on the market with the G1000 and most people who have upgraded seem to have gone for the Avidyne (although to be fair there was a reasonably financial incentive).

I am slightly surprised at the fuel exhaustion claim. While I dont doubt it may be true it has always surprised me that it is relatively easy to tell the system the aircraft is full or full to tabs when it is no such think. The next user comes along, fails to check and is mislead into thinking there is more fuel than there really is. On the Cirrus the steam guages on the centre console are pretty good anyway and provide a thoughtful backup, I am less convinced with the system on the 42 and 40s. Moreover it is all but impossible to visually check on these unless you want to fiddle around with Diamonds special apparatus and then again you might well have thought to rely on the extended tanks only to find there is no way of knowing how much there is in the tanks (there is no gauge for them at all) other than filling them before the flight, and when you come to transfer the fuel the pump has packed up (there is only one pump and it is not known for its reliability). On everything else that is advanced but without glass there may or may not be a fuel computer and there will always be steam gauges so I dont see any real difference.

IO540

12th Mar 2010, 12:34

If there is a feature where you "tell" the system how much fuel there is, this suggests the plane uses a fuel totaliser; this uses a turbine flowmeter and is normally very accurate - better than 2%.

Sure you can load a duff FOB (fuel on board) value into it... but you would have to be a bit sloppy.

I am very suprised at the fuel exhaustion claim. For starters, that Piaggio twin turboprop which "landed" on some floating ice a few months ago did run out of fuel.

Rod1

12th Mar 2010, 13:16

“Not to pick on you, but a 10 minute flight? That pretty much talks to the point raised in the report...”

I spent 150 hours upgrading the old EFIS to a new more powerful system over last winter. I have configured the system and to some extent it is unique to me. There is a simulator available (MGL Enigma) which will run on any PC and which will accept the configuration files from my set up. The instructor had never seen anything like it and after a 10min conversation on the ground was perfectly prepared to accept that I understood the system and the backup power system (designed and wired by me). I think he got something out of it and at least he did not charge me.

I think you will find that uncertified glass is selling at many times the rate of certified glass. My system cost £2k and has similar functionality to the top of the line Garmin with synthetic vision. There is however zero standardisation and different installations have different likely points of failure, even if it is the same kit. Huge fun to install and set up and it improves your awareness and ability to know, in detail, what is happening to all aspects of aircraft / flight. :ok:

Rod1

soay

12th Mar 2010, 15:58

Are you sure - I didnt think the G1000 was certified for the Cirrus that long ago. You certainly see very few on the market with the G1000 and most people who have upgraded seem to have gone for the Avidyne (although to be fair there was a reasonably financial incentive).
The Entegra Release 9 is only available from Cirrus as an aftermarket retrofit STC. (See here (http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/entegra/default.aspx)) I wonder how much of an advantage that gives to Garmin.

Fuji Abound

12th Mar 2010, 16:39

Cirrus will offer release 9 as a factory fitted option as Avidyne move totally to release 9 where it will run head to head with G1000.

I have used R9 and in my opinion it is better than the G1000.

However, I have no doubt an up date for the G1000 will not be too long in the wings.

Which would I buy at the moment - the R9.

What do you think soay?

englishal

12th Mar 2010, 18:03

I think Glass can be dangerous to certain categories of people. I suspect that Glass may encourage some people to fly in conditions they normally wouldn't fly in, but that is not the fault of the glass, but Human Factors and Limitations. BUT....If you know how to use the kit, then Glass is FAR better than steam driven gauges. There are lots of reasons why - It normally informs you of failures, better situational awareness, better tools available, lower MTBF of the individual instruments, etc....

I normally buy Garmin kit, it all interfaces together, and the software normally operates in a similar way between devices. If you can operate a G1000, then a 430 should be pretty easy.

soay

12th Mar 2010, 19:14

I think the ergonomics of the G1000 are lousy, speaking as an owner of one, so I agree with you about the R9 Fuji. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time, to Garmin, but modelling the G1000 user interface on the GPS400 series was a big mistake. It will be difficult for them to change it now, so Avidyne has an opportunity to regain market share.

Garmin have addressed some of the shortcomings with keypads, but I wonder if anything's planned for that gap between the G1000 and the G3000?

IO540

12th Mar 2010, 20:10

Garmin's achilles heel has been autopilot interfacing. They now have their own autopilot but are not selling it for retrofit installations. If/when they sell it for retrofits, they will probably wipe STEC off the market, on interoperability alone.

However, I wonder if Garmin will get caught with some hidden reliability issue, like Honeywell got severely caught on the KFC225, whose performance is excellent but it proved to be so unreliable that every OEM (it was certified but too expensive for retrofits) ditched it as soon as they could.

Fuji Abound

12th Mar 2010, 21:38

SOAY

I agree, that is my main reason for preferring Avidyne - I think the user interface on the Avidyne is a great deal better. The use of the right twiddle button to me has always been less than intuitive, but the Garmin is better at setting the system up to capture an ILS than Avidyne which at times seems a bit hit and miss. In a strange sort of way interfacing the earlier Avidynes with a pair of G430s seemed a neat solution because although lacking on intergration there is some comfort in having two independent and tried and tested 430s which you can "get at" driving all that glass. :)