Glass Panels Vs Steam Gauges..??
As glass (non certified) becomes more common in light aircraft and we do more inst 8's and 9's I have become less and less enamoured with glass despite my aircraft being full of it. I have found that many times the glass stuff needs correcting, yet if there is steam backup, more often than not the steam instruments just need recertifying. This is not hard and fast ofcourse, but it is a "trend" that I think I am seeing. It makes me wonder about the lighties that have no steam gauges, only non certified glass. These would ofcourse be in experimental, but there is getting more and more of them. I have now decided to fit a steam ASI and Altimeter to my aircraft, because of what I have been seeing.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me it's what I'm used to , I've been flying an AC with a small Dynon and a full set of steam, I hardly even look at the little screen, I'm just used to seeing the "old" gauges. But , in my RV I will be using ,probably, Skyviews because for the about the cost of the steam gauges and the gyros I can have a pretty screen in front of me, having said that I'll still have at least a little ASI and ALT tucked away somewhere ,just in case. Having said "THAT" really you should be able to operate an aircraft safely VFR without any instruments at all, wouldn't leave the ground with US gauges but could certainly get one back on the ground!
A G1000 in ya Beaver would not be a good look though
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Would love to know what percentage of those accidents were pilots that had converted from 'steam', as opposed to pilots who learnt on glass. Also are the numbers skewed because a lot of early glass aircraft had comparably high performance for their class? (ie: Cirrus, etc)
I agree with Arnold, my own panel is yet to be built but there is also a powerful cost incentive to go glass.
Cost and reliability aside, The ability of a glass panel to distract and a lack of standardisation is a potential problem for light aircraft I think.
Jumping from one light aircraft to another used to be a simple process, now there may be a whole integrated flight deck to learn as well, all for something that might do 120 kts that you wanted for a quick trip around the paddock.
Cost and reliability aside, The ability of a glass panel to distract and a lack of standardisation is a potential problem for light aircraft I think.
Jumping from one light aircraft to another used to be a simple process, now there may be a whole integrated flight deck to learn as well, all for something that might do 120 kts that you wanted for a quick trip around the paddock.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
seriously folks.........................it is not that hard 
Even old folk like Forkie can do it with little help.......despite his pprune antics.
Get over it
Even old folk like Forkie can do it with little help.......despite his pprune antics.
Get over it
G1000 is like a vacuum cleaner.It sucks your eyes in and I wouldn't like the thought of some of these guys trained at the sausage factories having to go out and fly 45 year old rustbuckets only on steam.must be an interesting first few days on the job for them
However.
At night, or in muck, I would take the g1000 anytime. Just easier once you get the hang of it to get a snapshot in a hurry.
However.
At night, or in muck, I would take the g1000 anytime. Just easier once you get the hang of it to get a snapshot in a hurry.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It boils down to whatever your comfortable with.
There is no reason why a pilot flying G1000 every day over a pilot with analogue gauges and a 430 is safer.
Neither setup will provide protection against a stall, spin, landing with the gear up or from hitting mountains.
The only protection against turning the aircraft into a pile of twisted metal is the pilot.
If the pilot doesn't react appropriately, it doesn't matter how many warnings go off.
There is no reason why a pilot flying G1000 every day over a pilot with analogue gauges and a 430 is safer.
Neither setup will provide protection against a stall, spin, landing with the gear up or from hitting mountains.
The only protection against turning the aircraft into a pile of twisted metal is the pilot.
If the pilot doesn't react appropriately, it doesn't matter how many warnings go off.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no reason why a pilot flying G1000 every day over a pilot with analogue gauges and a 430 is safer.
Neither setup will provide protection against a stall, spin, landing with the gear up or from hitting mountains.
The only protection against turning the aircraft into a pile of twisted metal is the pilot.
If the pilot doesn't react appropriately, it doesn't matter how many warnings go off.
Neither setup will provide protection against a stall, spin, landing with the gear up or from hitting mountains.
The only protection against turning the aircraft into a pile of twisted metal is the pilot.
If the pilot doesn't react appropriately, it doesn't matter how many warnings go off.
Sure, if you stuff up, bad things happen. So it is correct up to a point.
But by extension, that's like saying it doesn't matter if you have a co-pilot writing your speed on a sheet of paper and handing it to you. Of course it matters how you get the information regarding factors that affect the safety of the flight.
Millions (probably tens of millions) of dollars of R&D money have gone into glass cockpits. There are good reasons why Mr Boeing or Mr Airbus don't use analogue gauges anymore. Reliability is probably one, but clarity is another.
They started using just numbers for things like airspeed. They proved too difficult for pilots to read quickly, hence the moves to tapes which, like round gauges, are easier to read at a glance. I am sure the rest of the display has been similarly studied.
You are always going to be better at reading what you are more familiar with, but in the end the newer style, for a pilot with equal time with both types, are probably better. Otherwise I expect we'd still be seeing aircraft with good old round gauges.
And I've only flown with the round ones, so not especially a convert. Just using common sense.
Rusty,
I'd say it's more a weight and cost saving thing than anything,
An airliner full of round gauges for everything would be quite heavy (the gauges etc)
6 LCD panels would weigh bugger all and be cheaper to replace than having stores full of gauges as spares.
I'd also say you are not qualified to comment if you have never flown one.
P.S a G1000 type display is probably a better setup than the PFD/ND display in an airliner.
I'd say it's more a weight and cost saving thing than anything,
An airliner full of round gauges for everything would be quite heavy (the gauges etc)
6 LCD panels would weigh bugger all and be cheaper to replace than having stores full of gauges as spares.
I'd also say you are not qualified to comment if you have never flown one.
P.S a G1000 type display is probably a better setup than the PFD/ND display in an airliner.
Last edited by The Green Goblin; 6th Mar 2012 at 06:55.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rusty, I think you are right. Glass is quickly becoming the norm.
Do you remember when not having a mobile phone or a computer was considered "cool" and intellectual? Now such people are considered quaintly anachronistic, and nearly everyone has both. In the not too distant future, only electronic instruments will be available.
In terms of aircraft instrumentation, the message is clear. Get used to glass cockpits.
NB: there is no competition between glass and steam driven instruments...all we are doing here is discussing pilot preference.
Over the past several decades, glass and digital presentations have become better and very much easier to interpret. What I see as the danger is that individuals are using the simplicity of operation for new technology as an excuse for not understanding important aspects of flight. Or even worse, they employ electronics and automatics to the extent where their hand flying skills have become unrecognisable. This seems to me to be the real topic here. At the beginning and the end of the conversation, whether they are steam or electronically driven, the instruments are still just instruments, and they are aids to flying, not the means. We must guard against the new technology narrowing our boundaries and decreasing our skill levels, because the aim of the new technology is to release brain capacity to enable a greater understanding. With that said, pilots must still have enough faith in their instruments to stake their lives on them, and be able to use them without becoming overwhelmed by the volume of information.
There is a big follow-on to that last statement. Pilots must also have enough faith in their own skills to be able to stake their lives on being able to continue to fly should the new electronic instruments revert to being sexy looking blank screens. IE: if you are worried about how you would fly without the GNS1000, or with the auto-pilot disengaged because that is how you fly and keep oriented, then maybe you need to look out a bit more and practice some hand flying.
Do you remember when not having a mobile phone or a computer was considered "cool" and intellectual? Now such people are considered quaintly anachronistic, and nearly everyone has both. In the not too distant future, only electronic instruments will be available.
In terms of aircraft instrumentation, the message is clear. Get used to glass cockpits.
NB: there is no competition between glass and steam driven instruments...all we are doing here is discussing pilot preference.
Over the past several decades, glass and digital presentations have become better and very much easier to interpret. What I see as the danger is that individuals are using the simplicity of operation for new technology as an excuse for not understanding important aspects of flight. Or even worse, they employ electronics and automatics to the extent where their hand flying skills have become unrecognisable. This seems to me to be the real topic here. At the beginning and the end of the conversation, whether they are steam or electronically driven, the instruments are still just instruments, and they are aids to flying, not the means. We must guard against the new technology narrowing our boundaries and decreasing our skill levels, because the aim of the new technology is to release brain capacity to enable a greater understanding. With that said, pilots must still have enough faith in their instruments to stake their lives on them, and be able to use them without becoming overwhelmed by the volume of information.
There is a big follow-on to that last statement. Pilots must also have enough faith in their own skills to be able to stake their lives on being able to continue to fly should the new electronic instruments revert to being sexy looking blank screens. IE: if you are worried about how you would fly without the GNS1000, or with the auto-pilot disengaged because that is how you fly and keep oriented, then maybe you need to look out a bit more and practice some hand flying.
Thread Starter
RE...
"NB: there is no competition between glass and steam driven instruments...all we are doing here is discussing pilot preference."
The thread started by talking about a 'No Safety Advantage', not necessarily a 'pilot preference'....
although I can see the link. i.e. If i were to 'prefer' one system over the other, then I might handle the aircraft better / safer, using that system....
However....I would assert that an aircraft being flown an approach speed of say, 70kts, will still perform exactly like an aeroplane being flown at 70 kts, regardless of how that IAS is displayed to the pilot....
It seems that the interpretation of the instrument may be the difference, or knowing just where to look to read the (smaller) figure / 'tape', 'in a hurry', rather than maybe the 'placement' of the fairly large and obvious needle on the dial.....
"NB: there is no competition between glass and steam driven instruments...all we are doing here is discussing pilot preference."
The thread started by talking about a 'No Safety Advantage', not necessarily a 'pilot preference'....
although I can see the link. i.e. If i were to 'prefer' one system over the other, then I might handle the aircraft better / safer, using that system....
However....I would assert that an aircraft being flown an approach speed of say, 70kts, will still perform exactly like an aeroplane being flown at 70 kts, regardless of how that IAS is displayed to the pilot....
It seems that the interpretation of the instrument may be the difference, or knowing just where to look to read the (smaller) figure / 'tape', 'in a hurry', rather than maybe the 'placement' of the fairly large and obvious needle on the dial.....
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 6th Mar 2012 at 01:34.
In conducting hundreds of assessments on pilots, and often doing the training between times, I have seen bad disorientation maybe a half dozen times. Each time was with a glass PFD/MFD display. Some of the pilots would admit to having difficulty with the speed/altitude tapes, the flight director would confuse others but I think that could happen on an electromechanical display as well.
This was happening to full time, capable pilots. I like glass PFD's and ND's personally a few operators I've observed do better with clock type airspeed and alt displays.
Like Goblin says, when you compare weight and cost/reliability the primary drivers to digital displays become apparent.
Interestingly enough, I just went to the local aero shop today and saw a DVD on the shelf on how to use the G1000, the thought that I couldn't just get in a little old Cessna and fly it until I had trolled through that is a little off putting.
This was happening to full time, capable pilots. I like glass PFD's and ND's personally a few operators I've observed do better with clock type airspeed and alt displays.
Like Goblin says, when you compare weight and cost/reliability the primary drivers to digital displays become apparent.
Interestingly enough, I just went to the local aero shop today and saw a DVD on the shelf on how to use the G1000, the thought that I couldn't just get in a little old Cessna and fly it until I had trolled through that is a little off putting.
However....I would assert that an aircraft being flown an approach speed of say, 70kts, will still perform exactly like an aeroplane being flown at 70 kts, regardless of how that IAS is displayed to the pilot....
Thread Starter
I agree 'Arnold',
My favourite aircraft has 'steam'...cause its an 'oldie'....but 'I Have A Dream'....which unfortunately involves 6 numbers...
And in my 'dream 210', I would have maybe the Aspen panels, 2 of, and retain the steam ASI, Alt, T&B, and even the FAI if I wasn't running out of room...it might also have a GPS connected so that I would never never ever get 'lost'...
NOT that I ever have been.... I just normally go 'reasonably straight' to where I wanna go....
sorta.....
Cheers
My favourite aircraft has 'steam'...cause its an 'oldie'....but 'I Have A Dream'....which unfortunately involves 6 numbers...
And in my 'dream 210', I would have maybe the Aspen panels, 2 of, and retain the steam ASI, Alt, T&B, and even the FAI if I wasn't running out of room...it might also have a GPS connected so that I would never never ever get 'lost'...
NOT that I ever have been.... I just normally go 'reasonably straight' to where I wanna go....
sorta.....
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glass Cockpits Provide No Safety Benefit, Study Says
Notwithstanding things I wrote in an earlier post, from Flying Magazine see below. Though I'd always caution people to read the actual report rather than just a journalists summary of it.
Glass Cockpits Provide No Safety Benefit, Study Says
AOPA’s Air Safety Institute recently released The Accident Record of Technologically Advanced Airplanes — a report that concludes that the introduction of TAAs (technologically advance aircraft; the definition is extremely broad) has not decreased accident rates, as some expected to happen. In fact, newer glass cockpit airplanes had “demonstrably higher rates of accidents during takeoffs, landings and go-arounds,” according to the study.
Glass-panel airplanes have become ubiquitous over the past 10 years; nearly every new airplane type today is delivered with flat-panel avionics. The increasing number of TAAs enabled ASI’s study, which included 20,000 certified piston-engine airplanes delivered between 1996 and 2010 by seven leading airplane manufacturers: Cessna, Cirrus, Piper, Hawker Beechcraft, Diamond, Lancair/Columbia and Mooney. The airplanes studied included approximately equal numbers of TAAs and analog panels.
The study found that the accident rate varied between different categories of airplanes, but found “differences between analog and glass panels were minimal.” The study’s authors reached no conclusion as to why landing or takeoff accidents would be greater with TAAs.
Glass Cockpits Provide No Safety Benefit, Study Says
AOPA’s Air Safety Institute recently released The Accident Record of Technologically Advanced Airplanes — a report that concludes that the introduction of TAAs (technologically advance aircraft; the definition is extremely broad) has not decreased accident rates, as some expected to happen. In fact, newer glass cockpit airplanes had “demonstrably higher rates of accidents during takeoffs, landings and go-arounds,” according to the study.
Glass-panel airplanes have become ubiquitous over the past 10 years; nearly every new airplane type today is delivered with flat-panel avionics. The increasing number of TAAs enabled ASI’s study, which included 20,000 certified piston-engine airplanes delivered between 1996 and 2010 by seven leading airplane manufacturers: Cessna, Cirrus, Piper, Hawker Beechcraft, Diamond, Lancair/Columbia and Mooney. The airplanes studied included approximately equal numbers of TAAs and analog panels.
The study found that the accident rate varied between different categories of airplanes, but found “differences between analog and glass panels were minimal.” The study’s authors reached no conclusion as to why landing or takeoff accidents would be greater with TAAs.
.
As the prangs were apparently VFR at the time it may be the 'tape' indicators that are the problem. Many posts to this thread re the tapes indicate as much.
IMO nothing beats one of them big ol round dial indicators that yer can even read with yer periffrial vision - No need to look at it directly as yer do with them silly tapes... No need to fixate on the tape to aquire info as the world outside turns upside down.....
.
...The study’s authors reached no conclusion as to why landing or takeoff accidents would be greater with TAAs
IMO nothing beats one of them big ol round dial indicators that yer can even read with yer periffrial vision - No need to look at it directly as yer do with them silly tapes... No need to fixate on the tape to aquire info as the world outside turns upside down.....
.
I did my first 3000 hrs on steam guages and was very at home with them, in all sorts of aircraft types. Then I went to a new company whos aircraft were all glass (G1000).
I must say it took about 100 hrs at least to get used to the glass. The first flight on a G1000 was like trying to take a drink from a fire hose. So much information, i didnt know where to look, couldnt read the tapes fast enough. There were no needle points to refer to.
Over time I adapted to the new format. The key for ALT is to use the ALT BUG. I dont red the numbers any more, I just look for the relative position of the BUG and adjust back pressure as required. You just have to think differently, like ging from an auto to a manual car.
I now fly both types daily. I dont even think about it, just get in and go. But in the old aircraft I miss the accuracy of the AI in glass, IFR i dont get the leans as much on the G1000. The old AH's are quite hard to set a precise attitude, wher as on the Garmin if I want 2.5 deg nose up I can nail it.
Steam guages are going the way of the dodo, too labour intensive to maintain. One weekend I pulled apart a few old instruments at at home and couldnt believe the amount of tiny springs, gears, levers etc there was. All take time to put back together which costs $.
Glass wont stop you pranging if you cant fly a damn attitude in the first place by looking out the window VFR. IFR...oh lordy lordy, I love the G1000.
I must say it took about 100 hrs at least to get used to the glass. The first flight on a G1000 was like trying to take a drink from a fire hose. So much information, i didnt know where to look, couldnt read the tapes fast enough. There were no needle points to refer to.
Over time I adapted to the new format. The key for ALT is to use the ALT BUG. I dont red the numbers any more, I just look for the relative position of the BUG and adjust back pressure as required. You just have to think differently, like ging from an auto to a manual car.
I now fly both types daily. I dont even think about it, just get in and go. But in the old aircraft I miss the accuracy of the AI in glass, IFR i dont get the leans as much on the G1000. The old AH's are quite hard to set a precise attitude, wher as on the Garmin if I want 2.5 deg nose up I can nail it.
Steam guages are going the way of the dodo, too labour intensive to maintain. One weekend I pulled apart a few old instruments at at home and couldnt believe the amount of tiny springs, gears, levers etc there was. All take time to put back together which costs $.
Glass wont stop you pranging if you cant fly a damn attitude in the first place by looking out the window VFR. IFR...oh lordy lordy, I love the G1000.
.
Heh, pull apart yer garmin 1000 and you just wont believe the shear number of very little very 'expensive' lectro bits and pieces needed to make it work - and they all gotta work. At least the traditional six pack dont all fail at once and give yer a very large black hole to look at..
.
...One weekend I pulled apart a few old instruments at at home and couldnt believe the amount of tiny springs, gears, levers etc there was. All take time to put back together whichcosts $...
.