No Safety Advantage on Glass Cockpit

[Piloto]

According to this http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/TAA-Report-022412.pdf AOPA study they found that there was no safety advantage on glass cockpit equipped aircraft. In fact they found steam gauges to be slightly safer. I personally found moving maps displays to add safety to the flight. However on attitude glass displays like PFDs I see no added safety over traditional gauges. As an example on most PFDs the VSI indication is not as obvious as on the old VSI gauge and it can be confused with GS indication. VSI is most important on take off, specially on twins during engine failure. Airspeed and altitude PFDs depiction is not as readable as the old gauges. If you look at any picture of a glass PFDs whole panel you can not tell the airspeed, altitude or vertical speed on the PFDs (too small to read) but you can easily read the airspeed, altimeter and VSI gauges. And by the way these are instruments that require no power or software to work.

 

 

The picture shows how easy is to read the old gauges vs the glass PFDs

José

 

 

[1964-M20E]

Jose

 

I agree with you.  The glass cockpits are slick and neat and have the wow factor but I can take any private pilot and put the in any aircraft with steam gauges and he can interpret them and fly the aircraft landing may be another issue when it comes to much larger aircraft but he could fly it.  Take the same pilot who has not worked with a G1000 system and he would be challenged to utilize the system.  I’m not saying he could not fly the aircraft but he would be challenged.  Also add in you have dedicated training courses to use the G1000 system. Before I bought my Mooney I was fascinated with the Cirrus Sr20 but I was looking at the older models that had the steam gauges.

 I feel small aircraft manufactures should stick to the steam gauges for cost and simplicity and they are easier to interpret. IMHO

 

 

 

[Piloto]

Quote: 1964-M20E

Jose

[Piloto]

Quote: 1964-M20E

Jose

I agree with you. The glass cockpits are slick and neat and have the wow factor but I can take any private pilot and put the in any aircraft with steam gauges and he can interpret them and fly the aircraft landing may be another issue when it comes to much larger aircraft but he could fly it. Take the same pilot who has not worked with a G1000 system and he would be challenged to utilize the system. I’m not saying he could not fly the aircraft but he would be challenged. Also add in you have dedicated training courses to use the G1000 system. Before I bought my Mooney I was fascinated with the Cirrus Sr20 but I was looking at the older models that had the steam gauges.

I feel small aircraft manufactures should stick to the steam gauges for cost and simplicity and they are easier to interpret. IMHO

You don't need to be a newby to flying just a 60+ pilot to notice the difference.

José

[John Pleisse]

I purchased the Aspen 2000. It is very clever, but there are draw backs:

1) My tranasition has been slow to fair. No solo IMC yet. Years of flying with analogue guages, having set, analogue "clock" positions of guages in my head has made it tough. This is how the scan speeds up and proficiency is gained, obviously. A rapid glance at the ASI in the 6 o'clock position is 105KIAS....VSI at 8 o'clock, -500fpm etc.

2) To transition, as you would expect, you have to cover up the old guages to form new habits. I found this hard. The PFD requires all attention to get the most out of it. Remaining analogue instruments create scatter.

3) Jose is right about the VSI. On the Aspen, you have to be in a changing attitude for the VSI to light up (absense of the tape is your cross check for level). Then, when the tape is present, I have to squint to see it.

4) There is value to the SVT, especially VFR at night. However, there was a recent Arizona night CFIT accident where a training flight (specifically to train on the Garmin 1000) created enough distraction to hit a mountain.

5) There is a whole host of new operational knowlege, new system checks, preflight checks and emergency procedures that are now added to your responsibilty if you are going to file and go.

6) Vision must be taken seriously. The big numbers and position needles on analogue instrumentation are easy to see. Aspen or Garmin? Make sure you don't forget contacts or eye glasses. I actually have a seperate prescription for the plane and those glasses never go anywhere else.

If I could go back in time, I would have only removed the HSI and AI and installed the PFD only or upgraded my dying anaolugue guages for rebuilt King analogue equipment. Is glass safer? If you are proficient, yes, I think it's an enhancement. Am I surprised by the AOPA findings? Absolutely not. SVT at night helps.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: 1964-M20E

Jose

 

I agree with you.  The glass cockpits are slick and neat and have the wow factor but I can take any private pilot and put the in any aircraft with steam gauges and he can interpret them and fly the aircraft landing may be another issue when it comes to much larger aircraft but he could fly it.  Take the same pilot who has not worked with a G1000 system and he would be challenged to utilize the system.  I’m not saying he could not fly the aircraft but he would be challenged.  Also add in you have dedicated training courses to use the G1000 system. Before I bought my Mooney I was fascinated with the Cirrus Sr20 but I was looking at the older models that had the steam gauges.

 I feel small aircraft manufactures should stick to the steam gauges for cost and simplicity and they are easier to interpret. IMHO

 

[PTK]

Quote: Piloto

...I personally found moving maps displays to add safety to the flight. However on attitude glass displays like PFDs I see no added safety over traditional gauges...And by the way these are instruments that require no power or software to work.

[rob]

The glass panels remove the dependence on the gyro pump, and add a backup battery and backup GPS to the fold. I can't see how those two things don't add safety. I have an Aspen, and the decision to install was largely due to those factors. Additionally, under current regulations, the amount of redundancy introduced when you do a single panel Aspen install absolutely has to increase safety - you've got duplicate systems where before you did not. If I understand the regs correctly, this is the case with almost any glass panel. 

As far as the Human Systems Interaction, as someone touched upon earlier, it's going to depend on the individual and how they learned. I learned on steam and switched to glass. Like others, I had to cover the redundant steam gauges to develop dependences on the glass. My scan is more compact now, and I have additional cross checks due to the redundant ASI, Altimiter, etc. 

[Cruiser]

"Where direct comparisons can be made,

they show little evidence of any difference

in the safety records of glass and analog

aircraft of the same model. Differences

between airframe designs and patterns of

use appear to be much more significant."

So, it still comes down to training a pilot to be a pilot. We are still a long way away from the general public jumping into an airplane and flying away.

[flyboy0681]

Quote: aviatoreb

I would like to add a different spin to your comment - a pilot who learned on G1000 and always flew G1000 to include perhaps a good deal of IFR may typically be all but  incompetent in anything but a G1000 airplane.

[N33GG]

This is a hot topic.  According to what I have been told at recent CFI refresher clinics, everybody is having a real hard time explaining why the glass cockpit safety numbers are not great.  There is a bunch of studying and head scratching going on right now.  My personal guess is that many pilots are putting too much faith in all of that technology, data and presentation, and believe it will be able to make up for less than adequate pilot skills.  Just my guess...not substantiated and might be hard to tie to any numbers.  Should be interesting to see how everything shapes up.

[Skywarrior]

What about HUDs? Are they available?

[peter]

The ASF Study includes some interesting conclusions pertinent to retrofit of glass technology. In the study they could only get statistically meaningful data from Cessna and Cirrus aircraft fleets.  Affecting the conclusions is that the Cirrus fleet has a higher fatal accident rate versus Cessna, and in Cirrus aircraft, glass does not seem to make a difference. Most Cirrus accidents are stall/spin in day VFR.

However, in the Cessna aircraft a statistically significant positive impact was observed from the transition to glass:

In the larger Cessnas a dramatic reduction in accident lethality accompanied the conversion to glass. Thirteen of the 20 fatal accidents in conventionally equipped examples were due to controlled flight into terrain, VFR into IMC, or deficient instrument flying, as were all four of those in the glass-cockpit versions. Relative to length of service, this represents almost a 40% reduction in fatal accidents arising from spatial disorientation or loss of situational awareness

The study also suggests that transition to glass may contribute to increased utility at an equivalent level of safety:

By FAA estimates, about 9% of the time flown by aircraft comparable to those analyzed here is in actual instrument conditions, and another 8% is in VMC at night. We lack the data to determine whether glass-cockpit aircraft undertake those flights more frequently; if so, the result would appear to be increased utility at an equivalent level of safety.

Finally, some things could not be measured:

However, no data exist on the number of VFR pilots who have escaped IMC encounters in these airplanes, making it impossible to evaluate a potentially important safety benefit of glass.

[orangemtl]

I think the answer is: it depends.

In economics, medicine, and just about anything else, you need to determine the underlying factors behind any statistical difference, or lack thereof.  Breast cancer was more common in Marin County, California:  why? Because affluent older women could afford, and chose hormone replacement therapy: which was the actual cause, not income nor zip code. And, so on.

Differences will take some time to identify, if they exist.  Cirruses, from what I hear, tend to fall out of the sky more often than other brands. Probably partly due to who buys them. That alone would weigh down any potential glass advantage. In contrast, they may appear safer because the average person that can buy a new or newer glass-equipped plane may be older and more experienced.  

I disagree with the 'why fix what ain't broken?' school of thought.  Recognizing the risk:benefit and liability factor, automobiles made enormous strides in the past fifty years.  While we fly aircraft with engines designed before many of us were born.  Glass integrates a number of functions and indicators into 1, or 2 pictures. They can be better; they can be worse. It was quite a learning curve for me with the G1000. From what little I can see (never used one), the Aspen is a very nice, compact device that offers a step forward in readibility and net workload.

Steam gauges are simpler, and don't require electricity.  Neither do covered wagons. Let me know the next time one of you drives the latter to work---unless you're Amish.

 

[Hank]

I just don't like "tapes" for altitude and airspeed. The pointer is always in the same place, regardless of value, and I have to look longer to read the number. Like with clocks--I can glance at an analog clock and know the time without reading numbers; with a digital, I have to look longer and read the digits. sometimes after glancing at the clock, while the time has sunk in [ten minutes til the meeting], I can't tell someone the actual time without stopping to think. Having to 'pause for thought' after each glance is not something I want to do while bouncing through the clouds. I would, however, like an Aspen PFD one day, keeping the AI and Alt round dials.

[PTK]

Quote: rob

The glass panels remove the dependence on the gyro pump, and add a backup battery and backup GPS to the fold. I can't see how those two things don't add safety. I have an Aspen, and the decision to install was largely due to those factors. Additionally, under current regulations, the amount of redundancy introduced when you do a single panel Aspen install absolutely has to increase safety - you've got duplicate systems where before you did not. If I understand the regs correctly, this is the case with almost any glass panel. 

As far as the Human Systems Interaction, as someone touched upon earlier, it's going to depend on the individual and how they learned. I learned on steam and switched to glass. Like others, I had to cover the redundant steam gauges to develop dependences on the glass. My scan is more compact now, and I have additional cross checks due to the redundant ASI, Altimiter, etc. 

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Hank

I just don't like "tapes" for altitude and airspeed. The pointer is always in the same place, regardless of value, and I have to look longer to read the number. Like with clocks--I can glance at an analog clock and know the time without reading numbers; with a digital, I have to look longer and read the digits. sometimes after glancing at the clock, while the time has sunk in [ten minutes til the meeting], I can't tell someone the actual time without stopping to think. Having to 'pause for thought' after each glance is not something I want to do while bouncing through the clouds. I would, however, like an Aspen PFD one day, keeping the AI and Alt round dials.

[DaV8or]

Quote: orangemtl

Let me know the next time one of you drives the latter to work---unless you're Amish.

[orangemtl]

Quote: DaV8or

In which case, they're not reading this forum.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: allsmiles

[DaV8or]

The glass display has the advantage of an artificial horizon the size of laptop and the potential for SVT. These two features should make the PFD much safer than the old steam gauges. In addition, the all electric, solid state construction may prove to be more reliable than vacuum. I think the jury is still out on the last one. 

Having said that, perhaps the "tapes" aren't the best way to display flight information. In addition, I think engineers try to pack too much info into the PFD, the theory being that if you don't have to move your head, you're less likely to lose concentration or get vertigo, but I think there just might be too much info and that's distracting. I think the Aspens are this way.

Glass cockpit displays are new borns and there will be an evolution coming. Just because they have been made a certain way now, doesn't mean they have to stay that way. That's what's nice about glass displays, it's a blank slate and you can do whatever, even simulate steam gauges. I don't expect the real steam gauges to make a come back. Stay tuned, better cockpits are on the way.

[Jerry 5TJ]

I fly one of each -- one plane with random-layout analog gauges and the another with G500. 

Although I learned to fly IFR 20+ years ago by scanning the 'standard six,' it is easier for me to fly precisely in IMC with the G500 displays than using the steam gauges.  That's especially true in complex airspace where the workload is high.    That ease probably translates to better safety for me, all other things remaining equal. 

 

[Hank]

Sure, fast changes will be obvious. But if I'm bouncing along in the clouds with up & down drafts, rolling across the mountains of southern WV, I want to know what my altitude is right now. If the big hand is pointing up IFR or down VFR, chances are I haven't moved 1000' without noticing; if it's not up/down, I need to correct it. With a tape, I have to look at the number long enough to recognize it, then decide if it's right or wrong, and if it's wrong, am I high or low, THEN make a correction.

IFR steam gage, right of vertical I correct down; left of vertical, I correct up. Opposite corrections apply for VFR, though, since the needle should point down.

And coming in on an approach, when looking for a step down or minimum altitude, it's nice to not have to think about what the actual number is, just is it still larger than my target? 1400' is the big four down on the right, the needle is moving through 7, so I still need to go down some more. Harder to do with a tape, I have to read 17, and somewhere between 20 and 30. It's just not on my comfortable list. Some systems I would have to read 1, and somewhere between 720 and 740, still not comfortable.

Hold the pointer still and move the numbers will never be as quick to read as hold the numbers still and move the pointer.

Dealing with complex airspace is a whole 'nother matter, and I think this is an advantage that Aspen has. There's no need to put airspeed, altitude, OAT, Groundspeed and Horizon overlaid on top of a moving map with weather. Separation can be a good thing--put the information on one screen, the map with airspace issues on a separate screen. Then I can alternate between the two, and keep the airplane in good control while [hopefully] not blowing airspace. But I know which of the two is the more important one! After all, nobody sends airspace bust notifications to smoking holes.

[PTK]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Piloto

According to this http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/TAA-Report-022412.pdf AOPA study they found that there was no safety advantage on glass cockpit equipped aircraft. In fact they found steam gauges to be slightly safer. I personally found moving maps displays to add safety to the flight. However on attitude glass displays like PFDs I see no added safety over traditional gauges. As an example on most PFDs the VSI indication is not as obvious as on the old VSI gauge and it can be confused with GS indication. VSI is most important on take off, specially on twins during engine failure. Airspeed and altitude PFDs depiction is not as readable as the old gauges. If you look at any picture of a glass PFDs whole panel you can not tell the airspeed, altitude or vertical speed on the PFDs (too small to read) but you can easily read the airspeed, altimeter and VSI gauges. And by the way these are instruments that require no power or software to work.